gregmag

Hauser, I'm not sure which of these things you mean: (1) Playoff experience has independent value, so it might make sense to use/get a somewhat lesser but playoff experienced guy rather than a somewhat better player who lacks playoff experience. (2) The team should use/get the best proven player, regardless of playoff experience, but minor league performance is categorically not enough to make a player trustworthy in a pennant race. or (3) Some players' minor league performance might be strong enough to make them trustworthy in a pennant race, but Rottino's minor league performance proves he isn't one of those players. Just trying to make sure I understand. Thanks. Greg.

I didn't want to say anything until the organization confirmed what it had said all along -- that LaPorta would play at WV -- but this goes down as another example of Haudricourt's inexcusable laziness, especially when it comes to the Brewers' minor league system. Brian was very kind to try to excuse "rookie ball" as generic terminology, but it isn't. Most of us here work hard at other jobs or school, but most of us who cared knew that (a) LaPorta logically would start in A ball and (b) the Brewers had explicitly said LaPorta would start in A ball. I'm a loyal, lifelong J-S reader, but IMHO both the paper and the fans deserve better effort than what Olsen and now Haudricourt have put forth. Greg.

Al, thanks for finding the link. I read the column very differently than you do, but I don't get the sense that you're interested in a respectful exchange of views, so I'm going to drop it. In the spirit of the original post, I'll just say I love that the Brewers are looking in so many directions for talent and finding so much of it. Greg.

Given Gillespie's age, I'd like to see them just get him the heck out of there. Pogo, I still think you've been right about him. He may not "deserve" promotion, but the question is whether promoting him is the best move for the organization, and I think it may be. Greg.

Al, you've shifted what had been a positive discussion of diversity and quality into a savage attack on an article that you and I seem to remember very differently. You seem quite sure about what that article said, and I'm afraid I may be doing you a disservice by misremembering it. I can't find the article online; can you please provide the link? Greg.

I never understood why he kept getting chances. He has over 1600 MLB plate appearances with a .698 OPS. He does have a .340 OBP, which is passable, but with no power and no speed you need to play brilliant up-the-middle defense. Burroughs has played 395 career games at 3B, 14 at 2B, and one at short (plus one as a pitcher). In all that time, he has never shown any hint of a breakout skill. Not many players that useless get so much rope to hang themselves. Greg.

I bent over backwards not to use the word "racist" in this setting, and I don't recall that the writer in question used it either, because I think it's both unnecessarily inflammatory and deceptively certain when I don't really know what was in anyone's head. The fact is that the team has come to stake a lot more on young black players than it had for some time previously. You are purporting to use that change in behavior as proof that any criticism of the previous behavior was off-base. With all due respect, I simply don't get the logic of that argument on its own terms, and your unsupported, ad hominem name calling doesn't help your case. Greg.

So the fact that we've gotten more (really good) black players proves that a guy was nutty to suggest we get more black players? I do think there was a time this team had a kind of cultural aversion to dealing with young black men. I think the beginning of that time roughly corresponds with the Sheffield fiasco. Look, Sheffield could make anybody sour on any group he happened to belong to -- blacks, Shriners, amateur radio enthusiasts, whatever -- but I have a sense that some in the organization may have let the particular hip-hop flavor of his crappy attitude psyche them out. Not every generation of Brewers brain-trusters would have picked up, and staked the team's future on, guys like Fielder, Weeks, and Hall. Team Canada has had the simple good sense to do so. What's so nutty about calling on the team to do something that (a) it hadn't been doing and (b) has now worked out so well? Greg.

I recall that Bill James wrote, back in the late '80s or early '90s, that the Brewers seemed to overrate and hoard aging, boring, slow white guys. I don't think the implication was one of malicious racism, but more that lazy decisionmakers tend to go with what they know, and when the decisionmakers are all white, race can be part of that (two words: Antone. Williamson.). I think the diversity on the team now reflects colorblindness -- in this era, getting the best baseball players means you're going to have a healthy mix of Latinos, African Americans, caucasians, and increasingly Asians. Greg.

I'm trying to follow this online, catching the odd batter on the radio between taking care of baby . . . can anyone describe what Yo is throwing, how hard, what sequences, etc.? Greg.

I've been very dubious about Escobar, because his secondary offensive numbers have been mortifying. But if you break down his season, I can see why the organization bumped him up. In 96 April ABs, his secondary average was .073, largely on the strength of exactly zero extra-base hits. That's unspeakable, even for a shortstop. It's the kind of performance that makes you long for Craig Counsell's raw power. But in 172 May/June ABs, he upped the secondary average to .128. That's still wretched, but it's a significant improvement, and it's nearly tolerable for a .325-hitting ss. Then you factor in that he's 20, playing in hitter's purgatory, and that improvement may amount to some very significant progress. I'm still somewhat dubious, because batting averages have a way of crashing, and without his average he's still all potential. But he's starting to look interesting, and I love seeing two 20 year-olds in the AA lineup. Now if only Alcides can, over the remainder of the season, top Brantley's walk total from today's game . . . Greg.

