gregmag

This is seriously one of the greatest paragraphs in the history of the English language. I really like living in St. Louis. For people from Milwaukee to knock St. Louis makes no sense, because the two cities are very similar. Cardinals fans, for the most part, are very friendly and enthusiastic. It's a great place to go to a game wearing Brewers gear. Berkman's comments were pretty fair. I liked his "I'm not the czar of baseball" thing a lot. He gets safe passage out of town in my book. The Cardinals aren't anywhere near as bad as the big-market teams. The Yankees and Red Sox have basically destroyed baseball; because of them, baseball is no more a serious competitive sport than pro wrestling is. It's just another area of life in which having money equals usually getting to be on top. If I didn't live on Earth in 2011, maybe I would find that novel. BTW, the "Alberta" stuff has to stop. That's the only thing Nyjer has done that genuinely annoyed me. (In contrast, dropping f-bombs on national TV was downright heroic, especially because I don't think he even knew he was doing it.) When are we going to stop insulting men by calling them women? Women are cool. No, the simple reason to despise the Cardinals is that LaRussa and Carpenter are the two foulest human beings (and I use that term only in its technical sense) in baseball; Pujols is lucky they're with him, because they make him look merely odious; and I would say Molina is a rabid punk, but somewhere there's probably a pretty good band called the Rabid Punks, and I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings. All of those guys are evil, entitled, lying sacks of suet who are taking air and food away from more deserving life forms. Also, Holliday looks like an arrogant jock, but I have no idea whether he actually is, so I'm just going to file that in "subjects for further research." That's plenty, though. The Cardinals must be destroyed. I'm convinced that every time the rancid ball of tar in LaRussa's chest experiences disappointment (shame would be too much to ask), a sick child somewhere starts feeling better. That's what this series is about: Cream the Cards for the Kids!

Me too. No apology is necessary. I'm glad he had his good run at the plate in the regular season, and I'm glad he came through today. I'm always happy when he, or any of our guys, succeeds.

I think he probably is; I think Too Live Brew makes very good points. I yield to no one in my hatred for the Yankees and my contempt for the economic structure that allows the Yankees to dominate year after year. But I think Too Live Brew is right that playing for the Yankees actually hurts some of their second-tier stars. If Jorge Posada had put up his career numbers in a Milwaukee uniform, I think everybody would have an easier time seeing how great he was. I do like OPS+ as a basis for cross-era comparison. Using that stat, Posada had three years better than Jason Kendall's best year, four years better than Jason Varitek's best year, eight years better than A.J. Pierzynski's best year, and a bunch more years that would fit comfortably among the best few seasons that each of those guys had. Paul LoDuca, Charles Johson, and Sandy Alomar had one year each that would make Posada's top ten; Mike Lieberthal had two. Neither Benito Santiago, Terry Steinbach, nor Darrin Fletcher never put up a good Jorge Posada season with the bat. Todd Hundley did put up four years that rival Posada's best, but only two of those were over 400 PA, and he didn't have another decent year outside those four. Almost all of the guys I've just mentioned had career OPS+ figures around 95, give or take a few points. Hundley tops the group at 102; Lieberthal and Steinbach are at 101; Alomar is down at 86. Only Santiago and Alomar had longer careers than Posada; most of the others played right around the same length of time. In short, Posada's 121 OPS+ over a 15-year career leaves that whole crowd in the dust. Whom does that leave, among Posada's contemporaries? I think most of us would agree that Pudge Rodriguez and Mike Piazza are the two top catchers of the era we're talking about. Joe Mauer has a chance to be even better. After that, Javy Lopez was a fine hitter for a catcher, but not quite at Posada's level -- OPS+ of 112. Victor Martinez is right there with Posada, OPS+ of 122, but he isn't a catcher any more, and he hasn't hit his decline years yet. Chris Hoiles had two great years and put up a 119 OPS+ for his career, but he only topped 500 PA once in a short career. Quite a few of these guys were better defensively than Posada, but I don't think any of them except Pudge (who doesn't need much help anyway) was better by a wide enough margin to come close to making up for Posada's offensive superiority. When the dust settles on all of these careers, people active between the mid-90s and now, I think the rankings will likely look something like: 1. Pudge 2. Piazza 3. Mauer 4. Posada 5. Martinez 6. Lopez. Posada could end up a spot higher or lower, but I think that's about right. Then it gets down to what your standards are. Posada, as Too Live Brew noted, is right in the middle of HOF catchers statistically, so that speaks well for him. Three catchers from the same era doesn't seem like too many to enshrine -- Bench, Fisk, and Carter were rough contemporaries. Is four too many? Maybe. On the other hand, I think Ted Simmons has a great case, and I think (relatedly) that the HOF has underappreciated catchers. For me, then, Posada belongs. I can see a case for leaving him out, but it's a close argument at worst -- it has nothing to do with guys like Jason Kendall.

