gregmag

In my humble opinion, some of the comments on both sides of the Lawrie debate have been a bit hyperbolic. What we have here is a guy who hit very well in AA as a 20 year-old. Guys like that sometimes grow up to be Ryan Braun, but I don't think you can fairly assume that anybody will develop to that level. Ryan Braun is an established major league star whose first four seasons compare to the early careers of quite a few Hall of Famers. Even if Lawrie had absolutely dominated AA pitching, which he didn't, you couldn't project him out to that level. Braun is just too good. Lawrie has established a chance to become that good, but he'll have to clear a bunch more hurdles before he gets there. At the same time, I don't think you can say there's a meaningful chance Lawrie will crash and burn. He could crash and burn; anybody could. But Lawrie has built up an impressive performance record to date, and nothing about him suggests a special likelihood of cratering. Not many hitters can thrive in AA at age 20, and I suspect that not many guys who have done so have failed to have good major league careers. Personally, I think Lawrie will end up as a very good MLB hitter at a corner position. If the corner position is 3b, he seems to me like a reasonable bet to play in some All-Star games. I don't see any affirmative evidence, yet, that would lead me to bet he'll become Ryan Braun. For me, trading that player for a number 2 starter is a fair deal, especially given the Brewers' distribution of resources.

I'm sorry to keep beating this horse, but I can't believe anyone is still riding it . . . Dickerson last year had 53 PA for the Brewers. He had been hurt, and he was trying to adjust to a bench role on a new team. If he had gone 0 for 53 with 53 strikeouts, we wouldn't know a single thing worth knowing about him that we didn't know before the season. What we do know about Dickerson is that, even factoring in last year's bad stats, he's put up league average hitting numbers in over 500 PA while getting bounced in and out of the lineup, and he plays CF and runs well. A 29 year-old with that profile has value. He's exactly the kind of guy you want to have around in case you want to trade your stud CF prospect for Zack Greinke. Beyond that, he's a fourth OF, and what more do you want from a fourth OF? He has been a borderline starter when healthy, and that works for me. As for Gomez, he has built up an impressive record of failure in the major leagues. I don't have a database at hand, but I wouldn't think too many guys with an OPS+ of 72 in their first 1400 MLB PA have ever amounted to anything. (It would probably be easy enough to check, because how many hitters that bad even stick around that long?) You're right that Gomez and Cain are very close in age, and that may be important, but Gomez in his life has never shown a hint of what Cain showed last year at the MLB level, albeit in 158 PA.

Well, that's just about as anticlimactic as it could possibly be. But good for Gillick.

I love our prospects; I overvalue them unapologetically. Lawrie looks to me like he'll hit enough to stick at 1B / corner OF in the bigs and thrive. Guys like that are always useful. We realistically could end up regretting this deal in two years. But right now, based not on hyperbole but on what both guys have shown to date, the deal makes a lot of sense. Marcum's numbers are those of a #2 pitcher, and although he hasn't performed at that level for long, (a) it isn't like he had a bad pedigree before 2010, and (b) guys who have performed at that level for years already are either closer to declining or superstars. Lawrie has shown no signs of sticking at a key defensive position. He could turn into Ryan Braun, and you can't say that about everybody, but he hasn't established that level of promise yet. In any event, we have five pretty good, relatively young corner players at the moment (I count Gamel; I know not everyone does). Two of those guys could get hurt, and then we'd miss Lawrie -- although maybe not this year. But we're already short on pitching, and that isn't like a flukish condition. It seems to me like a bold, pragmatic, sensible trade, on both sides.

Dickerson has hit .267/.356/.403 in 527 MLB PA. Boggs has hit .212/.318/.375 in 360 MLB PA. Boggs has barely sniffed the majors since 2008. I'm not saying that Dickerson is a lock or that Boggs is a chump. Boggs has some advantages; he's a year younger and has better secondary offensive skills. I like the pickup. But I think some folks are undervaluing Dickerson because he didn't do squat in Milwaukee. He had been hurt, he got traded, and most importantly he only had 61 PA, 106 total for the year, which is next to nothing. Dickerson has shown substantially more than Boggs (or Gomez) at the MLB level, and at this moment I think he is substantially more likely to help the Brewers in 2011.

I don't think Dawson and Rice were good selections. Now, maybe I'm wrong about that; those have been lively arguments. My point in bringing it up is, what do you do if people get in who you don't think should be in, and then a comparable player comes up? I think you stay consistent. I mean, there are some really bad selections from the 1920s in the Hall; once they're in, they're in, but that doesn't mean you should set the standards by them. So -- because I happen to think that Dawson and Rice weren't good selections, and because I agree that Parker is a comparable player, I wouldn't vote for Parker. Lou Whitaker, on the other hand . . . Alan Trammell too. I would give serious consideration to both of those guys; my gut says they belong. If we did use the argument that guys should get in if they're better than the guys who are already in, then it would be easy -- Whitaker and Trammell are significantly better than Tinker and Evers.

