gregmag

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.)

Martin Prado made his MLB debut at age 22. At 24, in 2008, he put up an OPS of .838 in 254 MLB plate appearances. Your link suggests, rather bluntly, that argument from analogy is inherently fallacious. I would love for you to substantiate that general point -- even articulate it, for that matter -- and/or to explain why Martin Prado belongs in this discussion. For that matter, nobody is talking about DFAing anybody, so I don't really understand anything about the first sentence of your post. In no way am I suggesting that comparing Farris to Iribarren provides a conclusive reason not to add Farris to the 40-man roster. I do think the comparison is sufficiently close, with a pretty clear edge to Iribarren overall, that it's one useful starting point for discussion. If you think, as Al implied, that Farris has sufficient value to warrant adding him to the 40-man, then what is it about him that sets him apart from an Iribarren? There could be a lot of answers. Maybe we should place higher value on his speed and baserunning acumen than I'm inclined to. Maybe there's something about his makeup to suggest that he'll be a late bloomer. Maybe I've missed reports that his defense is beyond special. I'd be interested in knowing why people who really like Farris think he has enough value to warrant a roster spot, and the Iribarren comparison is one way into that argument. What I see is a 24 year-old 2b who would not appear to be a safe bet to top a .600 MLB OPS at 25. I don't toss around words like "stupid" much, and I'm certainly not going to say the Brewers were stupid to send Farris to the AFL. I'm not an expert on how the team makes AFL decisions, and I can't find a list of past assignments, but I have a recollection that the assignments aren't all top prospects; I thought there were some position quotas involved, and also that teams sometimes send less-heralded older players to see whether they're 40-man material. Maybe sending Farris has something to do with one of those factors. Or maybe, as you imply, the Brewers love him. I may be wrong about him, for sure. But if we all held back our opinions whenever they seemed to conflict with the views of the front office, this wouldn't be much of a forum. Certainly if Farris performs brilliantly in the AFL, that will be a big new point in his favor.

Martin Prado made his MLB debut at age 22. At 24, in 2008, he put up an OPS of .838 in 254 MLB plate appearances. Your link suggests, rather bluntly, that argument from analogy is inherently fallacious. I would love for you to substantiate that general point -- even articulate it, for that matter -- and/or to explain why Martin Prado belongs in this discussion. For that matter, nobody is talking about DFAing anybody, so I don't really understand anything about the first sentence of your post. In no way am I suggesting that comparing Farris to Iribarren provides a conclusive reason not to add Farris to the 40-man roster. I do think the comparison is sufficiently close, with a pretty clear edge to Iribarren overall, that it's one useful starting point for discussion. If you think, as Al implied, that Farris has sufficient value to warrant adding him to the 40-man, then what is it about him that sets him apart from an Iribarren? There could be a lot of answers. Maybe we should place higher value on his speed and baserunning acumen than I'm inclined to. Maybe there's something about his makeup to suggest that he'll be a late bloomer. Maybe I've missed reports that his defense is beyond special. I'd be interested in knowing why people who really like Farris think he has enough value to warrant a roster spot, and the Iribarren comparison is one way into that argument. What I see is a 24 year-old 2b who would not appear to be a safe bet to top a .600 MLB OPS at 25. I don't toss around words like "stupid" much, and I'm certainly not going to say the Brewers were stupid to send Farris to the AFL. I'm not an expert on how the team makes AFL decisions, and I can't find a list of past assignments, but I have a recollection that the assignments aren't all top prospects; I thought there were some position quotas involved, and also that teams sometimes send less-heralded older players to see whether they're 40-man material. Maybe sending Farris has something to do with one of those factors. Or maybe, as you imply, the Brewers love him. I may be wrong about him, for sure. But if we all held back our opinions whenever they seemed to conflict with the views of the front office, this wouldn't be much of a forum. Certainly if Farris performs brilliantly in the AFL, that will be a big new point in his favor.

