gregmag

Cardinals fans are mightily annoyed about all manner of dumb moves they believe their team has made this year. They're a great organization, but 2017 provides about the worst imaginable evidence for condemning the Brewers by comparison. Nobody thought we were a contender coming into the season. As soon as we started looking legit -- largely due to MLB talent the FO had picked up over the last couple of seasons -- the FO moved to plug holes. An in-season pivot from rebuild to contention is really hard to pull off, and the Brewers have managed it. Maybe over the final two weeks the Cardinals will soar and the Brewers will crash. Right now, though, I see one team that swept the Cubs in Wrigley at crunch time and got back into the pennant race, while the other team got swept and essentially killed its chances. I don't think there's much of an argument, right now, about which organization has made the more winning moves over the past year.

I would think they wouldn't do Bernie. Limited tickets is so they don't have to fully staff the park; they'll probably keep things minimal. Anyway, the clubhouse is one thing, but if I was the Marlins I wouldn't put up with Brewers celebration stuff. I thought I heard, when the Brewers TV guys were talking about the Marlins' playing the Yankees at Citi Field, that the league can only relocate games to a neutral park. Obviously that turns out not to be right. Does anybody know what rules or protocols govern in a situation like this? I love the idea of giving the proceeds to hurricane relief. (The students at my school are doing a chili cook-off next week as a hurricane relief fundraiser, and I'm one of the faculty judges. I am sad that it took horrible hurricanes to realize my lifelong dream of judging a chili cook-off.)

I think this is really good reasoning, though I don't agree with all of the bottom lines. I've been pushing for Braun at 1b for years, mainly as you say because of the OF talent we have coming up. If we're stuck with Braun, make his defensive life as low-impact as possible. Perez has warts, but his diversity makes him very useful, so I don't see pushing to trade him. However, I think there's a deeper question that we have to answer before we decide on a strategy. Who are these guys, really? We're talking about the second half as if the first half didn't happen. Everything happened. The thesis that pitchers figured out Thames after April is probably right, but I'm not sure it's right; I keep hearing about nagging injuries with him. Maybe in other cases some real, permanent change happened between the halves; maybe for example Braun is just toast. Really, though, you have to look at the aggregate information. What guys did in the first half is relevant. What they've done earlier in their careers is relevant. Based on all the information we have, I'm pretty comfortable rolling with players already on the roster. c Pina and pick a second guy from among what we have, 1b Braun or Aguilar, 2b ????, could be Villar and/or Walker and/or Dubon, but that's the shakiest position, 3b Shaw, ss Arcia, of rotation of Santana, Brinson, Phillips, Broxton in a reduced role, with Perez continuing as the super-utility guy. In the offseason I'd be looking for a Shaw-like undervalued everyday 2b (please don't mention the G word, I said "everyday") and an OF upgrade over Broxton.

This is OT, but no defense of watching PAs by people who aren't trained to hit should go unanswered. The DH is the most obviously good idea to hit MLB since they started using clean baseballs. No pitcher in MLB should ever hit again unless a stray lightning bolt fries the entire dugout.

This team keep their heads on straight, and they don't fold. That was just a great series. Whatever else happens the rest of the season, that sweep is something to build on. Also, the pitching is just ridiculous. Holding the Cubs to three runs in three games, and two of those runs are in garbage time in a blowout? That's insane. Random thought: I wonder if any team has ever split a road trip in a way that so wildly defied the odds.

You're telling people to "check the facts" when multiple posts here have cited much more relevant facts than five lousy SB attempts at AAA this year, facts that you continue to ignore because they contradict your bias? I think I'll put my trust in the full range of facts, plus the front office people who actually know something and care about winning baseball games, not winning an argument. DeJesus is 30. Orf is 27. Wren is 26. They are all, in fact, younger than Berry, who is 32. However, they aren't young enough to be prospects or anything. IMHO Orf is the only intriguing one of the three, because he keeps hitting and he plays all over. I'd like to see him considered for a utility gig next year. But as others have pointed out, he wouldn't be playing now if he was in Milwaukee. Berry's up because the team wanted a specialist; they don't need a backup infielder. I particularly don't get the fascination with Wren. He OPSd .766 at Colorado Springs at age 26. His fans crowed about his nice little breakout last year, but of course they're silent about his return to Earth this year. The notion that he "deserves a shot" would make sense coming from his mom or his high school coach; but based on, you know, the facts, he's the dictionary definition of minor league depth.