I love, love, love these discussions. I think Simmons is extremely underrated and would be by far the best choice among the listed players. He was a great offensive catcher and good defensive catcher for a long time, and as somebody said, he just had the bad luck to play in Johnny Bench's shadow. I think his absence from the Hall is all about a failure to set standards for catchers properly. I don't think Garvey belongs. He was a flashy player in a big market, but he put up very ordinary numbers for a 1b. Of the pitchers, I'm on the fence about John. Guidry and Blue weren't good enough for long enough, in my view, although if they got in, they wouldn't be the first pitchers to get in with short careers. But they aren't, just to pull an unfair name out of the air, Koufax -- their peaks were short too. Miller changed baseball for the better. The excesses that followed aren't his fault. I hate Steinbrenner with a fiery passion, so I want him out. That's totally irrational on my part, of course. But I think it's tough to evaluate the nonplayers on anything other than subjective grounds. I will say that I don't think Martin belongs. His M.O. was to take over a team, move it forward suddenly -- because he was a genius -- but then destroy its pitching staff, burn his bridges -- because he was a borderline sociopath -- and then move on. Actually, Martin is kind of the managerial Dick Allen. Allen is the best HoF argument starter ever. His numbers are really hard to deny, but on the other hand he appears to have been a genuine cancer who hurt his teams. Oliver was a great hitter for average and not much else, but he did what he did for a long time. For some reason he reminds me of a great scoring shooting guard who was limited in other ways -- maybe a Mitch Richmond type. Al Oliver is to Rod Carew as Mitch Richmond is to Clyde Drexler -- roughly the same category of player, but a critical notch down the pole. It's not a perfect comparison: Oliver had more power than Carew, but not enough to offset Carew's other advantages.

The Bucks have put together this little run because of their depth. The bench dominates one game, then the bench disappears the next game and the starters step up. Two or three key guys are out or off every game (last night: Delfino out, Bogut offensively and Maggette off) and they win on defense and a couple of other guys just putting together good games by their standards (last night: Salmons, Jennings, and Gooden, plus Bogut defensively). I'm not saying that this approach will beat the Lakers, or that it's enough to move them forward in the playoffs; clearly they have to put together more offense. But I'm pretty comfortable saying that their lousy start was the result of the inability to get a bunch of new players integrated in camp because of all the injuries. They have had to learn together on the fly, and right now they're doing a remarkable job.

When Morgan started out, like, 30 years ago, I remember liking him. He has a great mind for baseball and an engaging manner. I just think he got complacent very quickly, and also arrogant -- like his achievements as a player exonerated him from actually having to think anything through. But really, most of the time I'd rather just watch a well-directed live feed with a stat box and a crawler or quick voiceover if something weird happens. Commercials are by design the biggest nuisance with televised baseball, but announcers generally rate a close second. They just don't add anything to the experience.

This is a really good thought, worth a detailed analysis. He appears to have been hurt over the past couple of seasons, and he's arby eligible, so he isn't without risk. His K rate went up last year, but it still isn't great, and the increase could have been a fluke. But maybe he's finally tapping into his potential, and your Bush comparison seems pretty solid on the low end (assuming McCarthy is healthy).

To say that Pierzynski is younger than Zaun and a better hitter than recent Kendall is entirely true. It is also not my idea of an endorsement. Catchers tend to fall off a cliff in their mid-30s. I don't understand why we would sign a mediocre offensive and defensive catcher, who wants real money and a starting job, at a point in his career when he's likely to decline sharply, when we have a young starting catcher we're trying to develop. That seems seriously counterproductive.

The only way a guy can truly prove himself at the major league level is to play there. Gamel has proved himself a very good hitter at AAA. He has shown in a small but not meaningless number of MLB PAs that he can hold his own under bad conditions (playing irregularly). He's still young enough to get better. The Brewers need a hitter and could plug him into the lineup in a number of ways. Why in the world wouldn't we put him in the lineup?

(1) Weeks (2) Gallardo (meaningful dropoff) (3) Braun (4) Fielder (slight dropoff) (5) Hart (6) McGehee (slight dropoff) (7) Axford

I think Ennder nailed it as to Capuano, and PrinceFielderx1 nailed it as to Parra. I also think, partially because of those two other things, that Narveson is a lock to stick around. He's a cheap, serviceable botttom-of-the-rotation guy who has at least a small chance of getting better. I think even if we keep Capuano, we're looking for two starters. Rogers could be one, but he's going to put an awful strain on the pen if he keeps walking guys. I think Parra is done as a starter, at least until he does that thing lefties do where somebody puts him in the rotation out of desperation when he's 30 and he magically puts it all together.