Well, I don't think Farris has a future in MLB, for the same reasons I don't think he has a future in Milwaukee. I'm not adamant about the point, but that's my best sense right now. I don't think a 24 year-old, limited to 2b, who hits .280 in a hitter-friendly AAA environment, with good speed but no patience or power, has any future. If I'm right, and if that's how other teams see him, then I'm not really concerned about losing him for nothing in the Rule 5, as I don't think he'd bring anything worthwhile back in a trade anyway. Everybody on my add list down to and including Katin has more present and future value. That leaves two roster spots. I'd much rather devote those spots to Fielder trade additions or DM's usual high grade of waiver-wire pickups -- or, what the heck, his usual low grade of Rule 5 dice-roll -- than to protecting Farris from the Rule 5. Isn't Hernan Iribarren a useful comparison? It's pretty obvious, and I haven't followed the Farris debate avidly, so I apologize if someone has covered this ground. These two guys had essentially the same age-24 season at AAA: .277/.329/.341 for Iribarren, .274/.311/.348 for Farris (excluding his Arizona rehab stint). Farris was the better base-stealer, but Iribarren played CF and LF in addition to 2b. Look at their OPS progressions, ages 21-24: Iribarren: 21/A/.739; 22/A+/.761; 23/AA/.793; 24/AAA/.670 Farris: 21/R+/.792; 22/A/.709; 23/A+/.725; 24/AAA/.659 Iribarren was a level ahead of Farris for each of the first three years, but Iribarren soundly outhit Farris during the last two of those seasons. Iribarren in his age 24 season crashed and burned, and it took that crash to bring him down to Farris' age 24 level. Iribarren, btw, rebounded from what for him was that terrible age 24 season by repeating AAA at age 25 and posing a .774 OPS. That was when we lost him on waivers, this past March, and nobody seemed excessively broken up. Can you imagine if Farris next year, at AAA, improved his OPS by 100 points and learned to play outfield? That would mark an enormous improvement in his value . . . and it would take that enormous improvement to get him up to where Iribarren was when we lost him for nothing. So no, I'm not really concerned about protecting Farris for fear that we'll lose him for nothing. I don't mean to bash the kid; he seems to work hard and get a lot out of his ability. I just don't see him as a good use of a roster spot in present conditions.

Well, I don't think Farris has a future in MLB, for the same reasons I don't think he has a future in Milwaukee. I'm not adamant about the point, but that's my best sense right now. I don't think a 24 year-old, limited to 2b, who hits .280 in a hitter-friendly AAA environment, with good speed but no patience or power, has any future. If I'm right, and if that's how other teams see him, then I'm not really concerned about losing him for nothing in the Rule 5, as I don't think he'd bring anything worthwhile back in a trade anyway. Everybody on my add list down to and including Katin has more present and future value. That leaves two roster spots. I'd much rather devote those spots to Fielder trade additions or DM's usual high grade of waiver-wire pickups -- or, what the heck, his usual low grade of Rule 5 dice-roll -- than to protecting Farris from the Rule 5. Isn't Hernan Iribarren a useful comparison? It's pretty obvious, and I haven't followed the Farris debate avidly, so I apologize if someone has covered this ground. These two guys had essentially the same age-24 season at AAA: .277/.329/.341 for Iribarren, .274/.311/.348 for Farris (excluding his Arizona rehab stint). Farris was the better base-stealer, but Iribarren played CF and LF in addition to 2b. Look at their OPS progressions, ages 21-24: Iribarren: 21/A/.739; 22/A+/.761; 23/AA/.793; 24/AAA/.670 Farris: 21/R+/.792; 22/A/.709; 23/A+/.725; 24/AAA/.659 Iribarren was a level ahead of Farris for each of the first three years, but Iribarren soundly outhit Farris during the last two of those seasons. Iribarren in his age 24 season crashed and burned, and it took that crash to bring him down to Farris' age 24 level. Iribarren, btw, rebounded from what for him was that terrible age 24 season by repeating AAA at age 25 and posing a .774 OPS. That was when we lost him on waivers, this past March, and nobody seemed excessively broken up. Can you imagine if Farris next year, at AAA, improved his OPS by 100 points and learned to play outfield? That would mark an enormous improvement in his value . . . and it would take that enormous improvement to get him up to where Iribarren was when we lost him for nothing. So no, I'm not really concerned about protecting Farris for fear that we'll lose him for nothing. I don't mean to bash the kid; he seems to work hard and get a lot out of his ability. I just don't see him as a good use of a roster spot in present conditions.

I just got done posting elsewhere that I don't like Dillard enough to add him to the 40-man in the offseason, but this really isn't a bad idea. I don't see any reason to believe he would succeed as a MLB starter -- but what the heck. Take a look at anybody you control who has any chance to help. I wish we had people in line ahead of him to take flyers on this month, but we really don't, and we do have to make a decision about him.