I want to thank JohnBriggs12 and Rock Co. Cougars for (a) being even older than I am, or at least having been Brewers fans even longer than I've been, and (b) sharing some really vivid and fun recollections of players who are just pictures on baseball cards to me. I never put together that Scott, May, and Briggs played for the Brewers at the same time. That's a pretty great core to build on. In retrospect, the early Brewers seem to have turned some pretty fine talent -- Briggs, May, Darrell Porter, Harper, Colborn -- into exactly Jack Squat. It helps me realize why people were so pumped starting in '77 about signing Bando, flipping Scott for Cooper, grabbing Caldwell, and then flipping a year of Slaton for Oglivie.

Great post, MNBrew -- I hadn't kept track of Molitor in recent years. Thanks for the info, and the spot-on analysis of his tragic departure from Milwaukee [stabs Bando voodoo doll maniacally]. That was the only day I ever remember crying about anything related to sports. I started following the Brewers seriously right as Molitor was coming up. There's no way he wasn't going to be my favorite player. I understand what folks are saying about the differences between him and Yount, but the fact remains that Molitor had by far the greatest career in a Brewers uniform of any player other than Yount. I hope eventually he'll get a statue. It would be great to see him with the Brewers in some capacity, but if I was living happily in the Twin Cities, with enough money to keep the cold at bay, I'm not sure why I'd ever leave.

Sorry if people have talked about this generally or specifically before, but I'm really becoming impressed with Lucroy's emergence as a team leader, despite his being rushed up last year and still being very young. First there was his firm but measured dig at LaRussa back during that tense series with the Classies in Milwaukee. Now check out this article about Greinke (which is also very good and interesting in its own right): http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2011/story/_/id/7032481/for-milwaukee-brewers-pitcher-zack-greinke-future-now Add this to the recent interesting analysis of Lucroy's talent for getting strike calls by framing pitches, and I'm starting to see a guy who may actually possess those fabled "intangibles" that people are always going on about. Too bad he can't hit.

Okay, this isn't funny.

My thing with Money's comments was that it all came down to whether they were consistent with the Brewers' player development plan. We can judge that plan favorably or unfavorably, but Money has a subordinate role in it, and he should fulfill his role in accordance with the organization's wishes. So if he had good reason to believe that going off on Gamel and Gindl in the press was consistent with the organization's wishes, then fine for him. But if not, he should suffer consequences. If this is a demotion -- and as others have said, I'm not sure whether it is or not -- it may indicate, in part, that the front office wasn't happy with his comments. Again, I'm not judging the comments on their own terms at all. I think they were very critical comments, and my initial reaction was that they were pretty harsh. But as some people here suggested: (a) Money knows what he's talking about, and these were very specific criticisms; and (b) maybe berating these guys in the media was what they needed to snap their heads into place. I really don't know. All I know is that the comments were significant, and the front office is in charge of significant player development decisions and strategies.

There have been some great posts in this discussion. I mean really thoughtful, from a variety of perspectives, people thinking hard and writing well about something important to many of us. So it tells me something sad about my psyche that I keep dwelling on the couple of people who, all over this board, again and again, post with such malice and arrogance as to make me want to stay away for weeks at a time. I know less about zen than I do about stats, but here's my effort to be zen: In my humble opinion, John Briggs and Louis Ely know a heck of a lot about baseball. I learn many interesting and worthwhile things from their analyses of players and situations, quite frequently. Therefore, at least from my limited perspective, their prominence in discussions on this board must be judged a good thing. Now I'm going to stay away for a while.

