DuWayne Steurer

Nothing wrong with that at all. In my mind their season is over, but the reality is that bad teams get hot all the time so they still aren't 'done'. I think the Rockies showed that a hot streak can turn a sub .500 team into a world series one in just a month, even if it really wasn't a very good team. The Astros have made a couple runs with weak teams in the past few years too but fell short.The Rockies had more than one competent starting pitcher when they went on their run.

I know I went to the completely opposite extreme but it gets to my point that productive outs are already desired in certain situations and a productive out is better than a non-productive one. This is just about a borderline strawman argument now. No one said a productive out is not better than a non-productive out. But getting on base is ALWAYS better than a productive out. I don't want any hitter, especially not Braun, "trying" to push a ball to right. He hits plenty of balls to right, as he has a good approach and hits it where it's pitched. If he gets a good pitch on the inner half, I WANT him swinging at it, and trying to pull it, as that's going to optimize his chance of getting on base, and not making an out. He shouldn't be up there waiting for a good "outer half" pitch to come, meanwhile allowing pitches to go that he could pull 420 feet.

With 2 strikes, this year, the entire NL is batting .184/.257/.277. There's not too many guys who are good hitters with 2 strikes.

Why would we possibly want a guy with a .950 OPS changing his approach? He went up there to get on base. He hit the ball hard on the ground. I'm sure he wasn't trying to hit into a DP. I just don't even understand the context of the argument anymore. In this siutation, you're asking for a productive out, which with men on first and 2nd, can ONLY be achieved by a deep fly ball that is caught. Either that, or we want him to get on base. Any other result in this case is a non-productive out. We're narrowing down what's acceptable here to ludicrous levels, unless the suggestion is that Braun was trying to hit into a double play. What's being asked for here isn't even really in the realm of believability a this point. Braun must change his approach to either hit a deep fly ball, or get on base? You say you want him to go the other way, but I've seen Braun do that many, many times this year. You can only hit what's pitched to you. I want Braun swinging at good pitches, not just waiting for an outer corner meatball. You start changing Braun's approach for the sake of getting these 'productive outs' and suddenly you've got a slap hitter who "plays the game right", but hits about .270 with 12 homeruns a year.

Mathematically, yes, they have a chance. Realistically, I'd say that they have less than a 2% chance of making. Starting pitching sucks, the offense is pedestrian aside from 2 guys, and the bullpen is mediocre right now. I'd put up a month's worth of paychecks that this team doesn't make the playoffs.

Roco I said one run. Plenty of situations getting that one run in with productive outs. A fly ball to RF or deep CF gets you the guy on second to third with one out. I think then a weak ground ball brings him in or obviously any SF. Another is a weak ground ball, a bunt, a 4-6 out. What doesn't do any good is a DP or a flyout to LF. I think when you are looking at those stats you are missing it. If we had more productive outs we would score more runs. If we are average at it what if every out was a productive out? Yes rhetorical but the point is if we did it 50% of the time that would mean we would score more runs. A hit is always better but just as a K is better than a dp, a productive out gives you a better opportunity to score. It seems like you're almost looking at productive outs in a vaccum. If Bruan hits a deep fly ball to right or center, it's because he was taking an aggresive approach and trying to reach base, which is obviously what you want from your 3 hitter. It's easy to say "If all the outs were productive out we'd score more runs". I'm sorry to sound snarky, but that's blatantly obvious. The point is, your guys are GOING to make outs that aren't productive when they're trying to reach base. And if your guys are trying to make "productive outs", it's a guarantee that you will score less runs. Every batter should be going to the plate with the mindset of getting on base, first and foremost. This offense isn't going to either be "more consistent" or score more runs by making more productive outs. I'll wager that most productive outs are simply accidental by-products of each individual at bat. I think the myth of productive outs is staggeringly overblown. Teams that make productive outs even 1% of their offensive focus are going to score fewer runs. I don't want guys worrying about slapping the ball to the right, or waiting for just the right pitch to drive to right. They need to be getting on base. Not worrying about the quality of their outs. Baserunners = runs. Outs = fewer runs.

I have to say no. There's no 8-2 stretch on the horizon. They can't win 3 games in a row, and they've been scuffling since the all star break against inferior competition. There's nothing they've done that leads me to believe that all of a sudden they're going to start pounding on these lower class teams. To do so would require consistently good pitching from at the very least, 3 of the 5 spots in the rotation, and that's just not happening.

In the first inning Lopez walked and Cameron singled putting them on first and second with no outs. Braun hit into a dp and Prince grounded out. A productive out scores at least one there. Get the guy over to third and SF. What kind of out moves runners from 1st and 2nd? A deep fly ball? probably doesn't even move the runner from 1st. The way you move a runner from 2nd to 3rd is with a groundball. Braun got the groundball, and you're harping. And I sure as heck don't want Braun friggin' bunting in the first inning.

Plain and simple the more productive your outs the more runs you would score. That's just patently untrue. Multiple studies have shown there is absolutely zero correlation between productive outs and runs scored.

No, what the studies show is that teams that have a higher percentage of "productive outs" don't score runs at any higher a rate than what their OBP and SLG would indicate that they should. If you're up there consciously trying to hit a ground ball to the right side, you're eliminating a lot of possiblities with the approach. Any good you're likely to do with a ground out (minimal at best) is more than offset by the fact that the approach of trying to hit a ground ball is likely to cut severely into that given player's OBP and SLG.