I don't see either Farris or Katin as having long-term value -- I don't think either will have a substantial big-league career. But I can see how Katin could help the Brewers in the short term. I don't see that with Farris; if the Brewers lose Weeks, they need a big-league hitter to play 2b, and I don't think Farris is a big-league hitter. Maybe if you want short-term injury insurance for Weeks, but that's a heck of a small niche. Also, I can easily see somebody grabbing Katin in the Rule 5. I can see somebody grabbing Dillard, but I don't see him as having above-replacement value. Kintzler has been added. Peralta for sure. Green, in a year like this where we have some space, absolutely. Merklinger, yes, for the reasons Al stated. I like Wheeler as a future utility candidate, but I don't think anyone would grab him now in the Rule 5; I sort of feel the same way about Hand, whom I like a bit more than Dillard. Should add: (Kintzler), Peralta, Green, Merklinger, Katin. Will add: (Kintzler), Peralta, Green, Katin, Farris.

I don't see either Farris or Katin as having long-term value -- I don't think either will have a substantial big-league career. But I can see how Katin could help the Brewers in the short term. I don't see that with Farris; if the Brewers lose Weeks, they need a big-league hitter to play 2b, and I don't think Farris is a big-league hitter. Maybe if you want short-term injury insurance for Weeks, but that's a heck of a small niche. Also, I can easily see somebody grabbing Katin in the Rule 5. I can see somebody grabbing Dillard, but I don't see him as having above-replacement value. Kintzler has been added. Peralta for sure. Green, in a year like this where we have some space, absolutely. Merklinger, yes, for the reasons Al stated. I like Wheeler as a future utility candidate, but I don't think anyone would grab him now in the Rule 5; I sort of feel the same way about Hand, whom I like a bit more than Dillard. Should add: (Kintzler), Peralta, Green, Merklinger, Katin. Will add: (Kintzler), Peralta, Green, Katin, Farris.

The "projection" confusion is probably my fault, because I said MLEs are useful in projecting future MLB performance. MLEs are not a projection system -- an attempt to predict future performance. They are a translation system -- an attempt to figure out how a player in one league would have fared at the same time in a different league. They're useful for projecting minor leaguers' future MLB performance, because they give you MLB-translated stats as a baseline for projection, but they aren't projections themselves. As to whether MLEs reflect a "crude" methodology . . . I generally think systematizing information is useful. It's one thing if you want to say "I know Mark Rogers could thrive in MLB right now, because he throws 101 mph, and performance stats don't adequately capture the importance of that fact." That may be right; we can argue about that assertion on its own terms. But if you're saying "I think Brendan Katin could do [whatever you think] in MLB right now because he has hit 24 homers in the PCL," then you're already talking about minor league stats, and I think MLEs advance that sort discussion helpfully. We can still argue about whether the MLE is systematizing the information in the right way, but for my money that's a better argument than having a bunch of guys just saying off the top of their heads what they think the PCL stats mean. Either way you're trying to figure out what the PCL stats tell you; MLEs just introduce some measure of rigor and consistency into that effort.

I didn't purport to answer anything; I just asked a question, which you appear not to want to answer. You made a sweeping assertion about something you admit knowing little about. I just want to know what the basis for your assertion is. If the answer is that you have no basis for the assertion, then that would be helpful to know. FWIW, I find the .376 => .272 translation for Katin really strange too. In fact, it just looks wrong to me. I've been looking at MLEs for a long time, but I have no expertise in calculating them. A quick Web search turned up this MLE calculator: http://www.minorleaguesplits.com/mlecalc.html I'm sure there are others floating around out there; this is just the first one I found, and at a glance the person who posted it seems to take the exercise seriously. For Katin (Nashville stats: .280/.376/.563), this calculator yields an MLE of .245/.304/.463. Much higher, but still a big deflation of a .376 OBP. But then if you run Mat Gamel's MLE on the same calculator (Nashville stats: .309/.387/.511), you get .270/.330/.427. The translation system -- at least the one this calculator is using -- appears to put some emphasis on batting average and strikeout rates as factors in a player's ability to maintain OBP at a higher level. Katin has struck out 88 times to Gamel's 64 in about the same number of PA, and Gamel has outhit Katin by about 30 points. (See the exchange immediately above between Louis Ely and battlekow.) Intuitively, for me, the notion that a .900 OPS in the PCL would translate directly to a .760 in MLB (Gamel), or a .940 with 40 percent more strikeouts to a .770 (Katin) doesn't seem at all strange. I don't know where the poster to whom you were responding got his numbers. It would have been reasonable to ask. I do know that I've read studies and looked at numbers over the years that make MLEs appear very helpful in predicting future MLB performance. If you have some basis for believing they aren't, that would be very interesting to me, and I would still like to know what it is. ************************** Re: your subsequent post: Patterson had 135 PA at Nashville last year. That's not much to work with. McGehee made an exceptional jump in production from the minors to the majors. That surprised everyone, and it surely did confound projection systems, but that doesn't make his 2008 minor league numbers any more impressive. Translations are imprecise, because they necessarily juggle a lot of factors, but all the MLE is doing is synthesizing and summarizing what minor league statistics allow us to infer about a player's present level of production.