On this board, the most statistically sophisticated posters that I can think of happen to be among the most thoughtful and reasonable people who regularly post. I'm thinking especially of Russ. We also have some equally smart, nuanced, and thoughtful stat skeptics. I'm thinking especially of danzig. Most of the best posters on the site are somewhere in the middle methodologically -- people who have a facility with stats but most commonly make posts that don't reference advanced stats heavily. I'm thinking especially of Toby. I learn from all three of those gentlemen, and from lots of others who fit each of those descriptions. Zealotry, as far as I can understand it, inheres in believing that you are always right about matters that most would agree are contestable; treating reasoned disagreement as an occasion to cry out in martyrdom; and stereotyping most or all people who disagree with you as sharing negative character traits. In my view, very few people who post on this board -- statheads, stat-skeptics, or just plain folks of any stripe -- reflect those characteristics. I imagine the person who started this thread thought that, by doing so, he would expose the zealots. I wish he hadn't tried, because the effort only poisons our discourse. But he sure did succeed.

Your presumption of my tone and my frame of mind are just that - presumptions - and on both counts you're incorrect. However, especially given your accusation, I find it interesting that the words you've chosen can easily be taken in the exact same way. I don't have time to dig through close to two months' worth of JSOnline articles, blogs, & chats to find the quotes, but I can safely say I read statements by TH in at least two places that made it pretty clear that the two PTBNL going to the Mets would not be "players of consequence" (my paraphrase). For as thoroughly well-read & aware that so many posters are on this site, I found it odd (a combination of both "humorous" and "frustrating") to keep seeing posts about folks' fears that Green, McClendon, etc. were the types of players going to the Mets when it seemed pretty clear that the Mets were going to get minor league "roster fillers" -- which Rosario & Herrera pretty much are, and which Green, McClendon, etc. are not. Actually, I made no presumption about your state of mind, and I made a judgment -- not a presumption -- about your tone. In light of your continued insistence on insulting a large group of participants in a discussion, with a tenacity that stands in sharp contrast to your conceded indifference to supporting or substantiating your position ("I don't have time" to back up a slam on a big group of people? Really?), I'm very comfortable with that judgment.

Actually, funny thing, I find this thread interesting, so you're wrong. I'm not tired of the 90s -- or any other specific decade -- so you actually have no clue about what "we all" think. If you don't like a discussion, don't participate in it. There are plenty of others. How hard is that? Or do I need to run all my posts past you from now on so that you, in your infinite wisdom, can decide whether they're worthwhile? Before I got to that major irritant, I was just going to thank reillymcshane for a thread topic that made me laugh out loud, backed up with a great discussion. So thanks!

I'm sure St. Louis just came at him with the contract -- he never asked for it.

I like Wheeler as a dark horse. We're getting a bit thin in the infield, and he just strikes me as a guy who may be able to hold a fair amount of his offensive value at the next levels -- enough to help. I don't really have a great argument for this, more of an intuition, but it seems like a reasonable use of a roster spot.

Carpenter is a smarmy pathological liar, Pujols is an egomaniacal bully, and LaRussa is just plain scum.

That's a great piece of sportswriting.

I have two problems with your rather condescending and smug take on this discussion. First, people have different ideas about what a prospect is, and people also have different ideas about what other people (like Doug Melvin) think a prospect is. Second, I don't recall that TH ever said the list didn't include prospects, let alone "any minor leaguers of real value" -- that would be a really hard claim to qualify -- just that it didn't include top prospects. Big difference. I think a lot of people here thought McClendon was in the trade, because (a) the Mets' GM was quoted as saying that one of the players was an upper-level guy who had enjoyed some MLB success and (b) almost no one considers McClendon one of the Brewers' top prospects. You're the first person I've heard suggest that the McClendon prediction was unreasonable, let alone so unreasonable as to be "humorous" and "frustrating." I don't recall that a lot of people predicted that Mike Fiers would be in the trade. But again, anyone who made that prediction could have done so with full respect and regard for Haudricourt's report, because plenty of people here don't consider Mike Fiers a top prospect. I think the number of people who do consider him a top prospect has grown in the time since the Rodriguez trade, but it's still a controversial issue. The concerns a lot of people expressed about the possibility of Green's being included in the trade come closest to substantiating your complaint, but I think they still fall plenty short. This is where uncertainties about perception become really important. At the beginning of the season, nobody ranked Taylor Green among the top prospects in baseball's (arguably) worst farm system. Every month he made more believers. Whether Doug Melvin or Tom Haudricourt was among those believers seemed very much in doubt for a long time, as Casey McGehee continued to beat the team's playoff hopes about the head and shoulders with a pole-axe while Taylor Green, lefthanded hitting Taylor Green, continued to bludgeon AAA pitching. Haudricourt got particularly testy about fans' temerity in asking why Green wasn't considered for an earlier call-up. When I thought about the trade list at the time, my rational mind told me that Doug Melvin had to know what Taylor Green was worth, but my anxiety was still high enough to make me say, "Gosh, I hope Melvin isn't foolish enough to include Taylor Green in this deal." I suspect that's about where a lot of people were, and I don't think that's remotely unreasonable. Maybe wrong in the final analysis, but not unreasonable. I have a lot of respect and some criticism for Doug Melvin. I have nothing but seething contempt for Tom Haudricourt. But I took Haudricourt's report at face value; I just wasn't completely sure what face value was worth in the circumstances. It wasn't clear whether he had actually seen the list or was just reporting Doug Melvin's account of the list, and it wasn't (and still isn't, and never will be) entirely clear how Doug Melvin or Tom Haudricourt valued the players under discussion. If you had sufficient wisdom and insight to render that level of genuine uncertainty "humorous" and "frustrating," good for you.

