gregmag

If we get to the playoffs, Casey McGehee certainly won't have been the guy who got us there. As of now, he has been one of our biggest obstacles to getting there.

I'm not inclined to give Roenicke credit for low-percentage moves that happen to pan out, like sticking with Yuni. But I do think he deserves credit for going with Estrada today. A lot of people, myself included, would have preferred FDLC, and there are good reasons for that preference, but it's not an obvious call one way or the other. Estrada has made good starts before, and clearly RR had a good sense of Estrada's ability to pitch five innings.

But Kotsay hasn't had more than 70 RBI in a season since 2005, so Overbay is better.

This is the stuff that drives me around the bend. When is the last time that a hitter as bad as Mark Kotsay hit third for anybody, let alone a first place team? Or look at it another way -- how much better is Gallardo with the bat than Kotsay? It would make that much more sense for our pitcher to hit third than to do what we're actually doing.

Very interesting choice of invective. In my understanding, these are some qualities of zealots: -- They form conclusions and then stick unwaveringly to those conclusions whether or not circumstances change. -- They deploy evidence selectively to support their preformed conclusions and never consider evidence that points in the other direction. -- They only make declarations and never express doubts or ask questions to test their own views. -- They lump everyone who disagrees with them together into a mass of opponents, rather than considering or responding to gradations in different individuals' contrary views. -- They call their opponents names and question their opponents' motives or character. -- If any source of information or insight casts doubt on their views, they dismiss or attack that source wholesale. Looking back at the various discussions of Betancourt, IMHO, I can't see where Betancourt's critics have done those things much, if at all. So I have to take respectful issue with your characterization.

Okay, this is a problem. We need a way to think through the steroid issue historically, because unless everyone, literally, was juicing, there's no path of least resistance. In other words, tarring guys who put up clean numbers during this era is every bit as unjust as lauding guys who put up tainted numbers. We also need to decide whether we care about gradations of juicing. Does it matter if somebody juiced for a long time rather than briefly? Does it matter if somebody used a substance that wasn't banned or illegal but still inflated his numbers? What's our required standard of proof for any of this? LouisEly suggests that consistency, as opposed to major power spikes, is a strong indicator of clean power. That makes a lot of sense to me, and/but it's something we can test by looking at guys who we know did and did not juice. Also, can we assume guys are no longer juicing? If so, that speaks well for Thome, because it means he's hitting right now for remarkable "clean power" at an age when most hitters can't see the ball any more. That would at least make a case for the legitimacy of his power as a younger hitter. Maybe baseball needs a truth and reconciliation commission. Give everybody immunity from legal prosecution -- I'm speaking in big generalities here; it would be complicated -- and gather evidence on whatever basis maximized reliability and openness. If it works for genocide (see, e.g., post-Apartheid South Africa), why not for cheating? The problem was big and broad enough that I don't think the immunity would incentivize future cheating (whatever form future cheating might take), and frankly I care more about a clear accounting of baseball history than about watching a bunch of ex-players plea bargain to fines. The judgment of history will punish the guilty, and I want the best information we can get about the identities of the guilty -- and the innocent.

First of all, he deserves credit. I had heard bad things about his work ethic when we got him, but he has hung in and found a way to contribute, to the point where his hitting since the break has really helped the team. The Brewers also deserve some credit; I've been one of the people ripping DM for not replacing him, and I stand by that, but the organization hasn't just sat there as if he wasn't a problem. Sveum appears to have worked with him to very good effect. All of that said . . . pick up his option? I'm sorry, I don't want to rain on the guy's very helpful parade, but if someone asks that question -- Yuni has played major league baseball for a while, and he has played it quite badly in the aggregate. He killed the team in the first half (okay, he merely beat the team bloody in April and June and committed genocidal war crimes in May). He has no on-base skills and no defensive range, and for a shortstop that's pretty much the end of the story. No speed as a bonus. Does his power make him worth keeping around? Maybe it would -- maybe -- if he ISO'd above .200. But he's nowhere near that. To top it off, he isn't getting any younger or any cheaper. If he hits this way for the rest of the year, it will be some achievement, and he'll deserve even more credit. But he'll still be a bad player, and the Brewers will still need a major upgrade at short if they want to contend in a post-Prince world.

Good thing we kept Betancourt unlike many have been suggesting all season. We've benefited so much from his overall subpar offense, horrible on-base skills, and atrocious defense.

Well, according to TH, the lineup today against Norris is Plush, Lopez, Braun, Fielder, Kotsay, Yuni, Counsell, Lucroy. That's about as beatable a lineup as the Brewers have fielded all year. Also, it's a good retest of the "protection" shibboleth: if it's legit, Fielder should walk on four pitches every time he's up, including with the bases loaded.