I don't follow MLE closely, but I've heard it's pretty much as accurate as an 18th century meteorologist. Could you please provide some support for this assertion?

Molitor fan, this is an interesting point. There is pretty strong evidence that, as others have said, big numbers from 22 year-old hitters in R+ don't often lead to glory, but I think you're right that we can't just chalk it up to age. One factor that may matter is attrition. Players fall off the development path at every level, and my sense is that more players fail at the rookie levels than higher up the chain. To put it another way, the average player in R+ is 21.75, but you don't see many legit 25.75 year-old prospects at AAA. Most hitters who have substantial big-league careers hit the majors by 24 or 25. So, in that pool of 21.75 year-old R+ hopefuls, you have to figure that the subset of real prospects will skew toward the younger side. Now, we might assume that, fine, rookie ball separates the wheat from the chaff, but doesn't hitting like Tony Festa or Lou Palmisano did count as wheat? I don't know . . . age differences at the outset of careers seem to have powerful predictive force, maybe relatively more powerful predictive force than performance. All of this is about hitters. As filthyfrog said, pitchers are different. They're inherently harder to predict, and they also have that critical injury nexus in their early 20s. I'm not sure that, health and team control being equal, I wouldn't take the future of a 22 year-old pitcher who's dominating rookie ball over a 19 year-old pitcher who's similarly dominating AA.

Trading Gomez this offseason seems like a pointless move. We already sold Hardy low to get Gomez, but at least there you can argue that we probably could have made the same trade with the Twins when Hardy was playing well; both guys lost trade value at similar rates. But Gomez has close to no trade value right now (at least JJ has been kept the pace). Unless you can flip him for an underachiever whose chances for improvement you like significantly better, then the wiser move is to start him in AAA and see if anything happens. If he fails, then you haven't really lost anything . . . . . . except the development space at AAA. Here's where I'd love to hear our minor league mavens' thoughts. The value of Gindl and Haydel seems to have a lot to do with whether either can play CF at the MLB level. In Gindl's case, that factor may make or break his chance to be a MLB regular. Would getting Gomez the PT he needs at Nashville be worth the time in CF that such a strategy would cost Gindl and, to a lesser extent, Haydel? Or can the AAA staff juggle those priorities effectively?

Everything I have ever seen or heard about Farris suggests that he's strictly a 2b. If all you can do is play 2b, then you have to start to help the team. Even if it turns out Farris can play CF (which seems a likelier pleasant surprise than ss or 3b), his overall offensive game looks like too much of a liability to make him useful. That said, he keeps hitting for a high average and stealing bases, and if somehow he really is a .290-hitting 2b/CF at the MLB level, then he'll have a career. I just don't see the evidence at this point. But HiAndTight makes a great point overall. We've talked about this with the bullpen as well -- good homegrown options at non-glamor spots have great value. The Brewers definitely seem to take Wheeler seriously as a utility prospect, and I agree that Green fits into that category as well. Green has not flashed Loretta-Cirillo ability to this point, but he hits enough and has enough versatility to help off the bench if he stays on course. Actually, it's still possible that Casey McGehee could end up as a supersub. He's roasting the doubters now, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility that he regresses to a sub-.750 OPS. If he does, our best lineup as soon as a year from now might turn out to be something like: c Lucroy 1b Hart 2b Weeks 3b Lawrie ss Escobar lf Braun cf Cain rf Gamel The Brewers still have, I believe, four years of control with McGehee. The question then becomes what an arbitrator would do with a guy who was already falling off his peak. I am in no way saying this to hate on McGehee -- he has done nothing but put runs on the board since he got here, and he's a solid regular until and unless he drops off. I'm just thinking that it wouldn't be completely weird for him to end up in the utility discussion.