Except of course that no one actually said we gave up great prospects; a lot of us just expressed the hope that we hadn't. You know what they say about people who live in glass asylums? No, you probably don't. What an amazing freaking trade. Of course the Mets did what they had to, but this is classic DM at his best -- seeing opportunity and taking advantage.

Yeah, I was dubious about the Green platoon comment too. I wouldn't dismiss Schafer that way either. Maybe X was just talking about how they should start out. On one hand, I like the idea of breaking hitters in as part of a soft platoon, to help them get their feet on the ground. But I don't think you dismiss anybody as a platoon-only player until you've seen some evidence that he really can't hit same-side pitching at the MLB level. I certainly think it's way too early to make that kind of judgment about Green or Schafer. The splits on Gindl are interesting. I'd like to know how the park in Nashville generally plays, especially for LH flyball hitters, compared to the other PCL parks. I'm a big proponent of age/level, and I don't see why Gindl's stature should lead us to think his power won't develop further. He's a hard guy to project, as the lively discussions around here bear out. I like him enough that I want to see him get a serious chance, and as a LH fourth OF, with inevitable injuries, he's in line for that chance next year. Unless of course RR just desperately wants to see how many flies (the bugs, not the balls) will swarm to Mark Kotsay's dessicated corpse. (Personal to MK: I kid because I care. You've had a good career, and you deserve a happy retirement.)

One way of stating the problem with RBI as a stat is that it represents double-counting. If you know that a guy hit for a good batting average and a good slugging percentage, then you know that he did the things necessary to drive in runs. Now, when I say that, I'm obviously leaving out "clutch" stats like BA with RISP. I leave those stats out because I don't believe they measure a sustainable skill. If you disagree with that -- and good luck to you, because the statistical evidence is pretty overwhelming -- then I can understand why you like RBI more than I do. But even if that's the case, you're still double-counting once you credit the player for his clutch performance numbers. As Russ said, RBI tell you what happened. So, for that matter, does BA with RISP. That's useful and interesting information for some purposes. Even though variations in clutch stats have mostly to do with random fluctuations (what we scientists call "luck"), maybe you believe that performance, including random fluctuation, should determine things like MVP votes. That position makes plenty of sense on its own terms. Casey McGehee drove in over 100 runs last year, and no one can take that result away from him (or, more importantly, from the Brewers). But RBI and clutch stats are next to useless in measuring a player's true level of ability, which is how you predict future performance. To say that Casey McGehee had a lot of RBI last year, in a discussion about whether he should start next week or next year, is nearly useless information. His stats that better (not perfectly, but better) reflect true hitting talent were pretty solid in 2009 and 2010. That information is valuable, and it absolutely should play a role in how we project his future performance. So should his largely disastrous 2011, and so should his consistently poor defense. How to weigh those conflicting pieces of information is a hard and interesting problem. That, IMHO, is a discussion worth having -- not some meaningless distraction about RBI.

Okay, I buy the argument that RR is just backing up his player. But should he be? I really don't know. Maybe Yuni is a great guy and fierce competitor with laser-like focus who just happens to have one of the sorriest physical skill sets in recent MLB history. If that's the case, and if you have no one better, then yes, talking him up is the right thing to do. But is that premise really plausible? Look, I know nothing negative about Yuni's character or intellect. But he sure looks like a guy who could be doing better if he spent five minutes thinking about how to play baseball. If by any chance he is that guy, then I'm not sure the manager should be bending over backwards to stroke his ego in the press. Anyway, I agree that's what RR is doing. I also agree that Hairston has been needed at 2b and cf more desperately than at ss -- barely. Now let's get to what's about to become the real question: Can anybody think of an earthly reason why Hairston shouldn't play over Betancourt as soon as Weeks and CarGo get back?