I am not any kind of a reflexive DM basher -- I think overall he has been an effective GM -- but this was a bad trade. Escobar wasn't ready to hit at the MLB level, Hardy was a streaky player coming off a horrible year, and Gomez hadn't shown a thing with the bat. The only thing you couldn't have predicted with some confidence is how quickly Cain was ready. I don't think Hardy over Escobar would have put us into contention, but it wouldn't have cost anything except a little salary to try. Given that we got a better player than Gomez for Edmonds, I'm betting we could have gotten a better player than Gomez for Hardy in-season.

Okay, this is awesome: He's on the smaller side of MLB players (5'10"), and he's a great hitter. From here on his nickname must be Little Pine.

Great observation Briggs. Did Melvin choose Yost? It makes sense that he would have, but my recollection (which may well be wrong) is that they were hired together. A quick search didn't turn up the hiring dates. Does anyone have this info at hand? Also, FWIW, Dean Taylor managed to hire two managers in just three years; Harry Dalton hired six (including Bamberger twice) in fifteen years. Obviously the game has changed, but I think the number of managers a GM hires is at least as much an effect as a cause of how long a GM stays in his job.

His great month is all about that batting average. He's still not walking, and he's hitting for less power than usual. He isn't going to hit .380 beating out grounders. For that matter, he isn't going to hit .280 beating out grounders. Those numbers scream "fluke," and if anything they're bad news for his development, if they convince him that he doesn't need to change his game. Also, I agree that his defense makes him valuable if he puts up a .698 OPS, but only as a fourth OF, preferably on a team that doesn't need an extra increment of power off the bench. All of that said, I'm still holding onto hope for Gomez. He already does two useful things well (defend and run), and his bat could come around. His record gives little reason for optimism, but sometimes tools guys figure things out late. I'm just glad we don't have to count on it. (I'm a guy who believed in Brent Brewer as a prospect.) The potential Gomez / Katin battle for the last OF spot could be one of next spring's most interesting stories.

I'm very sorry about that; I just assumed there was one stat. Thanks for the explanation.

I'm looking at Baseball Reference. I'm not sure what accounts for the discrepancy. Does Fangraphs compound WAR for pitching, batting, and fielding? BR has Gallardo at 2.6 WAR for pitching, 1.2 for batting, and 0 for fielding. That makes up some of the discrepancy but not all of it. I'm not sophisticated enough in advanced metrics to know whether there are competing methods of calculating WAR that yield such widely divergent results. Anyway, that's where I got my numbers; sorry if it's an unreliable source. That certainly explains (debunks) the Wolf change; whatever he is, he hasn't more than doubled his production in a week.

BTW, he's now up to 1.7 WAR. Seems odd that he'd jump 1 WAR in a week, even though he has been pitching great. Instinctively the .7 seemed low to me; 1.7 seems about right. For comparison, Gallardo has 2.6 WAR; Capuano has 0.4; Narveson has -0.3; Bush has -1.5; Davis also has -1.5.

So what's your point? Do we require Cooper's number as well? Thomas' number? Those guys had much more (per WAR, the naked eye, whatever you like) to do with that championship than Fingers did. So did Oglivie, Simmons, and Vuckovich, although Fingers was closer to them than to the other guys. I guess you might mean "HOF + key role in one championship = retired number." I've always thought that was the logic with Fingers, and I get it. I just don't agree; I don't think it's enough. The case for Fingers is only slightly stronger on that basis than the case for Sutton, and I wouldn't retire Sutton's number either. Would you retire Simmons' number if the veterans' committee put him in the Hall of Fame? Could happen.

I think retiring Fingers' number was a mistake. As great a career as he had, and as important as he was to the team, I just don't think he was here long enough. I would go with the "Hall of Famer who spent a substantial amount of his productive career with the team" standard. Aaron is a special case, because you can fairly substitute "in the city" for "with the team." Jackie Robinson is a designated special case. That gives you Aaron, Yount, Molitor, Jackie Robinson. I don't think anybody else is close.

