gregmag

Jenkins would have been traded perhaps even for straight up last year (after Lee signed) for Cordero as Texas wanted to unload him. This strikes me as unrealistic. I don't see any reason to believe the Brewers could have gotten anything as valuable as Cordero for Jenkins, even though the Rangers had soured on Cordero. DM might well have had to salary dump Jenkins for little or nothing, given what Lee's salary would have been. Greg.

Awesome work as always by the three-headed beast. Thanks, guys. My contrarian thought is that I like 19-25 better than 14-18. That part of the list seems unusually soft. Dillard at this point tops out as a middle reliever and could end up seeing very little of the big leagues. Iribarren, as you point out, is stalled in AA at 23. Hinton, right now, is an A+ middle reliever with big, unexplained problems. Rogers could be toast. Jackson hasn't done much well for a while, although he still could be a starting pitcher in the bigs. It really does seem like ranking these guys is becoming more difficult, because, first, we don't have a big group of advanced guys knocking on the door and, second, the depth at the lower levels is so impressive. Greg.

Statistics are a great tool to evaluate and compare what's happened. They can be manipulated and arranged by different sample sizes and categories to make just about any argument that can be made. The problem with stats is that they can't predict what will happen - they may give you an expectation, but they can't guarantee it. I think all of that except the second sentence is correct and useful. (The second sentence proves too much. You can say the same thing about words as numbers. Yes, anyone can use any content to make any point; but most of us are savvy enough to sort out at least a good percentage of the more specious points.) But as to the third sentence, isn't what you call expectation (what I would call projection) the best information we can hope for? Very little information allows for "guaranteed" accurate predictions about the future. So isn't your point about the uses and limits of stats really the most ringing endorsement of stats that one could offer? Greg.

Fun with small samples: Helena's Donovan Hand, as of this moment (end of the third), has pitched 14 innings and given up 12 hits with 13 strikeouts and no walks. Shiny. In other news, the Baby Brewers' answer to the question about how many baserunners you can give away and still win turned out to be "not that many." Greg.

I'm not sure what's more amazing about the 3-2 lead the AZ Brewers have at this moment (top of 7th) -- the fact that their pitchers have walked nine while their batters have drawn only one walk; or the fact that they're one of five in SB attempts. They may give us an answer to that eternal puzzler: How many baserunners can you give away and still win a game? Greg.

I know people have said what I'm about to say, but a few people on the other side have come back with so much vitriol that I'll say it again, because I don't think it's a controversial insight: Gwynn's lack of power is a serious problem. It's not a problem simply because he isn't a big power guy; of course many great hitters aren't big power guys. It's a problem because he has less power than almost every other hitter in MLB. Even that isn't a problem in and of itself. If he could put up a .430 OBP with a .050 ISO and good speed, he'd be a fine leadoff man. The problem with Gwynn's lack of power is that nobody puts up a .430 OBP with a .050 ISO, because nobody can hit that many singles. Pitchers won't walk a guy with no power, and high BA guys get at least some of their BA by hitting balls over and off walls. Speed doesn't fix the problem, because you have to hit the ball to get on base, and you can only beat out so many infield hits; besides, Gwynn isn't ridiculously fast. All of that said, Gwynn could develop into a regular by developing enough power to keep pitchers honest. But he's already 24, and his power now is negligible. He could still develop enough power to be a regular, but it doesn't seem likely to happen. I hope it's obvious that none of this implies "hatred" for Gwynn. He seems like a great kid, he does some things well, and I would love to see him prove me wrong and develop into a regular. But doubts about him based on his power aren't "weak"; they're pretty obviously important. Greg.

I don't buy the "playoff experience / intangibles" argument for Suppan or anyone else. People always say it, but nobody has ever proved it makes any difference. Maybe it does, but until you can quantify it, you don't pay for it. The point X made about Suppan's first half / second half splits is very encouraging. Cutting against that, however, is the simple fact that Suppan is an aging pitcher who doesn't throw hard and has trouble finishing hitters. There's a nontrivial chance that he could be absolute dog meat by the end of his contract. That said, one thing that I think causes a lot of us to undervalue the Suppan signing is the freakishly good health the Brewers' starters have enjoyed this year. Part of the reason the team laid out the big bucks for Suppan is that he stays healthy, and with the injuries pitchers get, you really need six or seven starting options. That brings us to Gallardo and Villanueva. Gallardo couldn't be part of the Brewers' rotation this year because he hasn't built up to that kind of workload. Villanueva could, but take him out of the bullpen and you have trouble there. Also, I don't blame the organization for not trusting Villy to start coming into this season. His peripherals hadn't been great, and his walk total in his tryout last year was over (under, I guess) his head. He has had a breakout season, but what he's doing now wasn't predictable. So if you take those two guys out of the mix, your starting depth is in Zach Jackson territory. I think that's what led the Brewers to put their chips on Suppan. I do worry about where the money for our other, better guys will come from. If we have to let a star go in a year or two so that Suppan can keep putting up a 5.50 ERA (if that's how he goes), then the signing will look bad. I hope the organization did the math on guys' free agency and arby timelines; presumably someone gets paid to do that. For right now, the signing looks so-so, but it will look a lot better if/when a starter (other than Suppan) goes down for an extended period. Greg.

