gregmag

Kat, I was reading through this thread and was just getting ready to say the same thing. Woolard has really stepped up, and unless they think he only has the arsenal to succeed as a reliever at that level, they need to see what he can do in some starts. I hope Saenz is okay . . . Greg.

David Weiser writes that Housman's two walks in the first inning last night gave him 18 first inning walks on the year, in 13 starts. That's terrible, but I love it, because Housman has only walked 21 guys all season. Given that his overall control has been outstanding (82K/21BB in 79 innings), his concentration of walks in the first inning screams "correctable." The other funny thing about Housman and walks is that he draws them -- 3 in 24 PA this year, for a .381 OBP. Lou Palmisano's secondary average is down below .200. Any thoughts? Amazing Ben Hendrickson stat I did not know: only three unearned runs all year (against 24 earned). In other words, that 2.48 ERA is legit. Greg.

This is a great day for me. I'm in Milwaukee for the long weekend, and this is the first time in well over a decade that I get to watch a good Brewers team on TV. Monday we're going to Miller Park. Sorry to get personal, but I'm very, very happy right now. Go Brewers!!! Greg.

Depth, depth, depth. As of right now, the 2005 rotation projects as Sheets, Davis, Capuano, Santos, Hendrickson. That doesn't suck. Then you consider that the Indy rotation should have five of these seven: DLR, Obermuller, Saenz, Jones, Housman, Matt Ford, and Sarfate. What are the chances that three of those five major league starters and two of the seven projected AAA starters are healthy and big-league effective in April? I'd say they're pretty damn good. I'd bet on four MLB and three AAA if I had to guess, and that would still leave a margin for five warm bodies to flame out, not be ready, etc. DM's acquisitions of Davis, Capuano, and Santos have made the season so far. I was wrong about Davis, right about Capuano, and ignorant about Santos, but the point is that this is textbook rebuilding: figure out which players that nobody else wants can help you and give them chances to succeed. A while back Geno was making the case that DM should have picked up a proven starter in the off-season, and he came up with one name that was absolutely right: Jeff Suppan. Short of Suppan, and assuming the team promotes Hendrickson soon, I'm not lamenting any failure to go get established starters. Greg.

This is a wonderful moment, when walk freaks and RBI freaks can join hands in harmony. Thanks, Minnesota pitching staff. Greg.

Trofholz's "pop" is about as "occasional" as it gets. In 229 AB he has hit 62 singles, seven doubles, and two homers, for a whopping isolated power figure of .057. Beyond that, he has walked only 16 times. His value is completely wrapped up in his .310 average and his +15 in stolen base attempts. If not for the steals, he'd have the emptiest .300 average this side of Alex Sanchez. For an outfielder in low A ball who will turn 24 in September, he's putting up pretty unexciting numbers. Lewis, on the other hand, is looking like fun. Small sample, yes, but he deserves watching. My P50 beef du jour is how Luis Pena ever fell off the list. I'll admit I only noticed after his ridiculous outing last night, but it isn't like he was stinking up the joint before that. I assume he'll be back. Greg.

Wow -- Shelley just got massacred. Is he okay? Greg.

I wonder, if this game had happened before the draft, whether the Brewers would have taken him at #5. I know it's just one game, but I get the sense that the Brewers' choice was really a game of inches (and dollars, but never mind that). This is one of my many beefs with drafting HS pitchers. What do you know about this kid? That he dominated Maine high schoolers for fifty innings? We get all over college guys for a bad start here or there, but favoring a HS kid who just hasn't gotten around to hitting those bumps in the road yet seems perverse. Greg.

That box score can't be right, because it appears to say Vinny Rottino walked twice. Yeah, right. Tell me another one. Greg.