The whole "my god, how could we give up on Scooter" narrative is a joke. He's having a nice little year -- 2.5 fWAR, 2.4 bWAR. Really it was a great first half; in the second half he's reverted to being Scooter Gennett. He's still a mediocre defender. He still needs a platoon partner. He's had your basic age-27 breakout (half) year, and as breakouts go it's nothing special. Teams throw away more valuable assets than Gennett every day. Nothing to see here. BTW, while it's true that Villar has stunk up the joint this year, Sogard has been good for 1 fWAR / 1.6 bWAR in less than a half season's worth of playing time. If an honest person were inclined to vilify Stearns for giving Gennett away, such a person would have to offset the criticism by noting how Stearns ameliorated his mistake by picking up good free talent when Villar faltered.

I understand the thesis, developed with such intellectual rigor in this thread, that those of us who blame Garza for quitting on his teammates two years ago are just callous haters of pregnant women. However, I respectfully propose a counter-thesis: We have an acquaintance with the facts. Here's the MLB.com report on Garza's removal from the rotation and refusal to pitch in relief. Note the date: September 6, 2015. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/147600788/matt-garza-upset-after-removal-from-rotation/ Here's the money quote: "Melvin, who announced earlier this month he would begin transitioning out of the GM role, also said the Brewers asked Garza to pitch the remainder of the season out of the bullpen, and Garza refused." The report, which quotes Garza extensively, makes no mention at all of his wife's pregnancy. On September 17 -- 11 days *later* -- the JS reported on Garza's departure from the team to be with his wife: http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/328112021.html The report, by the way, doesn't mention anything about problems with her pregnancy. It essentially says that since he had already stopped playing, the team just said go home. To sum up, the public record tells us: (1) Matt Garza refused to pitch out of the bullpen in September 2015 entirely because he was angry at being removed from the rotation and not at all because his wife was pregnant; (2) Matt Garza ten days later left the team to spend an extended prenatal hiatus with his wife not because her pregnancy was in crisis but because, owing to his earlier refusal to pitch, he wasn't needed at work. Sorry, Garza apologists, that this Garza critic turns out not to be a callous hater of pregnant women. But hey, if you still want to root out those scoundrels, they're out there: https://nesn.com/2017/01/brewers-matt-garza-gets-roasted-for-dumb-hypocritical-birth-control-tweet/https://nesn.com/2017/01/brewers-matt-garza-gets-roasted-for-dumb-hypocritical-birth-control-tweet/

Simply because he's not a liked player. They can spin it any way they want but that's what it comes down to. Usually when people disagree with you, they have reasons. Disrespecting those people by accusing them of lacking reasons can end up looking bad as time goes by. Matt Garza, 2015-2017: 2015: xFIP 4.50, bWAR 0.5, salary $12.5 million 2016: xFIP 4.49, bWAR 1.3, salary $12.5 million 2017 (through August): xFIP 5.13, bWAR 0.9, salary (full season) $12.5 million The main reason a lot of us wanted to dump Garza at many points over the past couple of years is that he's been a bad pitcher. We thought he was likely to be as bad this year as over the past two years. We were wrong; he's been worse. Now, let me be clear: I dislike Matt Garza intensely. Having him gone would make me happy. But if he's helping the team, who cares what I think of his personality? I sure don't. He's not some domestic abuser, where dumping him is arguably a moral imperative. He's just a jerk. That's not a reason to dump him. The fact that he was a petulant crybaby who quit on the team when his epic-length leash finally got yanked last year -- that's arguably a reason to dump him. I thought it was. But let's assume I was wrong about that. He's a bad pitcher. He shouldn't be starting ahead of Woodruff, Guerra, Jungman, Suter when healthy, or for that matter Derby. Does he have 2018 surplus value now? I have no idea, really. What is he really at this point -- a 5-inning, 5.00 starter? For $5 million? That's some pretty advanced, depressing math. I assume most contenders have a better #5 than him and most noncontenders have young guys they want to audition. Riley argued elsewhere today for putting him on waivers to see if anyone would take him for nothing. That's a fine idea; it would provide at least a baseline for assessing Garza's value.

