GenoSeligPrieb

"Perhaps if you looked at MLE's as more of a Farmer's Almanac for prospects, instead of a true predictor of future success, you wouldn't be so gung ho against them Geno. " I know what you're saying, Kat, and I would...if only it weren't taken as a true predictor so often. Over the months, (years?), I've been told I'm wrong about players based on this formula! Read some of the amazing accomplishments some guys now expect from a Nelson Cruz or a Corey Hart. MLE should be treated like a paintball gun in the hands of my 3-year-old. Fun for some, yes, but put it down, and don't point it at anyone. When a fun statistical exercise, with more disclaimers than a Tom DeLay speech, is applied too literally, the distortions it draws can be pretty unrealistic, right? ______________ Make room for the Edit!: "But your repeated suggestions that the method is entirely random and not thought through is tantamount to calling those of us who disagree with you stupid." Greg: There's no way I would want to characterize anyone who disagrees with me as stupid. Everyone here is entitled to their opinions, without question, and as we know, opinions aren't wrong...or stupid. Unless you go to the American Idol board, but.... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Anyway, to those who believe in MLE, there's nothing I could or would do to stop you. The only thing I would ask is that whoever uses it in one of our little debates here, you should definitely preface it with: "...MLE says Brad Nelson in 2005 graded out at .280-25-100. Grain of salt...MLE's not a predictor and there are a lot of disclaimers, but it helped convince me, that he could be useful if he keeps this up..." to temper it a bit, or something to that effect. Fair? I hope so. Honest!

I genuinely appreciate you stepping up and providing some unvarnished, honest answers, 1992casey. But look at those answers. Honestly, you could see why dopes like me would tend to pay so little (OK, make that "zero") attention to these numbers, then, right? While it's a fun sort of parlor game, the fact that there are so limitations and disclaimers in the formula, as well as the fact that, by its very nature, you can't road test the formula and predict anything with it. To me, applying any sort of MLB numbers by using minor league measures is like predicting the high temperature in Moscow, based on Montreal's from 2 days ago. Sorry to be stubborn on this one, but until someone can convince me with a plausible predictive formula, you can see why I continue to doubt this practice.

The distance between the minors and majors is incredibly vast, and no MLE formula will ever properly account for that. "Geno, all due respect, but IMHO this statement is just wrong. We've long since agreed to disagree on this point, but I can't let you assert it without at least setting forth the opposite assertion. Prediction of players' performance is uncertain, for all kinds of reasons -- age, injury, work ethic, etc. But nothing about the difference between major and minor league baseball particularly complicates the predictive game... " And you've stated your point, Greg, which I respect. I don't agree, but again, that's just my opinion. Perhaps someone here can furnish the baseball-website-blocked among us with a list of the 2002, 2003, 2004 AAA All-Stars, and we'll see just how many of them were able to turn an .850 OPS, or a 2.25 ERA into mush at the major league level. My money says it's a high enough % to warrant my dismissal of the MLE formula. Can we try it somehow? What if we took, say the 2002 or 2003 All-Stars, said "abracadabra", multiplied by pi, carried the 1, and *presto* came up with MLE numbers for the ones who even made ther majors the next year? Hell, if nothing else, maybe it'll finally drive astake into the heart of this ridiculous thread I keep perpetuating! Thanks! Sincerely, GS-P, King of Hyperbole! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

"I'll post all of my ideas in the trade forum. " You mean there's a Trade Forum? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif "Thanks for the discussion though...this place wouldn't be (ab)normal without you! " Same here, m'friend. Hell, now that I know there's this thing called a Trade Forum, I just may do a little exploring tonight at home, since a) the wife's not working tonight, and b) our new Dell desktop is up and running. Although, I tried logging in yesterday, and was informned there were cookie-ing issues given my new IP address...Anyone? Anyone?

"That year to year consitency of dropping 35 points in BA? The drop of 80 points of OPS? " To be fair, why not factor in more categories than just the ones Lee fell short on? What about the HRs, RBIs and SBs, which remained near the same levels as they've been since 2000? Sure, I'll grant you that Carlos's OPS and BA dropped after moving to a more pitching-oriented league for the first time in his career, but what kind of consistency has O shown so far? None, and I'm angry because 2005 did major damage to his trade value. Makes it much harder for DM to get fair value for him now. C'mon Doug, pull another rabbit out of your 'stache!