I agree that Dawson was better than Rice. From 1980-1983, Dawson was an excellent player who did a lot of things well, whereas Rice was a great hitter for a few years, a good hitter for several more years, and never did anything well but hit. Dawson played longer, although he wasn't worth much for his last few years. But I don't think either of them belongs in the Hall of Fame. They're there because they hit home runs (which is important, but less impressive in Wrigley or Fenway) and drove in runs (which, as its own thing, is mostly down to your place in the lineup and what your teammates do). And yes, I strongly believe that Raines was better than either of them. I don't base this on super-sophisticated "modern stats" -- just the importance of OBP and noticing things like stolen bases and double plays. Get this: per 162 games -- Rice was 4-for-7 in SB attempts, drew 52 walks, and grounded into 24 DPs. Dawson was 19-for-26 in SB attempts, drew 36 walks, and grounded into 13 DPs. Raines was 52-for-61 in SB attempts, drew 86 walks, and grounded into 9 DPs. This is about as crude as assumptions and math get, but if we give each guy a score for SB + BB - CS - GDP, we get: Rice: 29 Dawson: 35 Raines: 120 That calculation is too rough, because it treats a base like an out, but it still gives you a quick sense of how much more offense Raines brought to the table beyond the triple crown stats. Then when you add the facts that Raines played in tougher parks for hitters and played better defense than Rice and late Dawson (early Dawson was a great defender) -- really, hitting HRs and early Dawson's defense were the only things that Rice or Dawson did better than Raines. Raines was better in every other aspect of the game.

Lawrie's going to be an elite hitter, but he may be a defensive cipher as well as a pain in the neck -- or he may shape up and be MVP-caliber. Cain still looks like a solid regular. Odorizzi has only had six starts at AA; I would say it's fair to judge him by his overall season line, which still says "elite pitching prospect" to me, but he's young and could very easily get hurt. Escobar is glove-only until he proves otherwise. Jeffress has done nothing to suggest that he's going anywhere. I don't care about losing Jeffress at all, and Escobar only looks good when you're comparing him to someone like Yuni. The other three guys I'd like to have, but I like having two years of two frontline starters during a strong contention window better.

A lot of people have argued this, so I'm not claiming novelty, but Dawson was a horrible MVP choice, and not because he played for a loser. OPS+ is good for this kind of argument, because it's park-adjusted. Dawson in 1987 put up a 130 OPS+, which is very good but hardly stellar. He hit 49 home runs, but he didn't do anything else at an MVP level -- he hit .287 and didn't walk, for an OBP of .328, plus Wrigley inflated his power numbers: he slugged .668 at home, .480 on the road. Also, his knees were hurting by then, so he didn't steal much and didn't defend at a high level, and he grounded into 15 double plays. By way of comparison, Ryan Braun has put up a 130 OPS+ twice -- in his two "off" years. This year he's at 166. Same thing for Fielder over the past five seasons -- "off" year OPS+ of 130 and 134, this year 160. Here's a good post arguing that Dawson in 1987 was the worst MVP pick of recent years: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2007/11/14/dawsons-freak/ As for this year, I think the award is there for the taking. Matt Kemp has the best numbers right now, but he hasn't run away and hidden from the pack. If Braun or Fielder conspicuously carries the Brewers into the playoffs, he'll probably get the MVP, and he may even deserve it. I hate the notion that the MVP has to play for a winner, but I'll use the player's impact on a pennant race as a tiebreaker. Kemp has a big advantage over Braun and Fielder in that he plays cf and (as far as I know) plays it pretty well, whereas Braun is a wash at best defensively and Fielder is a liability. I completely disagree with the notion, which someone floated above, that the MVP has to be someone who plays head and shoulders above his teammates. That amounts to a penalty for playing on a winning team. If, say, Prince Fielder is the best player in the league, and Braun is second and Weeks is third, Prince deserves the MVP just as much as he would if Yuni Betancourt were the second-best player on his team.

Hey Scott -- Welcome! I'm 43, so glad to have another graybeard (gray stubble?) in the mix. I also have family roots in western Ohio, and I remember the last stage of the Big Red Machine, so I've always rooted for the Reds -- obviously a little less so since the Brewers joined the NL Central.

Yeah, I think Funketown is right -- it seems like a pretty smart board overall. They also seem to have a pretty well-developed sense of absurdist humor; I think some of them find the sign-stealing thing amusing. Reading that board does make me grateful that the powers-that-be on this board encourage more substantial posts with complete sentences. Those guys seem to know each other well, but sometimes it reads like they're speaking in code.

Molina said the right things in his statement, presumably because he said the wrong things Tuesday night after the game. I'm just glad he was able to play and stink up the joint yesterday. Re: Garcia, I think Hawing made a very good educated guess about anxiety disorder. It can be a really rough condition, and if he's dealing with it, I hope the team helps him get it sorted out.

Well done!