And if they limited the market on Jason Rogers to established big leaguers, they wouldn't have Broxton. He must be one of that "about 1/4."

So, Garza. Five decent innings against the second-worst team in baseball last week; otherwise he's a train wreck. Is there any earthly reason to keep him in the rotation when rosters expand? Could Guerra or Jungmann possibly be a worse bet as the fifth starter (I'm assuming Woodruff will be back as essentially #4)?

Robert Henry, 22 year-old Arizona dude: 1 for 1 with 5 walks today.

Whom would you keep, or whom do you think they will keep, over Phillips? I'd rate the likelihood of Brewers outfielders hanging on in the medium to long term in this order: Brinson Santana Braun's contract Phillips Broxton . . . Newhouse Phillips could be moved, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Braun gets hurt all the time, and Brinson could fail. Broxton has taken a step back, and I think the org may not trust him as a regular going forward. The team can easily keep both Brinson and Phillips as part of a four-man outfield rotation and play both enough to keep them developing. Phillips has trade value, of course. But with the deadline past and Cordell our biggest prospect sacrifice, I don't think we're going to see DS trading top prospects for vets any time soon. (I'm not counting Perez. Maybe he affects others' playing time, but I think he'll get his PAs from people being hurt and ineffective all over the diamond. Wanting to get nearly full-time ABs for your "fourth outfielder" (Phillips) shouldn't cut into Perez's playing time too much; and getting Perez playing time is less important than developing Phillips.)

For me, and I suspect a lot of others would agree, it's entirely obvious that emotions and psychology affect performance. It's curious that you think you're the only person who understands that pretty basic insight. I can't recall a time when anyone here denied it. What I think is an important corollary to that insight is that emotional and psychological effects on performance are very hard to measure with the information available to us as baseball fans. I suspect from what I know of psychology that those impacts are often hard to measure for a player's own therapist. People who don't like sabermetrics often complain about the role statistical analysts ascribe to luck, or random variation, in baseball performance. Those complaints are often overblown -- random variation really is a thing -- but the complainers have a point. When people don't have concrete information about what causes an effect, we often default to finding the cause in something we can't measure. It's an attractive strategy (or a comfortable impulse), because nobody can prove you're wrong about something if you're basing your argument on something that can't be measured. I hope coming back to Milwaukee is a tonic for Jeffress. There's certainly some evidence that it might be. But even if it is, we have to consider the possibility that other causes -- coaching and park factors most obviously -- might account for the difference, rather than (or at least in conjunction with) emotions and psychology. It's also possible that his performance variations have little or nothing to do with being in Milwaukee. Relievers just fluctuate.

Or it could be the, you know, substantive arguments that a number of people here have offered. Which basically boil down to "we need a deep-backup OF who won't play much; maybe use the guy who has done that job before." But of course to have absorbed and responded to that substantive argument, you would have to have the shred of common decency that it takes to treat the ideas of other people in the community with basic attention and respect. I have no use for Kirk N. whatsoever, but Kyle Wren is an undersized banjo hitter whom the organization has passed on over and over again, and I'm inclined to think that isn't because (a) they're stupid or (b) they're being mean to him. If you look past this season's stats, there's quite a reasonable basis to believe that Kirk is a less bad MLB back-of-the-bench OF than Wren. I don't know why the comparison would get anyone up in arms, but I don't get a lot of things.

We just aren't that close. I mean, a 5.5 game lead at the break is something. But so is a one-run lead in the bottom of the eighth. We just don't look like a team that's one or two players away from contending. We look like a team that has some great pieces, some big holes, and some promising prospects. I would have gladly taken that in April, so I'll take it now.

I really don't get the top-10 love for Erceg. He's 22 in high-A, which is reasonable but not young, and he has a .645 OPS. I'm sure there are mitigating factors, and it's way too early to make definitive judgments, but I just don't think he's shown enough to justify that ranking. His teammate Trent Clark is 20 and a secondary offense machine; his teammate Monte Harrison is 21, has a similar draft pedigree, and has put together an excellent year. Jacob Nottingham is 22, has reportedly made defensive strides at a tougher position, is outhitting Erceg, and has a longer track record. Then there's Brett Phillips . . . I'd take any of those guys over Erceg right now. Dubon's the other guy I sort of question. I like his youth, but his power spike last year looks like, well, a power spike. I guess 9 is reasonable if he can stick at ss and if scouts see room for his offense to grow. Oh, and I don't get Ortiz at 4. Since getting here he has shown nothing, which isn't the be-all and end-all, but he also screams "fragile," which is not what you want a pitcher to scream. I'd rather have Burnes or F. Peralta.