Steveo makes a very good point about Dykstra. I hated the trade at the time, and I still hate it if we don't take Dykstra into account. Basically, Thatcher for Linebrink was a wash at best, and I think it was worse than a wash. That seemed apparent at the time, and hindsight doesn't change my view of it. Then to add Inman and Garrison . . . I certainly agree those guys were tradeable, and I was way too high on Inman at the time. But healthy young pitchers with strong performance records are useful commodities, and I think trading those two commodities for the perceived value of Linebrink minus Thatcher was a serious waste of commodities. The Brewers needed a lot at the time, and Inman looked like our best trading chip. I can't see the percentage in getting essentially nothing for him. However -- if we view the trade from the Brewers' standpoint as a do-over on a couple of draft picks, then you can make a good argument that Dykstra pulls the trade out of the fire. At that point you're talking about assessing Inman and Garrison as, essentially, blown high-round picks, and throwing them back for what's behind door #2. Now, I'm not sure what those guys could have done in their minor league careers to have looked any better than they did at the time. The issues with them weren't about performance so much as ceiling, which makes me question why the Brewers picked them to begin with. But whatever process caused the team to end up with a couple of pitchers that weren't likely to help at the MLB level, taking a do-over at that moment looks like a smart move. So I like the trade now better than I did then, but only because it turns out to have helped to ameliorate an earlier mistake -- not a big win for DM in the aggregate (and I'm no DM basher). The experience has taught me to take more seriously the weaknesses of high-performance, low-upside prospects.

If somebody legitimately beats out Dickerson for the final roster spot next spring, then we project to have a pretty great team. To put it another way, he looks like a borderline starter at best, a decent platoon guy-4th OF at worst, and I would love to have five outfielders who are better than that. He also brings skills the present team doesn't have in abundance -- LH bat (aside from Fielder), outfield defense, speed -- which makes him an especially good bench fit for us. To say that all he does well is walk and steal bases ignores the facts that he hits .270, has a little pop, and can play any OF position credibly, and to fret about his strikeouts ignores the fact that they haven't (to this point, anyway) stopped him from hitting .270.

Thanks, Colby. Both of those points really help to put the Covey situation in context. Do you have an opinion about what (if anything) we should infer about White, Bates, Morris, and/or Wick? I'm wondering whether these guys may be seeking deals above slot (if there are even slot values for the lower rounds) but within the realm of the possible, or whether they're asking for the moon because they're comfortable going back into the draft next year (I assume that's Gibson's posture), or whether there are just logistical reasons for the lack of deals at this point.

I don't feel strongly about the Covey situation, but I sort of wonder why they're asking for the extra $300k. Not "why" in a moral sense, but in a sense of value, bargaining power, and/or logic. The Commissioner's Office sets the slot prices. (Of course that's anticompetitive, but MLB still has its antitrust exemption.) What's the basis for the departure? Do draftees' agents/reps argue about comparable players, like in arbitration? It can't just be "Heck, 1.7 is close to two; let's just ask for an even two million," can it? How is the market operating here to set prices?

AKA Pete, I'm curious what you mean by reliability testing in this context. I haven't studied stats in . . . let's just call it a very long time. What I'm wondering, and I may just be misunderstanding the concept, is what you would use as the baseline for testing a defensive metric -- or, to put it another way, how you would define the intended function of the metric. I wouldn't think we could test a measuring device for reliability unless we already had a proven measuring device to use for a baseline. If we had that for baseball defense, we would all be happy already. I usually take the arguments about defensive metrics to turn on disagreements about what information properly indicates good defense. Those arguments seem valuable to me, even though (or because) I don't think we know yet how to resolve them conclusively. Team-based metrics deal with this problem to some extent, because they allow us to correlate defense with team runs allowed, but team-based metrics of course present tricky problems of allocating defensive responsibility. Anyway, I'd love to know more about how you might design reliability testing for something like UZR. Oh, and Gamel. Seriously, his second half turnaround may be the biggest of the many second half turnarounds our prospects have enjoyed. He's no Prince, but his performance makes trading Prince a lot less scary. I have a hard time doubting now that he's a good major league hitter. The position question right now seems to be who you want in the outfield less -- Braun or Hart. Somebody, maybe Pogo, was talking yesterday about Hart-as-Sexson, and I liked that thought, so right now I'd put Gamel in RF and Hart at 1b, with Braun hopefully figuring things out in LF and Lawrie replacing McGehee at 3b within the next year or so. Greg.

