gregmag

Did April Fool's Day come early this year? A strong start by Arnett, Rogers pitching and not walking anybody, Rivas pitching well and not walking anybody . . . these are guys who, at this point, almost no one is seriously counting on. Jimmy Nelson pitched great. Then we get Schafer starting strong at AAA and Khris D. getting his feet wet at AA. Baby steps all, but still, that's one very encouraging day.

Nice -- and nobody else from a NL Central organization on the main list.

Much of this is true, and very well said. But -- if RR has created a set of expectations that allow his players to crumble if, say, he benches McGehee at this point, or uses Loe in a more limited way, or ritually sacrifices Betancourt (I kid because I care), then that's a failing on RR's part. In other words, yes, you have to look at the big picture in evaluating RR, but RR also has to look at the big picture when he establishes his relationships with his players. No manager can succeed under conditions where, for whatever reason, he gives players leashes as long as some of these guys are getting. Trying alternatives when guys have failed over a half season isn't "Machaing it."

Do we know anything about Green to suggest that struggling at this level, right now, would mess up his head? Because if we don't, then I don't think the argument that "you can't bring up a rookie in a pennant race" holds any water. It isn't like you're asking him to be the savior of the team. You're just asking him not to stink up the joint, and even if he does -- no harm no foul, go back and get some seasoning. Good teams take calculated gambles. This team needs to take a step forward, and if you consider all available options to improve in terms of (a) evidence of likely success and (b) resources needed to make the move, Green provides BY FAR the greatest likelihood of a quick improvement. Trying him costs you nothing, and the upside return is significant. As for McGehee, he has now had plenty of time. His minor league numbers indicated that he wouldn't hit much but would play strong defense. He has now had 1.5 years as a good (not great) MLB hitter and a half season as one of the worst hitters in the game, plus his defense has died on the vine. Yes, he could recover, but we have no good reason to believe he will. If the Brewers want to win, he has to sit.

Morgan's lack of walks definitely matters going forward. He's hitting 44 points above his career average, but his OBP is only 12 points above career. The batting average is going to come back down, of course. When it does, the question will be whether he can adjust and take more free passes to keep reaching base at a good clip. Maybe he can; maybe right now he's successfully, and deliberately, sacrificing walks to drive the ball. I'm not going to argue with a .358 OBP from him. But when he's hitting .280, he's going to have to walk if he wants to play.

It's funny, I was just thinking about whether I would seem like a hopeless suck-up/optimist if I started a thread suggesting that we should give DM more credit for a few moves that have worked out brilliantly. Morgan has weaknesses, but he and Gomez make a brilliant platoon -- what looked like the team's second-worst position has become a strength. The Hardy trade still looks terrible, but finding a way to exploit Gomez's strengths in a platoon salvages at least something from the trade. Then there's the rotation. For all our angst about the G-men, we have a great bottom of the rotation with Wolf and Narveson. That had been a huge area of concern in the past, and DM deserves credit for those pickups as well. He has also done a better job recently of scratching his veteran reliever itch (notwithstanding RR's inability to run a bullpen). Now, as for the left side of the infield -- Doug, what have you done for us lately?

This is exactly right. I realized as soon as I posted my list that, given my obsession with age/level, I had made a mistake ranking Davis ahead of Gindl.

Thanks for starting this, Mrpackersfan. Here's my shot: 1. Wily Peralta 2. Tyler Thornburg 3. Taylor Green 4. Cody Scarpetta 5. Khris Davis 6. Caleb Gindl 7. Nick Bucci 8. Eric Komatsu 9. Logan Schafer 10. Kyle Heckathorn I'm not confident about the order, but this seems to me like a pretty clear top 10 right now, with two caveats: I don't know enough about Gagnon to rank him; and I think Arcia probably belongs on the list, but I have a hard time putting his performance in perspective. I see no reason to put Rivas or Gennett with this group. Rogers at this point is suspect until proven prospect. Ross, Kentrail Davis, and Richardson need to perform their ways into the discussion. The first two guys seem pretty obvious. Then I have Green ranked this high because he has a much better chance than any other position player in the system to start for the Brewers, he's having almost as good a year as anyone in the system, he has a history of strong performance (albeit interrupted by the wrist problem, but cf. Rickie Weeks), and he isn't even all that old. He's doing everything well right now. Honestly, he excites me. Then it's the parade of pitchers and outfielders, and trying to compare between the two groups makes my head hurt. Heck, trying to compare within the two groups is pretty tough, and I wouldn't argue passionately against any rearrangement of the last six names. I will say that I don't see how Schafer can rate ahead of Komatsu, or Heckathorn ahead of Bucci, until the first guy in each pair actually outplays the second guy, given that the second guy has the age/level advantage. Oh, and what has Caleb Gindl ever done except be short, be young for his level, and hit?