The Brewers' manhandling of the Astros in these two games is especially impressive when you look at how well the two teams have played this year in terms of runs scored and allowed. I'm too lazy to do the strict pythagorean calculations, so I'll use the estimate that each ten-run differential should be good for about one game over .500. The Brewers are now 31-28, but they have scored only six more runs than they have allowed. That means they have performed slightly better than their run expectation; they "should" be 30-29. The Astros, on the other hand, have been the best team in the division at run differential. They're now 32-28, and they have scored 46 more runs than they have allowed. Their record puts them right about where their run differential suggests they should be. The reason this is impressive for the Brewers is that the Astros "should" be in first place and in fact "should" have the best record in the NL. The Reds, as people have widely reported, have vastly overachieved, giving up 22 more runs than they have scored. They're predictably falling back to Earth, but they're still at 34-27 when they "should" have only 29 or 30 wins. Less widely noted is the fact that the Cards have also overachieved somewhat. They're eight games over .500 at 35-27 when their 38-run differential should put them only four games over at 33-29. That would place them percentage points behind Houston's expected record. A couple more notes. By this measure, the Cubs' record should be about a game better than what it is, placing them two games up on the Brewers. Oh, well; life sucks if you're the Cubs. All three contenders in NL West have overperformed, with the Dodgers having the best run differential at +26. In the East, Philly is right where their division-best +26 differential should place them, but they should have a 1.5-game lead on Florida (+5), with Atlanta (+13) and the Mets(+1) also a bit better than their actual records. Most of the discrepencies are pretty minor, but they point up the serious parity in the NL so far this year. This weekend, the Brewers have already done a lot to level that playing field. Today? Sheets. Against Houston. In Milwaukee. In the daytime. Nothing in baseball is certain, but the Astros really had no business getting out of bed this morning. Greg.

Prior to that inning, Bullinger had 11 career strikeouts in 20.1 major league innings over four seasons. I'm just saying. Greg.

If Scotty can get his OBP up to .360, and keep coming with power and speed at the rates he has so far, he'll be really valuable -- if his CF play isn't as bad as people here have been saying. If it is, he's still valuable, but kind of a 'tweener, which may make him the perfect fourth OF if our prospects bum rush the proverbial show. Jenkins continues a slow but sure breakout marred only by his K-fest during the week we spend playing that game in Anaheim. Is it just me, or does Bill Hall seem like he may be learning how to walk a little? Greg. P.S. -- Thanks for the save, Bill.

Doug has come back to Earth, at least for now. The thing is, before this season I expected games like this -- call them "barely quality starts" -- to represent the middle-upper range of his ability. If such games really turn out to represent the middle-lower range of his ability, and he runs off more stretches like we were seeing before these last couple of starts, he's a serious keeper. Seeing which way he goes will be one of the most interesting things the rest of this season. Greg.

Hoffy, just out of curiosity, what would it take to get you to stop whining about how everybody who doesn't bow down to your superior wisdom and knowledge is part of an evil cabal? How about if we all sign a statement that says: "Hoffy is right about everything. Hoffy's judgment about what kind of information, and how much of it, is needed to support his opinions cannot be questioned, because Hoffy's opinions are infallibly true. The Brewers' farm system sucks because Hoffy says it does. This is Hoffy's world, and we all just rent space in it. Thank you, Hoffy, for being right about everything and just for being you." Would that do it? Because at this point I'd happily sign onto it if it would only make you SHUT UP ABOUT HOW EVERYONE HERE PERSECUTES YOU!!! Or you could just grow some self-respect. Please keep in mind -- in all seriousness -- that I often agree with you and always value your opinions about baseball. But. This. Paranoid. Crap. Must. Stop. Please. Greg.

I would really be delighted if he didn't throw 96 pitches again. I'm sure he's thrown games like that before, and he appears to be healthy, but he's ours now, more or less, and -- all due respect -- I couldn't care less about the Maine HS championship. Greg.

There's one other consideration, although I don't know enough to know how important it is: Rule 5. At some point, guys have to go on the 40-man, and at some (other) point, you can't clog up the 40-man with guys who you're planning on keeping in the minors for several more years. In extreme cases, like the guy we just drafted who wasn't 17 yet, even the 6-year FA threshold might come into play -- although I seem to remember a rule that extends a team's control over minor leaguers who are drafted especially young. Greg.

Erik, I'm actually a fan of HS position players. They still have the unpredictability issue, but they don't have the high likelihood of injury that pitchers have. Your point that most great players start out young sounds right to me, but not when applied to pitchers. I'm using the same methodology you used -- rough memory -- and it seems to me that pitchers who have major success before age 21 end up with high flame-out rates (the rough memory I'm fixating on is Gooden). That's a big reason I hate drafting HS pitching -- I generally don't WANT a talented pitcher in my rotation at 21. I'd rather protect him from the pressure of big league expectations until he's 23. If the team could keep young pitchers in the pen for a few years, this wouldn't matter so much, but of course you aren't going to burn a potentially great pitcher's pre-arby years in long relief. Hoffy is wrong about the age-time specifics, but the age of a pitcher during his pre-arby/pre-FA years is an important consideration, in terms of both his likelihood of staying healthy and what he'll give you if he stays healthy. Greg.