-- Molitor hit-streak game number 36 in 1987 -- Last year's triple play / Fielder walkoff game against the Giants -- The first game ever at Miller Park (worst seats I ever had) -- The 18-inning game against the White Sox in 1991, when (IIRC) the Brewers had to score multiple runs to tie in the 9th and again extra innings, before Willie Randolph knocked in the game-winner in the 18th -- Ben Oglivie's three-hr game in, I believe, 1980 -- Sabathia's soul-crushing shutout of the Cards in St. Louis -- The second game of the 1978 season, a.k.a. the Brewers' second day in franchise history as a good team -- The game in 2004 when Ben Sheets shut out the Cubs 1-0 on one of the two home runs Craig Counsell hit that year (best seats I ever had) -- The day the Brewers retired Molitor's number -- The game against the Mariners in 1990 when Dan Plesac blew a save in gruesome fashion, abruptly (although we didn't know this at the time) ending his career as an effective closer -- The Mets-Phillies game in 2006 when Aaron Rowand broke his nose making a spectacular catch

New tangent: Komatsu is 22 and, in very early returns, hitting lights out at Brevard. He has always had a very advanced approach at the plate. If he's still going strong at midseason, will/should the Brewers push him up to Huntsville, to see if they really have anything? He doesn't seem like a guy who would wilt under the promotion, and I would love to see him get a chance to start his age 23 season at AAA.

This is so great. I've been one of the Weeks backers all along -- which isn't necessarily boasting, because he hasn't ever put it together for a whole year. But the broad array of skills has always been there, along with a great work ethic. Now, compared to his great start last year, he has so far doubled his walk rate with no loss in power. He'll still have cold streaks, but I think we have enough evidence (decent 2006, strong 2007, poor 2008, excellent 2009-10) to conclude that he's at least a legit .800 OPS hitter. Combined with his fielding improvement, that's certainly a talent that merits the kind of money people are talking about here. One thing that I think somewhat counterbalances the very legitimate concerns about his wrists is that, if he doesn't get hurt, he figures to age very well. Guys with that range of skills have all kinds of ways to stay good as they get older, and he has plenty of room to move down the defensive spectrum if / when his feet get too slow for 2b.

I agree with joepepsi about preferring a sharing fix to a capping fix. Baseball is a market commodity, but I've always been annoyed by the Baseball Prospectus line that MLB internally should mirror the most laissez-faire model of the market. Externally baseball is a commodity, but internally it's a game, and games should feature competitors with access to comparable resources. I'm really not much of a baseball fan anymore -- I haven't watched the World Series in years -- because I think MLB has about as much competitive integrity as pro wrestling. I follow the Brewers because I've always loved the Brewers, and I can enjoy their progress in its own right, but MLB as a whole reminds me too much of what I don't like about the real world.

Great work as always, guys -- thank you! IMHO, having Lucroy at #1 slightly overvalues position and ripeness for the majors, as against upside. I'm usually big on those factors, so I'm arguing against type a bit -- but as good as Lucroy looks, I think we're in trouble if somebody on that list doesn't have a better career than he profiles to have. That said, Lawrie is the only guy whom I feel pretty strongly about putting ahead of Lucroy. Braddock will have to be a frontline closer to help the team more than a solid starting catcher, and Gamel . . . I still feel in my gut like Gamel's a better prospect than Lucroy, but his signal is just carrying too much static right now. If he comes back and hits, then I think he's back to #2. This seems like a year when we could see a lot of churning near the top of the list. Gamel, Lucroy, and/or Braddock could graduate and then some. Cain and Green seem to be making their moves. Gindl just keeps coming, and at some point that kind of momentum stops people talking about height. We've got young outfielders whom we don't really know at all yet, but we'll know a lot in three months. The pitchers . . . I agree with putting Odorizzi at the top of the lower-level crowd for now, but any one of Arnett, Rivas, Rogers, Jeffress, or Scarpetta realistically could pass Odorizzi even if he keeps dealing, and I would bet that one of them does. Fun!