This is almost a textbook specious argument. (1) We would be better off retiring RBI from the record books than allowing RBI to be used in this kind of deceptive fashion. To emphasize that McGehee had more RBI than Fielder suggests that McGehee was, in some meaningful sense, better than Fielder, which proves the weakness of RBI as a stat if anything does. Prince Fielder, of course, has hit rings around Casey McGehee for the entirety of both men's careers. The irony is that McGehee wouldn't have gotten his flashy RBI numbers, even hitting fifth, if Prince Fielder wasn't putting up a .400 OBP in front of him. (2) Emphasizing, in this context, that the team was doing well from June on suggests that McGehee had something to do with the team's success. In reality, McGehee couldn't have done much more to hurt the Brewers in the first half if he had beaten the entire starting rotation senseless with a tire iron. The Brewers' competitiveness in the first half is a heroic testimony to their ability to drag the dead weight of Casey McGehee across home plate. (3) The argument pretends that McGehee's first half horror show didn't happen. Well, it did. He killed the team for the better part of four months. To say he had earned the benefit of the doubt is just a smooth way of saying that you're choosing to ignore everything he has done badly while hyperinflating everything he does well. At his very best, Casey McGehee has been a very good -- never great -- hitter and a poor defender. At his very best, he can start. At anything less than his best -- including his mediocre second-half numbers this year -- he's the kind of player that good teams bring off the bench. He should not be starting for a contender. He's exactly the kind of guy that smart organizations jump at the opportunity to replace with one of the best 24 year-old hitters in AAA. As I've said, I can understand the reasoning behind sticking with him now (although he should have been toast long before now). What the Brewers do with him this winter will provide a good test of how serious the organization is about winning.

Well, I read an expert chat over at Fangraphs that treated Braun's MVP candidacy as marginal, which to me represented stathead reflex rather than stathead insight -- Braun has been terrific by advanced stat criteria as well as more traditional criteria. But that Heyman article irritated me a lot more. He's a decent writer and a thoughtful guy -- I give him credit for explaining his traditionalist biases and acknowledging that "valuable" is open to different interpretations. But those traditionalist biases, for me, remain hard to defend. Also, I have to put my head on the chopping block and say that I really don't see a case for Fielder as MVP. His hitting numbers have been very close to Braun's, which means very close to the best in the league. I agree with Heyman that he deserves bonus points for clubhouse leadership. Playing every game is a big plus. But still, he's clearly the second-best player on his own team this year. Braun has hit a bit better (although that may change by the end of the year), has been almost immeasurably better as a baserunner, and has been far better (well, far less bad) in the field. I would put Fielder, right now, pretty far back in the running, behind at least (in no particular order) Kemp, Upton, Votto, Tulowitzki, and Victorino (but if you need your MVP to be on a contender, I get why a couple of them fall out of the discussion). Those guys and Braun are all in a cluster; Fielder isn't there.

Monty -- I think you're right about Melvin's M.O., and I share your concerns, but to some extent I understand what I take to be his mindset. A lot of us, myself included, have questioned in the past whether Melvin was a guy who could take a team from rebuilding to contention. I think most of us gave him credit for being a good rebuilder -- getting the farm system productive, grabbing free talent, making mostly smart trades. But taking a team to the next level is a different thing. I can't really blame Melvin, psychologically, for mirroring that attitude and basically saying, "Okay, I have to do my job very differently at this stage." But I do think it's a problem. I think that's how good teams regress. Bill James used to talk about what he called "the plexiglass principle," the tendency of good teams to regress. A big part of it, of course, is that winning teams tend to have things go right for them that are unsustainable. But another part of it is decisionmaking. Winning GMs and managers tend to become conservative and complacent, because they don't want to mess with the things that brought them success. They forget that part of their success has to do with luck and winning in spite of their holes. Unfortunately that's a really common problem. If DM and RR can overcome it, they'll be in the minority. I think the big test will come in the offseason, when the question of who should start at 3b, and presumably 1b, will be written on a clean slate. As of now, I'll be disappointed if they don't go with at least a soft platoon, and I'll be disappointed if they trade Gamel and pick up . . . I don't know, Derrek Lee or somebody.

Jimmy Nelson : 7 IP, 5 hits (all singles), 1 unearned run, 7/0 K/BB, 10/3 GO/AO. It doesn't get a lot better than that.