I'm a big Hart fan, I was unhappy when he wasn't playing, and I think both sides in this debate have made some good points. The one thing that sort of pushes me toward not blaming Yost too much on this score is that, eventually, Hart started playing every day. If Yost was hell bent on snubbing Hart, then how have matters come to work out so well? One possible answer that would support the criticism of Yost is that Hart only got to play when Yost thought he was out of other options. That, however, may just be another way of saying that Yost rode the hot hands of Mench and Gwynn when he had at least some justification for doing so, a justification that gets stronger if Hart was indeed banged up. As for the argument that, assuming Hart was banged up, the team should have DL'd him . . . I see the basis for the criticism, and I don't have any special expertise about handling moderately injured players, but this is hardly the first time a team has opted to ride out an injury rather than take decisive action. Maybe they figured that Hart was healthy enough to play a bench role and that he was more valuable in that role than anybody with whom they could/would have replaced him. In any event, the decision whether or not to DL him wasn't entirely up to Yost, so I can't see counting that decision as a major mark against him. Greg.

SoCal, I agree that power is Brantley's weakness and that Gwynn represents why we should care. I also take your point that two months are just two months. However, in 250 PA at A ball, Brantley at 20 -- the age at which Gwynn started his pro career -- put up a better ISO than Gwynn ever has. Gwynn's age/level/ISO numbers: 20/A/.046; 21/AA/.068; 22/AA/.067; 23/AAA/.096. (That age 23 season, BTW, was also the first year Gwynn hit .300, which Brantley has done at every stop.) Brantley: 18/R,R+/.034; 19/A/.039; 20/A/.105. Now, .105 ISO isn't enough to start in a big league corner unless you're Tony Gwynn the elder. Also, Brantley's power surge could be a fluke or a result of repeating the level. His ISOs before this year were horrifying, albeit at ages when Gwynn was still in college. It's still striking to me that Brantley has put up a lot more power than Gwynn did at the same age/level. Also, talented 20 year-old hitters are supposed to develop power, so I think Brantley is at least as likely to keep beefing up as he is to revert. Our information on these guys is incomplete, but what we do know has me projecting Brantley, at this moment, as having a very good chance to hit more than Gwynn and an excellent chance to hit more than Fermaint. Greg.

For right now . . . 1. Weeks 2. Hardy 3. Fielder 4. Braun 5. Hall 6. Jenkins 7. Hart 8. Estrada

I believe Doug Melvin stated in his interview yesterday that LaPorta would start at West Virginia. That seems like a pretty typical fast track: A this year, A+/AA next year, AAA to start the following year and first in line for a callup. Of course, performance can slow or speed the train. Greg.

I just got done singing Brantley's praises in another thread, but Huntsville . . . wow. The guy is 20 years old. I wonder whether they figured that the hitting environment in Brevard would only mess him up; if so, we officially have created the anti-High Desert. More likely it was a position/playing time thing, I guess. Good to see McClendon and Shanks moving up. Promoting older players aggressively always seems like a good thing. Greg.

I echo everybody's thanks and praises to the troika o' fun. It's a very well-conceived list, and I continue to learn a ton from all three of you. That said, I'm going to try to develop my most immediate beef, for the sake of discussion: How can you rate Charlie Fermaint ahead of Mike Brantley? Fermaint is 19 months older than Brantley and one level ahead of him, so Brantley has a slight age/level advantage. Fermaint put up a .740 OPS at R, .856 at R+ (greatly helped by a brief repeat), .743 at A, and .741 at A+ last year. Brantley put up an .817 at R, .807 in a miniscule sample at R+, and .741 at A last year. Thus, basic performance per level has been pretty close after Brantley's substantial advantage at R ball. Fermaint has flashed both power and speed, but not dramatically. He stole 27 bases at Brevard last year but was caught 14 times. He slugged .744 when he got to repeat R+, but then at A he slugged .442; those were his highest SLG totals at any season/level. Everyone says his CF defense is superb, and I believe them. Brantley's strike zone judgment is off the charts for a player his age. He has walked more than he has struck out at every level, and he has never hit below .300. I don't know much about his defense, but I hear a lot about his athleticism, and I assume he's on track to develop into a solid MLB CF. Okay -- all of that information is before this year. Based on that, I would have rated Fermaint slightly ahead of Brantley. He was a year further along, so he had proved more. His raw power and speed skills were more intriguing, even though Brantley looked like a more polished hitter. It wasn't a blowout by any means, but if I could have kept only one of those players, I would have taken Fermaint by a very close margin. Then we get to this year, when both guys are (probably unfairly) repeating their levels. We all know what's happened to Fermaint. What I would emphasize about Brantley is that he has added both line drive power and efficient speed to his game, at an age where we would expect the power, at least, to be a real development and not a fluke. His one demerit is that he's playing 1B, but I suspect Darren Ford would beat out Fermaint for CF playing time too. (If I'm wrong about this -- if Brantley really doesn't project as a CF or at least a plus defensive LF -- that's a big strike against him). This season's sample sizes are meaningful: Fermaint has about 175 PA this year, Brantley about 250. Now, I can still see a tenuous argument for preferring Fermaint. He still has more intriguing tools, and there's his CF defense. But the tools have to translate into performance at some point, he has never really shown great progress, and this year he has crashed and burned. I certainly can't see placing Fermaint eight spots above Brantley. I don't think the margin was that wide at the end of last year; it can't possibly be that wide now. Brantley has never regressed in any facet of his game, and he is now adding important attributes. For me, he's right there with Darren Ford and Lorenzo Cain; Fermaint is a significant step behind them. Thanks again for all your hard work, guys. Greg.