I'm all on board with "no," for reasons everybody has stated quite well. Just for fun, though, I'm going to put in a contrary word in favor of Ben's place in the Brewers' all-time pitching pantheon. Comparing Sheets to pitchers from earlier eras based just on W/L and ERA ignores context: how good was the team when different guys were pitching, and what were the league scoring norms? That second question accounts for, among other things, the DH. This is where ERA+ really comes in handy. It isn't a be-all stat, but it does put ERA in context. WAR gives us another way to compare guys, if you're into that sort of thing. So, to take the five pitchers JB talked about: Higuera: 213 G, 1985-1994; 94-64, .595 WPCT; 3.61 ERA, 117 ERA+; 28.3 WAR Caldwell: 239 G, 1977-1984; 102-80, .560 WPCT; 3.74 ERA, 103 ERA+; 15.9 WAR Slaton: 364 G, 1971-1983; 117-121, .492 WPCT; 3.86 ERA, 97 ERA+; 15.2 WAR Haas: 245 G, 1976-1985; 91-79, .535 WPCT; 4.03 ERA, 97 ERA+ ; 14.4 WAR Sheets: 221 G, 2001-2008; 86-83, .509 WPCT; 3.72 ERA, 115 ERA+; 23.8 WAR I'm too lazy to figure each pitcher's winning percentage compared to team over the same time, which would be a useful piece of info to have. At a glance, Caldwell's and Haas' Brewer careers perfectly straddled the Brewers' greatest period of success; Sheets, in contrast, pitched during a severe dry spell. Higuera and Slaton were more mixed bags. Looking at these numbers, any way you slice them, you get two groups of pitchers: Higuera and Sheets are one group; Caldwell, Slaton, and Haas are the other. Into that second group you could add several others: Wegman 262 G, 1985-1995; 81-90, .474 WPCT; 4.16 ERA, 103 ERA+; 16.2 WAR Bosio 212 G, 1986-1992; 67-62, .519 WPCT; 3.76 ERA, 107 ERA+; 17.9 WAR Eldred 174 G 1991-1999; 64-65, .496 WPCT; 4.51 ERA, 101 ERA+; 11.9 WAR Colborn 183 G, 1972-1976; 57-60, .487 WPCT; 3.80 ERA, 98 ERA+; 12.3 WAR Travers 191 G, 1974-1980; 65-67, .492 WPCT; 3.99 ERA, 96 ERA+; 8.2 WAR Then some guys with shorter service time; I'm sure I'm forgetting someone: Bones 151 G, 1992-1996; 47-56, .456 WPCT; 4.64 ERA, 101 ERA+; 7.6 WAR). Sorensen 129 G, 1977-1980; 52-46, .531 WPCT; 3.72 ERA, 107 ERA+; 11.5 WAR Vuckovich 85 G, 1981-1986; 40-26, .606 WPCT; 3.88 ERA, 98 ERA+; 4.5 WAR Capuano 135 G, 2004-present; 43-47, .478 WPCT; 4.36 ERA, 101 ERA+; 7.8 WAR BTW, C.C. put up 4.8 WAR in his Brewer "career," with a 255 (!) ERA+. You can slice and dice the careers a lot of different ways -- placing greater emphasis on peak value, length of service time, etc. For my money (leaving aside Hurricane C.C., who really defies comparison), there's Higuera, then Sheets, and then everyone else. Sheets is a lot closer to Higuera than he is to "everyone else," and you could even make an argument for him as the greatest Brewer SP ever if you emphasized the fact that he played a major role in pitching them into the playoffs. I would go along with the numbers and put Bosio squarely on top of the "everyone else" pile; dude was good when he was good. After that I think you have to make more difficult judgment calls. Behind Bosio I'd take Caldwell, who really only pitched well for us for two years, but they were great years. After him I'd take Sorensen's quality over Wegman's quantity. I just don't see Haas or Slaton as being in the same area code as Sheets. Their peaks didn't match his; their careers don't come close. The only way either of them cracks the top six is if you put a huge premium on service time and/or standing on the mound while the hitters got them into the playoffs. JB mentioned shutouts, and that's the one other way you could try to discredit Sheets; he didn't pitch complete games. But that's a difference in eras. If you want to say that ordinary pitchers of the 70s were better than top-of-rotation guys of the 90s because the earlier guys completed more games, I suppose you can make a case. I just don't see it that way.

I live in St. Louis, so I've tried really hard to ignore the Cardinals' sanctimony. I mean, a bunch of my friends are Cardinals fans, and I like going to Busch. But this is some kind of classic: http://www.stltoday.com/s...4-a53c-7f7c159fd0fe.html Dave Duncan rips Davidson, which I think is both right and somewhat gutsy. But in doing so, he somehow manages to pontificate about how the Brewers don't do things the right way: "I can't believe the Brewers didn't make some kind of statement. The fan pays his money to come in. Part of the game is heckling." In the name of everything holy and decent, just stop. Quit with the pronouncements from on high. Nobody cares about the unwritten rules you keep perpetuating and/or making up. Just go away. (I'm not even going to get into how insufferable the Cards' TV guys are. I turn on the game, and I immediately feel my brain cells starting to kill themselves so they don't have to experience another moment of horror.)