Paul, it's a fair question and a well thought-out post. I agree with the main response that others have offered: getting to the playoffs is huge. I think you're understating the value for the franchise of just getting that far and overstating the extent to which you / we can accurately judge the team's chances to win in the playoffs.

The difference between Hart and Khris Davis as prospects at similar points in their careers is immense. Hart played in A+ and got his feet wet at AA in his age 20 season. Khris Davis is at that same point (hopefully including the bump up to AA) in his age 23 season. Hart's age 23 season was when he got his first serious taste of Milwaukee (63 PA) after lighting up AAA. I like what Davis is doing a lot, and he certainly could have a career. But Hart's advanced production for his age was a huge part of what made him special. Given Davis' age / level, he's a lot closer to being just a guy than he is to being the prospect Hart was.

Cheez, that's a solid analysis, but I really can't imagine that Green or Schafer would be in the deal. Those two, along with Khris Davis, are probably the only position prospects in the system that have established real possibilities of starting for the Brewers at some point. I would also be annoyed if the deal included Komatsu or Gindl. I think it will be two pitchers. One we know (as much as we know anything about this) has had MLB experience -- that's Stetter/Parra/McClendon/Dillard. The other will probably be a lower-level guy, or possibly Rivas -- but more likely Ross, Merklinger, or Lasker. Bucci or Heckathorn would be too much. One thing that I keep thinking about is how to feel about the possibility of selling low on some guys, particularly Kentrail Davis and Scooter Gennett. The Brewers made a smart deal with Cutter Dykstra, but they would need to be very careful about selling low on guys like this who have serious potential but mixed track records. Don't do it unless you have seriously, confidently lost faith in them.

You wrote a great post, and I agree with most of what you said (FWIW), but this statement floored me. This is why I almost always wince when somebody says, "I don't care what any stat says, here's what I know." You're saying that, if RR had put somebody (anybody?) other than Loe in as our 8th inning guy, we would be ten games better. We would be 59-33, the best team in baseball, a game and a half better than the Phillies, with at least a ten-game lead over St. Louis, if only Loe had not pitched the 8th inning. Our (lack of) hitting and defense had nothing to do with those losses, and whoever you would have put into those games instead of Loe would have gotten the job done every time. That's mind-boggling. Has any relief pitcher -- heck, any player -- ever hurt a team that much? In a half season? You're also saying, with absolute certainty or at least great confidence, that Loe's 8th inning ineptitude has cost us more than starting offensive and defensive black holes at 3b and ss -- which you know, how? With all due respect, and as smart as you and most other people on this board are, this is exactly why I put close to zero stock in anybody's tossed-off assertions, and why I put quite a bit of stock (though not anything close to absolute faith) in the compilations of information that we call "stats."

I agree with your main points that this was a great trade (assuming DM doesn't blow the prospect selection and RR doesn't blow the option) and that it doesn't appreciably affect our ability to go get a ss. But the problem with your comparative logic here is that, even assuming WAR is unreliable and the bullpen actually has cost us five wins (which it hasn't; hitters help to lose those games by not hitting) is that picking up Rodriguez doesn't fix the whole bullpen problem -- multiple guys have caused that problem, and Rodriguez will only soak up what would have been the 25 or so worst bullpen innings going forward (and even that assumes RR will use him properly). OTOH, picking up a competent ss would solve the whole Yuni problem. Therefore, I'm pretty sure (without doing math I don't know how to do) that picking up a decent ss would be a substantially more productive move than getting Rodriguez. I like that the prospects we send out depend on how Rodriguez pitches for us. If he pitches great, that increases our chances in a tight pennant race. If we have to give up a couple of decent quality guys for that leverage, I think we'll be doing the right thing. OTOH, if he stinks up the joint, we get a discount. I think offering arby could depend a lot on his performance as well. If he's lights out for us, then he'll get a multiyear offer to close somewhere. If he completes a down season in down fashion, then offering arby becomes a lot more risky (plus he might drop out of the type-A category anyway).