But I would think the union has to know. But they're not talking. I guess they don't have to. They can't. Technically, whoever's leaking these names is giving information from a sealed federal document. If the people who are leaking the names ever get revealed, they're going to prison. That's why this is such a bunch of bunk. They can leak names, get them to the right agencies (ESPN, Fox Sports, etc) and never have to divulge how they got the info. They get to hide behind the curtain of anonymity, and in the process, at least in my opinion, lose all credibility. And I don't give a crap about what Jose Canseco says. I don't care that he's right. The guy's a rat, plain and simple. He's doing nothing more and nothing less than selling out his former battle mates for the sake of keeping his name relevant. Pathetic. There's nothing noble about what he's doing. There's nothing honorable. He's not doing this because "we deserve to know". He's doing it for nothing but his own self serving interests. I say again.........pathetic.

I think Florian pulls off the major upset. Forrest will force the action vs. Silva, but lose a decision

Productive outs is a grossly overblown myth. Yes, the occasional ground out to the 2nd baseman moves a runner to third. It far more often results in a double play, which is worse than a strikeout or popup.

We call that Wednesday. The 24oz. at Prime Quarter doesn't sound like that much. I know I could do that meal hands down. A 40 oz.-er sounds interesting though. The 22 to 24 oz'er is their "normal" big steaks. The 40 oz'er is the trophy steak.

This came up a long time ago, and I wish I could remember where the article was. It had a great run distribution chart that compared a bunch of teams for about 10 years with similar runs per game. They were comparing extremes. The examples they used was the Brewers and Mets in '07. The Brewers scored 3 fewer runs, but had 54 more homers. So similar Runs per game, with a pretty big difference in how they got there. The thought was that the "small ball" team would be more consistent, and have a bell curve run distribution, with few games of 0-2 runs, and few of 8 or more, and that the homerun team would have a distribution that would have weight on the ends. What they showed (and I just checked) was that the Brewers scored 2 runs or less 30 times, and scored 8 or more 24 times. The Mets scored 2 runs or less 40 times, and scored 8 or more 29 times, so the "small ball" team that had the higher batting average and stole more bases (but many fewer homeruns) were actually less consistent in their run distribution. So this is just one example, which really doesn't mean squat, but they had 3-4 other examples as well, where the distribution was literally all over the place. Run distribution is going to be random, regardless of what "type" of offense you have.

i think all the prime quarter restaurants are closed...at least in milwaukeeThere's still one in Janesville that seems pretty to be doing good business. I did the 40oz once. No big feat for me, I did the 72 oz at a steakhouse in Amarillo once. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I'm all in. I'll partner with anyone if they think they have what it takes!

I once bested my buddies by eating 18 taco bell tacos. That's not really a local challenge that you're looking for though I suppose. And no, I was not under the influence of any appetite enhancing effects.

I'm not going to discount the testimony of people who work in the field. I'm just saying that's what the JS said. I'd agree that there is likely more going on here than what has been disclosed if he's out for more than 2-3 weeks.

http://www.sherdog.com/ne...s-with-strikeforce-18883 I don't think M-1 or Fedor ever had any intention of signing with the UFC. They wanted to put on a show and make it look like they made the effort. Ah well. At this point, I'm hoping he faces Overeem and gets beaten. (Not holding my breath on that one though)

Supposed to doesn't really mean a whole lot. And I strongly question Barnett being called 2nd best in the world. Top 10? Absolutely. 2nd best? I don't know about that.

The only team they've played since the ASB that's over .500 is Atlanta. And they're 7-10 in that time. If they can't at least go .500 against the teams we've played recently (Cincy, Pitt, Wash, Atl, SD) then I don't see a reasonable hope that they pull out of the tailspin anytime soon. It can't get much softer than most of the worst teams in the league.

In Sylvia's last 6 fights, he's 2 - 4. He almost completely refused to engage with Jeff Monson, a guy he outweighs by 40 pounds and who he's got a foot reach advantage on. He won a decision by standing back and doing nothing but baby jabs that wouldn't hurt a 10 year old. He got picked apart by Randy. He beat Brandon Vera in one of the most boring fights I've ever seen, as both of them really refused to engage. He got choked out by Nog, destroyed by Fedor, and then to top it off, knocked out in 9 seconds by a 55 year old boxer who hasn't been relevant for 15 years. You can't possibly call him a true challenge. It's as obvious as the day is long that Sylvia's decline happened rapidly, as is known to happen in this sport. Arlovski was actually putting up a decent fight vs. Fedor, but it's well known he's got a glass chin, proven by Fedor, and exploited by Brett Rogers. But going further. Hong Man Choi? Really? A guy with 2 professional fights coming in. I don't care how big he was, the guy is not a fighter. Mark Hunt? 5-6 Mark Hunt. Mark Coleman? He had a great fight with Bonner that went the distance. The only truly legit challenge I'd say Fedor's had in the last 3 years was Matt Lindland, and that's pushing it, as he's not really in Fedor's weight class. These guys are on the decline. They're just not relevant anymore. I'll continue to exist that Fedor's playing around in the minor leagues until he fights someone that's currently relevant to the heavyweight scene. If Fedor wanted to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's *still* the best, he would have signed this RIDICULOUS deal that was offered to him. According to Yahoo sports, he didn't say a single word during the teleconference with UFC. M-1 is clearly pushing the buttons, and Fedor's nothing more than a puppet. That's too bad, really.

According to the JS, he's to partake in absolutely no activity for 7 days after the surgery. Sounds like he might have been in pretty bad shape.

Okay, Dana. Why everything he says is reported as fact is beyond me. He's trying to gain the leverage in public opinion, which obviously is working for some people. He proved it in Pride. He was the best, that's obvious. Is he still? That remains to be seen. What have you done for me lately Fedor? He's beaten a bunch of guys that were no longer useful or needed in the UFC, guys who are or were past their prime.