Yes. I really don't understand these posts where somebody says "They're handling this or that thing badly," when it's inherently a situation with a lot of variables that we can't see. I mean, if it's "I'm mad that they're batting Villar leadoff," that's a visible decision with tangible consequences. There's still stuff we don't know about, and reasons that might cut both ways, but at least we have enough information to have a substantive discussion. But something like how to handle a young pitcher late in the season . . . most of a process like that happens behind the scenes. I'm not going to rain on anybody's desire to question authority, because generally that's a good impulse. But for me, when I see a management team that has built up a lot of credibility make a move that I don't get but that I know involves a lot of information I can't access, my inclination is just to file the question in my brain and move along to the next thing.

I'm just throwing this in here because there's no "2017 Brewers pessimism thread," and I'd feel bad starting one . . . the worst team in baseball just pretty much played us to a draw in a home series. That's bad. I don't mind game 2, because Nola's good, but the other win and the loss didn't exactly look like the work of a playoff team. It's only one series, yeah, but I'm worried. Right now I don't know if we have the arms to make up for the inevitable lapses in offense. FWIW, I don't think Sonny Gray is anything close to the answer. We need either (a) Guerra to find his mojo, (b) Davies to find his mojo, or © Woodruff to make a splash, in order to hold the fort until Anderson gets back; then we need Anderson to pick up where he left off. That's a lot to ask for. OTOH, my favorite thing about this team is how they haven't folded. When they were in danger of losing the division lead, they won. They hadn't lost ground in the standings before yesterday in quite a while. They've earned respect.

This is a great topic. A few years back there was a similar discussion on BrewHoop about the Bucks, and people got into the same kind of interesting discussion about what "core" means. The funny thing about the Brewers now is that our best contributors, with the exceptions I think of Arcia and Santana, are older breakout guys, like we've been talking about. I believe in Nelson's breakout, and I think Shaw looks pretty legit, but I probably wouldn't extend those guys, because they're cheap into their 30s. So I think they're "core" in the sense of being legit first-division starters right now, but not in the sense that I can likely see them retiring here. Arcia looks really good. I don't think he's a guaranteed franchise cornerstone, but I think he has that ceiling. With Santana, the concerns about his defense are serious, but I'm not sure we're sufficiently appreciating that we have a legit power bat on an upward trajectory, and he just turns 25 next month.

Fangraphs did: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-brewers-might-have-an-actual-ace/

Love it. Well done!

82 was kind of bad timing for me. I became a fan during 77, so 78 was my first real season. Those first few years were magic. But the 81 strike alienated me, and by 82 -- beginning of my sophomore year in hs -- I was a little less into baseball, a lot more into girls (the feeling wasn't mutual yet), theater, and music. But I fondly remember hanging with my best friend in his room, listening to the ALCS clinching game. The Series -- I think I repressed it. Losing hurt too much.

Just an aside: In the annals of pitcher W-L records that are vastly inflated due to run support, Zach Davies' 2017 makes Pete Vuckovich's 1982 look like a Cy Young season. Oh wait . . .

Garrett Cooper is 26. He's hitting well at AAA. He's hitting extremely well at the launching pad where he's played half his games. He has never cracked double figures in home runs in four prior minor league seasons; this year he has 17 -- at age 26, playing his home games in a bandbox. His professional games played at positions other than 1b: 2013 - 0; 2014 - 5 (3b); 2015 - 4 (rf); 2016 - 39 (of corners); 2017 - 0. Could he replace Aguilar's power production? There's no real evidence to suggest it. Could he replace Aguilar's overall production? Stranger things have happened, but Aguilar's MLB OPS this year is higher than Cooper's road OPS in AAA, so I kind of doubt it. Cooper isn't young, he looks like he won't spend much time away from 1b, and his power looks very dubious. This is a classic instance of selling high. I hate trading legit starting position players for relief pitchers, but I'm thrilled we got this much for Cooper. I hope he rakes and proves me wrong.