I was at the Cardinals / Blue Jays game last night, and I thought people might find this interesting. LaRussa basically gave away the game, and a tie for first place in the division, with three big mistakes: (1) He had Westbrook batting eighth. We all know about this quirk, but in this particular game it had the most predictable consequence you could imagine. In the second inning -- an inning where ineup construction still yields some meaningful probabilities -- Westbrook came up with a runner on second and two out, and he looked at strike three. Having a hitter up there might have been useful. (In fairness, Descalso walked and scored leading off the third.) (2) This is the doozie: With a runner on second and one out in the fifth, he had Westbrook intentionally walk Bautista -- to get to Adam Lind. So you put a runner on base with one out to bring up the cleanup hitter and lose the platoon advantage. Lind singled, the next two guys after him singled, Bautista scored the Jays' fourth run, and that was it for Westbrook. (3) Bottom of the seventh, 4-4 game. With one out and nobody on, the pitcher's slot comes up. That would be Lance Lynn, who had pitched two perfect innings. Rather than bring out a professional hitter, LaRussa let the rookie reliever bat. He grounded out, and the Cards ended up going down 1-2-3; they never scored again. Lynn pitched a scoreless eighth, although he allowed two runners to reach base. How little confidence does LaRussa have in his bullpen? In light of our frustration with our inexperienced manager, and given our general collective loathing for LaRussa, I thought this was fun stuff.

First of all, I'm not sure all of your complaints are really about "statistical analysis." Peripherals and BABIP, yes; stuff, I thought, was a scouting concept in the great divide. Of course, the divide is converging, but that fact just makes your objections more confusing. What are you really saying? I don't take you to argue that statistical analysis is without value (or that scouting analysis of stuff, etc. is without value). You're saying that these things are overused. I have two problems with that argument. First, it's imprecise. I don't think anybody would disagree that "results" should figure heavily in assessing players. In fact, "results" are what statistics represent. So are you saying something specific about how and when we should place more emphasis on what you're calling "results," or are you just unhappy that people agree with your somewhat negative assessment of Greinke? Second, your last paragraph just strikes me as myopic. Do you really think both sides of this argument don't get aired? What you're saying is no more or less "tired" than the responses you're complaining about.

Remember that Bill Hall was a shortstop too, back when he was a good hitter. Who knows, but it seems at least plausible that he could have held more of his value if they had just left him alone at short. Developing Hall, Hardy, and Escobar at short, and then finding yourself with a sub-replacement guy when you want to make a playoff run, is an instance of plain bad resource management.

This is one of those threads where two groups of people are talking right past each other. One group is analyzing Greinke's performance and trying to suggest what that performance indicates about what he'll do from here on. The other group is judging Greinke by various iterations of a moral standard -- don't make excuses for him, he has to perform, he's supposed to be an ace, we gave up a lot to get him. IMHO, each of those discussions, for the most part, makes sense on its own terms. Personally, I'm only interested in the first one, because I don't ascribe any particular moral weight to sports. Other people want to have the other discussion, and that's great. But, to paraphrase Bill Murray, crossing the two wires is bad: There is such a thing as good performance that generates bad results (also bad performance that generates good results), and sometimes good players have bad stretches, and all the moralistic chest-thumping in the world won't change those facts.

What's interesting about Yuni is his use as negative-value trade bait. The Royals made us take him with Greinke; everybody here who wants to trade for a ss wouldn't package prospects without Yuni. Yes, I know that on either end part of the issue is "getting a shortstop back," but Yuni's presence is what makes the teams that have him fixate on trading for a ss in the first place. So he needs an appropriate nickname. I thought about "poison pill," "medicine," "spinach," or "deadweight." But after minutes of intense thought, I propose "loss leader." It just has such a great double resonance.

Thank you, [Deity, natural force, or poetic construct of one's choice]. I agree with X that Boggs for Kotsay should be next, but Kotsay hasn't been anywhere near world-historically bad, which seems to be the Brewers' present standard for dumping veteran bench guys. Now, Yuni . . . Yuni is world-historically bad, or darn close (which btw was about as hard to predict as recidivism by Lindsay Lohan). So what's the standard for dumping veteran starters? Maybe if he robbed a bank or something . . .