In his interview, Jack Z. definitely said the Brewers had changed their philosophy, but not quite in the way bbc is suggesting. They're going for some more advanced players because they want to fit guys into the next wave of talent that's coming up, talent that can help the Brewers either as players or as trade bait during what the brain trust sees as the present 5-year window to win some titles. I think bbc raises some legit concerns, but as Peavey suggests, there's a big range of outcomes in the world of polished college hitters. The Brewers obviously think they got something like the next Geoff Jenkins with La Porta, not the next Scott Hatteberg (let alone Antone Williamson). I think this is a very defensible approach -- to draft a guy who has, say, a 60% chance to become Geoff Jenkins (or Lance Berkman?) in two or three years over a guy like Heyward who has maybe a 25% chance to become Ken Griffey Jr. in four or five years. (Obviously I'm pulling those numbers out of my butt, but I suspect they reflect what the organization is thinking). Another reason to be okay with this approach is that we aren't just stacking the top of our system and setting the organization up for a talent drought in five or six years. As things stand, we have very few bats in the upper levels but quite a few intriguing hitters at WV and Brevard. Bringing in a few advanced hitters still leaves a big group of upside youngsters behind them. Greg.

He pretty much has to start at WV, doesn't he? He turned 22 in January; he's almost two years older than Brantley, almost three years older than Brent Brewer. He's kind of Cole Gillespie II, as an older college player with advanced power. If he doesn't finish next year hitting well at AA, he'll already start to be a disappointment. Does anybody know anything about whether he can play LF? The buzz seems to be that he's unatheletic, but this seems to be the kind of thing about which the Brewers do their homework. Whatever else this pick is, it ain't boring. Greg.

On ESPN they're talking about him as a tradeability pick, but that seems like one of those "best laid plans" game that smart people don't play. Patrick, you talk a lot about how Jack Z. likes to take the best of some tool. Is that the story here -- the brain trust sees La Porta as the best power bat in the draft, and they'll worry about his LF defense later? Because I'm always complaining about the prep pitchers, but even I prefer a prep pitcher to a DH. Greg.

Holy crap.

Brian, I appreciate your sentiments, and you've inspired me as well to give it another try -- a year older and perhaps a bit wiser. Your vision of smart and civil discourse isn't easy to pull off anywhere, and I'm not sure it's going especially well here, but I'll try not to make matters worse. Not sure how I'll do with the short paragraphs admonition, though. Greg.

TC, I'm trying to send you an ez inbox message, but I'm getting a response back that you haven't enabled it. I know that can't be right, so can you send me one to which I can then respond? Thanks. Greg.

Peavy, I will never take a first shot at anybody in anger, and I won't (and didn't) violate any rules of the forum regarding censored words. But if somebody insults me, I'm going to hit back. I'm sick of taking it on the chin from belligerent and/or ignorant posters who don't have the decency to make reasoned or at least civil arguments. I didn't see you or any of the other moderators do anything about the post I responded to, so I had to send the message myself. I recognize that you guys can't deal with everything perfectly, but please don't lecture me when you let somebody's slam on me slide and then I respond in kind. Greg.

Geothite, I appreciate that you have a point of view, and I get where you're coming from. But please take your brain-dead accusation that I'm just mouthing Moneyball platitudes and shove it hard. I have an opinion, just like you do, and I explained my reasons for it a hell of a lot more thoroughly than you explained yours. Greg.