I think everyone here will be thrilled if Yuni and Casey tear it up for the rest of the season, including the people who have been most critical of them. IMHO it's brutally obvious that replacing Yuni with a replacement-level ss before the season started would have added to the win column, and the weight of the evidence says we'd be better off replacing Yuni with a replacement-level ss today, tomorrow, or next week. The "back of his bubble gum card" shows a bad hitter over the course of his career who maybe, just maybe, could help a team win if he hit at his best while playing strong defense. Unfortunately, his defense is terrible. He's a millstone, and any competent GM would replace him given the opportunity; for a manager not to play Hairston at ss as much as possible should be a firing offense. Casey is a more complicated case because he has helped the team in the past. The numbers on the back of his bubble gum card, if they include minor league numbers (I know, minor league baseball is an utterly different game whose stats are completely random, but indulge me) tell a very conflicting story. Nothing is certain in baseball, but I think if Taylor Green had been the Brewers' 3b for the past two months, (1) our 3b wouldn't have hit three HRs yesterday, and (2) we'd probably have been up a win before yesterday. That said, right now . . . heck, what do I know? I think Taylor Green is probably a better player than Casey McGehee, but McGehee has made his case forcefully. The thing that annoys me is that he could put up a .400 OPS the rest of the year, and management would keep letting him dine out on yesterday's line. Then there's Kotsay and Counsell, who have proved themselves utterly useless by any meaningful measure of performance other than old = good. Funny that JohnBriggs didn't mention them.

I have to say, everything else aside, he has a right to complain about this stuff. Fans who insult family members, wish illness or injury on people, etc., are a small minority, but they do exist, and they should crawl back under the rocks they came from. That said, LaRussa's self-importance and arrogance still shine through, because he acts as if those jerks (who exist everywhere in equal proportion . . . okay, more in Philly) give him the right to generalize about all Milwaukee fans. One of the things that mystifies me about the arrogance of some Cardinal types toward the Brewers is that Milwaukee and St. Louis may very well be the two most similar cities in MLB. Both cities have blue collar attitudes, people are generally pretty friendly and approachable, quality of life matters more than pace of life . . . St. Louis has worse summers and Milwaukee has worse winters, but basically StL is a slightly larger variation on Milwaukee. Cardinal fans, by and large, would love the untucking thing if Mike Cameron explained it to them. Arrogance from Yankee fans enrages me; arrogance from (a subgroup of) Cards fans just confuses me.

Thank you, you thug.

Man, I have been as hard on Casey as anybody here, so let me just say -- well done, sir!

For all the right things people are saying here, this is my nominee for "worth reading twice."

Tony LaRussa has had a hell of a career, incredible success, and I think in many respects he's a brilliant manager. He'll make the Hall of Fame, and he'll deserve it. But he sure won't be the first loathsome, low character guy to get a plaque. The DUI, the Glenn Beck thing (which I merely mention without comment, so as not to run afoul of our rules about political discussion), his unparalleled care and nurturing of steroid cheats, his constant hypocritical whining and seemingly pathological lying . . . TLR has done a lot to make baseball less enjoyable and less honorable. I'm sure the sport would have at least a few more fans and at least a slightly better reputation if TLR had never been born.

Good catch, LE. I haven't been paying close enough attention; do we know whether he was hurt or something? The turnaround is stunning: 24/28 K/BB in his first 45.1 innings, 62/22 in his last 61.1. The P50 guys mentioned his increased fly ball rate, but his HRs are actually down too. Very encouraging.

Doesn't it seem likely that, when the Brewers traded for Rodriguez, they already had a pretty good idea that they could/would bargain the option away? If so, then the Brewers never really undertook that risk, however big or small it was.

Great work as always, guys, and a welcome morning distraction. I always try to find something to argue with, but this time out all I can find are really marginal issues. I'd put Green ahead of Schafer, but it's almost a coin toss . . . Richardson ahead of Khris Davis strikes me as a little too reactive to very recent events, but you guys have a better sense of their physical tools, and I suspect that has something to do with their placements. I'd put Bucci over Heckathorn based on the two-year age difference; that's probably my strongest point of disagreement, but again, it's a marginal thing. Overall, at this point, I like our top 12 just fine, given all the talent we've traded away. With (hopefully) the other draft signings, that's going to be a strong top15 in a couple of weeks. It is a lot of upper-level talent, and even Jungmann and Bradley will be closer to that group than to the raw kids, which is a great thing for a team in win-now mode. I just hope our brain trust has the good sense to make use of these older prospects, rather than letting them waste away (Gamel) or undervaluing them in trades (Nelson Cruz). For the record, and just in case this is a good argument starter, I have near-zero confidence in Nick Ramirez. I don't get why the Brewers keep drafting these older, defensively limited, halfway-decent power prospects at 1b with poor batting eyes. Ramirez (age 21 season but an August birthday, just got to A), Halton (24 at AA), Morris (22, just got to AA), Hawn (22 at A) if you swap out plate discipline for power . . . . What's the precedent for getting value out of this type of player? Morris has the best shot at putting something together, but he hasn't knocked anybody's socks off. Heck, Matt LaPorta is basically the super-premium version of this type of player, and look at how he's disappointed. At least a guy with LaPorta's raw power has trade value, but with these lower-wattage variants, what's the point?