X, if you wanted civil discussion, then you shouldn't have departed from it in your earlier post. The reason I got bristly (nice word, actually) is that you made big, blustery assertions, dismissed my views with no real reasoning, and ignored information that undercut your position while overstating information that supports it. That sort of one-sided ramrodding, followed by sweeping assertions that completely dismiss the positions of anyone who disagrees with you, has nothing to do with "civil discussion." I'll try not to get bristly if you'll try to be a bit more evenhanded in your analysis and cognizant of the possibility that, just maybe, you may not be absolutely right. I appreciate your elaborations, but I respectfully hold to my view: you're taking complicated information, some of which supports your bias and some of which doesn't, and reaching a conclusion that I don't think is even correct, much less as painfully obvious as you make it out to be. Greg.

I think the reason Brantley is in AA is because the organization was most concerned with having its best prospects at the right level. That would be Cain, Ford, and Gillespie. BA had those 3 among the Brewers top 13 prospects, while Brantley didn't make the top 30. Ford outhit Brantley at WV this year. Brantley is a slap hitting corner OF, how is that going to help the Brewers at the big league level? I like Brantley, but he has to really change his game to give him a chance, as big league pitchers won't walk such a weak hitter. Well, let's see. Brantley and Ford played a half year at the same level, with each getting just about 220 AB. They hit for exactly the same average. In that head-to-head competition (if that's what you want it to be), Ford collected: three more triples three more homers thirteen more steals four more times caught stealing eight fewer walks 34 more strikeouts. In those numbers, you see the difference between a power hitter and a slap hitter; I see one guy with a bit more power than the other. You see the difference between blinding speed and good speed; I agree, but I also see that the good speed guy is a better baserunner (although the blinding speed guy has made a believer of me since his promotion). You see, as you must, that one guy has off-the-charts plate discipline, but you don't want that inconvenient fact to get in the way of your opinion, so you chalk it up to "growing up in the game" rather than ability, based -- I take it -- on nothing more than, well, not wanting inconvenient facts to get in the way of your opinion. Oh, another inconvenient fact you ignored: Ford is 19 months older than Brantley. You conflated their power numbers over the past season and a half to make the power differential look huge. It was huge, last year. It isn't anymore, because younger guys tend to gain more power than older ones. Here are some isolated power numbers for players we're discussing, all in their age 20 seasons (Ford was actually more like 20.5), all in West Virginia: Ford, 2006: .104 Cain, 2006: .118 Brantley, 2007, .105 So two of these guys are serious hitters, and the third is a "slap hitter"? In fact, there is no good basis for projecting Ford as having more power as a big leaguer than Brantley, and not much basis for projecting Cain as having more. Also, dissing Brantley based on last year's BA rankings, when the guy is obviously having a breakout season this year, is kind of pointless, wouldn't you say? I love Ford's talent, especially his speed -- and you're absolutely right that he isn't just speed. I also agree that Brantley's inability to play CF (if indeed he can't, rather than just being not as good at it as Ford and Cain) is a disadvantage. But no recent Milwaukee OF prospect has shown Brantley's ability at his age, and his step forward with power this season provides encouraging evidence -- not to say proof -- that he'll improve on the weak part of his game. So go ahead and cook / ignore the facts however you want. Brantley is at AA because, just like the three guys you prefer, he's a hell of a prospect. Greg.

Sorry to double-post, but lest I get overly obsessed with Brantley, I have to bow in the general direction of Darren Ford. He now has about a third of the ABs in Brevard that he had in WV. His average is lower, and (no surprise) he hasn't hit with power. But -- -- His K rate is almost exactly what it was in WV, but his walk rate has risen by fifty percent, keeping his OBP within striking distance of what it was at WV (.372 to .39http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/glasses.gif . -- He has actually been twice the base stealer at Brevard that he was in WV. He was 31 of 41 in WV; using a crude SB-CS measure, that put him at +21. In Brevard, he's 16 of 18, or +14, which projects to +42 if you equalize the ABs. That's scary good. It's a small sample, but I don't know what more we could hope to see from a budding leadoff man. Greg.