Two runs off fifteen baserunners (hits and walks) through five and two-thirds equals insanely great luck. I'm with the "stick with Santos until he breaks" crowd, because we should be able to come up with some better options next spring -- but break he will. Greg.

Great post, Bill. I could not agree with you more, including the part about planning to root for Rogers like crazy, and I could not possibly make the points any better (as I have proved by trying and failing to do so like six times). Greg.

How can you say Weeks cares more about money than about baseball now? What possible basis do you have for that statement? Because he's in a huge slump, got a big bonus, has a commercial Web site, and laughed at a communication breakdown on a foul ball, he cares more about money than about baseball? I don't even know where to begin shredding that reasoning, or whatever it is. Pedro Liriano is getting the snot beat out of him. He seems like a guy who may need extended time at AAA to get on top of his game. Greg.

Peavey, slapping the "best player available" label on the Brewers' choice is a cheat, because of course we have to agree on what we mean by "best." Also, you can't try to win the argument by invoking Kyle Peterson any more than Hoffy or I can try to win it by invoking Prior (which I haven't done once). Based on stats that I think Patrick quoted the other day (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), 62% of drafted college pitchers make the bigs against 43% of drafted HS arms. That's a big difference. I also don't buy the automatic appeals to "high ceilings," because they presume that HS pitchers will only get better. Leaving aside injuries for just a minute, HS pitchers are simply unpredictable. There's no automatic reason to assume they'll gain velocity. Mike Jones, IIRC, has lost a fair bit off his fastball. Of course college arms aren't foolproof. Any draft is a gamble. Some of your choices will succeed, some will fail. But, as with a lot of gambles, there are factors that can increase your predictive accuracy. Taking a pitcher who has come through 2-4 more years of high-risk, low-certainty development and thrived strikes me as about the biggest advantage you could ask for in an inherently uncertain process. Greg.

Somebody probably has done this already, but I haven't found it. What's the record for longest game in which a team was shut out? When's the last time a staff shut down a team for more than 17 innings? As for Jenkins, he was showing signs of breaking out over the past few games. Last night was epic badness, but it may turn out to be a bump on the road to recovery. I believe he's better than this, so I hesitate to discount the good signs he's shown over the past week, before last night. Greg.

Manny Ramirez is on fire. It seems like a few weeks ago his numbers were nothing, but they're respectable now. Prince Fielder is back. Rickie Weeks is showing signs of life. Beautiful outing by Woolard tonight, and a nice start for Villanueva; I just don't miss Wayne Franklin much. I assume they weren't expecting much more out of Ford tonight than a pulse, which is about what they got. Pretty good night if you aren't Capuano, but how would you like to hurt your arm and wake up in a bandbox on the friggin' moon? He'll be fine, as long as his arm doesn't fall off or anything. Hoping for good things in Parra's line. Greg.

Peavey: I rated the draft prematurely because that's the topic of the thread. Of course I'll think differently about it in a year, and five years, and ten years, just like everybody else will, because we'll have more information. For that matter, I'll think differently over those time spans about the decisions not to start Bill Hall, to bring up Mike Adams, and to sign Geoff Jenkins to an extension. If you want, I'll add "tentatively" to my rating -- as in "tentatively, the Brewers appear to me to have made some absolutely terrible early-round picks." Is that enough caveats? Otherwise, we should all just say, "Huh. Let's wait five years until we know something," and move on. Hoffy: Critics are not victims, and optimists are not engaged in a vast conspiracy to stifle dissent. At least on this board -- when it comes to the present government, I'm not so sure. Greg.

Giving this draft an "F" would be arrogant in the extreme, so I'll just be presumptuous and give it a "D." I've already vented about this elsewhere, but I think drafting HS pitchers with high picks is worse (because it's a lot more expensive) than simply drafting no one at all. I'm definitely no expert on all the players, and some of the lower round guys sound good. But I think we just threw away our top two picks, and we obviously can't afford that. Disaster. Greg.