CO -- I turned on the TV at what must have been exactly the same time. I couldn't believe it. Baseball TV broadcasters, as a rule, are semiliterate hacks who probably couldn't get another job, and the Cards' mouth-breathers are bad by the miserable standards of their profession. Where do they get off spewing this idiocy? Do they even know that the untucked shirts thing, which they bemoan as a lack of "class," was Mike Cameron's homage to his hardworking dad? Mike Cameron -- by consensus one of the classiest guys in baseball. The Cards broadcasters are your basic undeservedly rich twits who use their positions to tear down other people's ways of doing things, especially if those ways reflect the experience of actually having to work for a living. Words cannot describe how deeply I despise them.

I get your point, and I agree with you about the mistakes you refer to (and probably more that we could both refer to). But I do think managers take time to adjust to managing. I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't "need" that time; it just happens. Making the decisions differs a lot from watching the decisions get made. If Roenicke is like most managers, he will change some of his approaches over the first part of his career, as he feels the consequences of his mistakes. I also think he has given indications of being an intelligent guy who is capable of learning as he goes. Probably a new manager is also more reluctant than a veteran to bring the hammer down on guys who aren't performing.

I never can figure out the "We're very good, so no one should say anything about how we might improve" routine. I mean, I just don't get it. Number one, every team can get better, and unless you're completely running away from the pack you should be figuring out how to get better. Number two, it's a Brewers discussion forum. What are people supposed to do, start fifteen different threads about what a great hitter Prince Fielder is? I think everybody is enjoying the winning (well, maybe not xisxisxishttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif), but problems are interesting.

This is true, and well said. The problem is that you're only looking at his positives. Every player has positives. But getting "the occasional hit" and "working the count" doesn't make a player useful as a hitter. All the versatility and toughness in the world doesn't make a bad player worth a roster spot. Counsell is a .200 hitter with no power and declining range in the field, which isn't surprising, because he's almost as old as I am. Counsell, in his Brewers career, has exceeded my most optimistic hopes for what he could do. I love the guy, and I have tremendous respect for him. But he can't play anymore. Now, is he worse than Betancourt and Wilson? That's a depressingly difficult question to answer.

Also, I love hearing that the kid takes greater joy from his team's victory than from his individual career advancement -- or at least knows enough to say he does.

The suggestion above that this is a "lame" topic to discuss annoys me a bunch, and I'm glad brwrsfan brought it up. The question a GM should constantly be asking is: How can I improve the roster? I don't care if we're on a 20-6 run; you can always get better. You have to ask whether these are the best bench options available to us, because -- to paraphrase endaround's excellent point, you can never score or prevent too many runs. Taking a step back . . . at this point we have no one on the bench who provides a realistic chance of either getting on base or jacking a HR, unless you believe in Kotsay's OBP, which I don't. How can you look at a bench with no on-base guy and no power guy and say "That's not a problem"? I think I'm pretty close to what logan proposed above: Everyone seems to agree that Gomez looks good as a bench player / spot starter, assuming Nyjer holds up his end of CF. That makes sense to me. Gomez actually does things that compensate for his lack of a bat, and even his bat will probably look better if you slot his appearances carefully. Kotsay doesn't seem like he can play defense in a useful way, and he has no power. His OBP is okay so far. If we think he'll put up a .350 OBP over the season, then maybe he's as useful as Boggs would be in his place. I don't think he can do it, and I don't think it's enough. Boggs for Kotsay. Nieves makes Gomez look like a hitter. It would be very difficult for Kottaras not to be an improvement. Heck, I suspect Maldonado would be an improvement. The infield thing is, for me, the most complicated. Counsell's bat has deteriorated to the point where he doesn't really have "OBP skills"; all he can do is draw enough walks to turn a .200 BA into a .300 OBP. That isn't helpful. The question is whether his defense is still good enough to make his presence worthwhile. Certainly having a defense-first guy to back up our porous left-side infielders makes sense, but a defense-only guy? I'm not sure. I also don't have enough of a read on Wilson to judge him against Counsell. I'd love to dump Yuni, but he may not be worse than Counsell or Wilson. Green is a tough call, as another thread is discussing, because his fate is tied up with how much rope we give McGehee. I'd probably wait a while longer to bring him up, mainly for the sake of his development. All I know for sure is that looking around for something resembling a real ss should remain DM's highest priority.