I'd really like to see him mash a little more in Brevard (as much as anyone could mash there). That actually may be the most plausible explanation for why they skipped him a level -- maybe they figured the one thing he really needed to work on was something he couldn't work on effectively in the FSL. Everything both Brett and Toby are saying makes sense, and I can see the arguments for why the Brewers should have just moved Brantley up one level. But given what they actually did do, however unwise it may have been, I'm still not sure that moving him to Brevard now would make sense. In other words, assuming moving him to AA was a bad idea, I don't know whether the organization is in a position to fix their mistake without compounding it -- at least not until he has shown more conclusively that he's overmatched. Greg.

I just came over here, and Mike has become the first guy whose line I check -- thanks, Boy Jeenius! I'm not bringing this up now to be snotty, but Toby (if you're around), I actually wanted to get more about your take on Brantley. IIRC, you've seemed pretty convinced almost from the time of his promotion that he should be demoted (re-moted?) to A+. I too was surprised at the move to AA. I wonder, though -- leaving last night and tonight out of it -- whether sending him to A+ now or soon would really be a good idea. I have no idea what the organization was thinking promoting him two levels, but unless they told him at the outset that this was a brief experiment and that he'd probably settle in Brevard, wouldn't it mess with his head pretty badly to send him there after 75 bad PAs? Now, after 150 bad PAs, they could tell him it wasn't working yet, go down, work hard, and get yourself back here. At that point, his confidence would probably improve with the demotion. But my sense is that giving him a bit more rope, even if he keeps stinking up the joint, may be the wisest course at this point. Thoughts? Of course, bringing last night and tonight back into it (OBP now .361, SEC .294, but who's counting?), I'm hoping he justifies the promotion. He's an interesting player -- we'll see. BTW, my other personal fave prospect, Brent Brewer, has kind of fallen on hard times lately (first two-hit game in ten days tonight, but also three more Ks). Does anyone have insights about what's up with him, or can we just rest comfortably with the knowledge that he has still been a lot better than we expected at 19? Not that I'm exactly worried about Brent -- he's having fairly close to the season that another raw, toolsy guy, Charlie Fermaint, had at the same level last year, but Brent's a year younger and playing ss. Greg.

I get your point about a #1 pick and still being young....but I stop short of trumpeting this as a fine campaign. Give me Crabbe or Graffanino at this point and send Rickie either to rehab for awhile or to play in AAA. And I get (and second) your point about this not quite being "a fine campaign," but Crabbe or Graffanino? Seriously? I have to say, that strikes me as either an overreaction or just pique. Weeks, right now, at what has to be the low point of his disappointing season, possibly with one wrist still tied behind his back, has 20 points of OBP and 20 points of SLG on Graffanino. Crabbe has had a career half-season in AAA at 24 -- he's only a couple hundred OPS points behind the half-season that got Weeks "overhyped" in AAA at 22. I really try not to jump too hard on people's good faith opinions, but come on -- do you actually mean that? Isn't this the exact same thing people said about Hart? I think it's too early to jump the gun on Rickie, even if he has looked lost at times this year. Yes, I was thinking about this too. With every one of our prospects who has had any growing pains (not to mention literal pains), there has been a chorus urging, variously, that the kid is overrated, that he's never going to be more than he is now, even (from some people, certainly not many) that his struggles prove that he doesn't work hard or care about succeeding. We heard it, repeatedly and loudly, not just about Hart but also about Hardy and Hall. None of that proves that Weeks won't flop; I'm not holding out my opinion as any more legitimate than anyone else's. But the one thing that mystifies me is the repeated willingness to assume that a 24 year-old player can't/won't develop any further. Decades of baseball evidence, and certainly the past few years in Milwaukee, demonstrate a basic fact: more often than not, 24 year-olds with talent do develop further. I'd venture to say that "overhyped" 24 year-olds develop more reliably than most, because generally (not always, but generally), they're hyped for a reason. Given Weeks' age and skill set, and assuming the wrist doesn't effectively end his career, it will actually be very unusual if he doesn't improve substantially. There's a fair basis for dumping on Weeks now, whatever the underlying cause. But I bet in a year, two tops, everybody will have been on Rickie's bandwagon from day one. Greg.

Kind of cool that Brevard beat the living snot out of Carpenter. I'm sure he's just rusty, but still, that's the Cards' hope for a push. Greg.

What do you say about an inning where the pitcher gives up a hit to your pitcher, walks Counsell on four pitches, gives up a homer to Mench, and retires Weeks, Hart, and Braun? That's just weird. Come on, Cappy -- strike zone! Greg.

That's a fair point; I know nothing about his background. Whatever -- I shouldn't have opened my mouth about how anyone should judge him. I don't really have much interest in morally judging ballplayers for baseball-related sins (as opposed to, say, beating their wives), which isn't to criticize others who do. For me, if a guy can help the team, keep him around; if he can't, don't. The Brewers obviously concluded that Capellan couldn't help the team. If his attitude was bad enough to contribute to that conclusion, they obviously had the relevant information to make that call. Greg.

Great -- thanks. As I said it would, that changes my view for the negative. I don't know what a guy must be thinking to say that. Greg.

BP made an interesting comparison in their book this year -- Ron Gant. They pointed out that Gant never really started hitting until he got off 2b. There may be something to that; 2b is historically an unusually injury-prone position. Molitor is another example of a guy whose medical record improved after he got off that position. The problem is, we're pretty much booked everywhere else, and Rickie has already become a more than serviceable fielder at 2b. While I'm dredging up old BP and Bill James stuff (James made the point about 2bs getting hurt a lot), I recall that, some years after James started doing projections based on minor league stats, he wrote that the one guy -- out of dozens -- for whom the projection totally had not worked was Glenn Braggs. Take that for what it's worth; it suggests to me that Braggs was some kind of anamoly who may not be a very useful comparison for anyone else. Greg. Greg.

I almost exactly agree with Ennder's rankings. The only difference is that, for me, Capuano has had too much success to place behind YoGa after only three starts. You could say the same for Suppan, but I think there are legitimate reasons to believe Soup is in decline. Bush is a wild card; I agree that he ranks ahead of Soup based on upside and behind Cappy and YoGa based on limitations (to this point in his career). We really need somebody to step up and pitch like a #2 starter. Cappy seems like the best candidate, but anyone north of Vargas could theoretically pull it off. Greg.

Am I missing something here? The Cubs are already on the hook for Jones' contract. They were going to trade him, stay on the hook for most (but presumably not all) of his contract, get back a prospect (right? -- the link to the original deal is gone) who would be making something less than the MLB minimum, and presumably hand Jones' roster spot to someone making little or no more than the MLB minimum. How does that deal add to the Cubs' debt? Is the story suggesting that Selig was insisting on affirmative debt relief -- that the Cubs find someone to take more of Jones' contract before he would let them make a deal? What am I missing? Greg.

This is the most trivial of trivia, but has any other team ever sent three different closers to the ASG in a four-year span? On a less trivial note, I sure hope what happened to the last two in the second halves of those years doesn't happen to Cordero. Greg.

I'm not saying I hate Weeks or I want him gone. I just think people got to snap back to reality and realize he is what he is....average. Yes, he's average -- with a bum wrist, at an age when most players are just breaking in -- and the notion that he will never be anything but average isn't just your (entirely unsupported) opinion, it's absolute "reality," to which the rest of us "got to [sic] snap back"? Wow. Greg.

Joe's analysis of Weeks' approach seems very astute, and I also agree with John that Weeks would do better in the second spot. I would actually love to put those two points together and see how his approach changed when he shifted spots in the lineup. The argument that Weeks is done developing at age 24 flies in the face of logic and experience. His wrists have hampered his offense, he has a very broad skill set, and he has significantly improved not only his defense but his walk rate since coming into the league. Assuming, as Chris emphasizes, that Weeks survives this year, I can't really imagine a much better bet for a breakout next year. We may be getting a little spoiled by just how ridiculously successful our other young players have been. A few years ago, when these guys were coming up, some more pessimistic posters pointed out quite a few times that some of our young phenoms wouldn't make it. The thing is, that was a reasonable argument. Instead, Fielder and Braun are hitting at an MVP level, while Hardy and Hart are hitting at an All-Star level. Meanwhile, Weeks presently ranks (by my informal count) sixth among NL 2b in OBP, eighth in OPS. That isn't great, but for a 24 year-old with the obstacles he's faced, we can live with it. He won't carry the team this year, but thankfully he doesn't have to. Greg.

Of course, when he came back he never apologized to his teamates. Other than that, he's a swell guy. First, how do you know that he didn't apologize? Do you have a link? If so, I missed the story, and thanks for bringing it into the discussion. That obviously makes a big difference in assessing his behavior. I just assumed that he wouldn't have been able to avoid making his peace with his teammates, but I can see how that assumption might be wrong. Second, I'm not sure how my suggestion that people were making relatively too much of what I clearly agreed was Capellan's bad behavior translates into a belief that "he's a swell guy." In fact, I can't figure out how anybody could get from my words to yours. Can you please explain how you did? Thanks. Greg.

Thanks for the correction on Dunn -- that definitely makes a difference, assuming we could/would pay the option. Your general point about pitchers' injury history is right, of course . . . I'm just not sure how to quantify the risk in any given case. On a related point, Inman was hurt at the end of his HS career, right? IIRC, that was one reason we were able to nab him. I'd like to know more about how to set the odds on pitchers, given the timing, nature, and severity of their injuries. Greg.