"But something is really strange about the fans of our baseball team! They seem more than willing to dump Player O for Player F but blanche at having Player H come in for Player L! " Nothing strange about it, end. Fans like me are looking at year after year after year of consistency in Player L, and blanche at the thought of losing that, and replacing that production with a much-less heralded nugget in Player H. On the other hand, one year, Player O is hitting .301, leading the planet in doubles, and genuinely giving Brewer fans reasons to either keep him (or, in one ludicrous case, move him to the outfield! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif ). Then, the next season, Player O drops 25 BA points, hits 19 less doubles, drops 47 OPS points, and drives in 15 less runs. Add to that the fact that Player O is being pushed by arguably the #1 slugging prospect in baseball, a 1st rounder with much more potential than Player H, and our mindset (one you don't have to share, but SHOULD accept) makes that much more sense.

"A middle of the order hitter like Lee has to be replaced with a middle of the order type hitter. You don't replace a threat like Lee by committee. Next year is probably to early for Prince to be that guy. Hart/Cruz just isn't the same for the middle of the order as Lee." First of all, thanks, backup. Great stuff. I'd excerpt your whole mesage, but people can read. Pessimist that I am, I would bet that Geoff Jenkins will get hurt for 20-30 games in '06 (maybe longer). He's just due...what do I know? But say he does get hurt. Or Carlos. Or Clark. I don't expect all 3 to be there for 140-162 games next year. That will open up an opportunity for CruzHart. And perhaps for 20 games or so, we can begin to see if any kind of MLB talent emerges from either of these 2. Or, we can create PT for CruzHart by resting Brady/Geoff/Carlos more often. Thursday getaway games after a Wednesday night games? Definitely. Sunday afternoon games after Saturday night losses started by Obermueller? Oh yeah. I think it may be wise to avoid opening our starting 3 OFs to more injuries (if all are healthy) by playing Clark 130, Lee and Jenkins 140 apiece. That's 70 starts for CruzHart (or KrynzelHart?) to allow them to get their spikes wet. Ya think? "So keep Lee for next year and see what happens. " What if we get CruzHart those 70 starts somehow and they both stink, Clark declines, or Jenkins get hurt again? Then I feel you should keep Carlos for another 3 years beyond 2006, when he'll finish THAT contract at the ripe old age of 33. Hell, we signed Damian Miller, whose knees are subject to catching the last decade-plus, at age 36! So what's the harm in having Lee/Jenkins/Hart or Lee/Clark/Cruz, Lee/Hart/Gwynn (!) or even Lee/Jenkins/Clark or whatever combo you employ, for a few more years, especially if these nuggets fail? At least Lee is always healthy and is as consistent as they come. Let's nail down at least ONE outfield position as Prince, Rickie and Braun emerge. But then again, that's just my 1/2ast opinion...

"I said: "As for Hart or Cruz matching Carlos' numbers...it's definitely possible... Nelson cruz could easily hit 20-30 hr's with a low obp just like carlos..that's not a reach at all, and their minor league EQA's show that it's very possible...I think either or both of these guys could put up better Ops's than Lee did this year in a year or two...and I think they both have the power to hit 30+ bombs...on top of that, i think they have both demonstrated that given opportunity, they can drive runners in too."[/" That's an incredible reach, pogo! Brettac noted, "Cruz did nothing in the minors until he was was 24. Heck, he was in A ball last year as a 24 year old in a hitter's league" And from that, you can't honestly assert that Nelson Cruz can therefore step right in and "easily hit 20-30 HRs"? C'mon! Cruz and Hart have done nothing at all at the major league level to "demonstrate that given opportunity, they can drive runners in too." You can't look past that. The distance between the minors and majors is incredibly vast, and no MLE formula will ever properly account for that. If the gap from the minors to the bigs was so easy to bridge, then there wouldn't be so many thousands of flameouts like Mike Coolbaugh, Kevin Orie and Joey Meyer. "as for the 5% decline...i was referring to his OPS, not his HR's or RBI's...If he dropped 42 points off his OPS, he would be below average...10% and we are talking J Hamms bad..." Here's one thing I've always felt should be built into OPS arguments: The notion that a starting major leaguer (at any position), with even 400 plate appearances, can physically turn in a .000 OPS for the "lowest" comparative measure. If you're trying to compare OPS's and hypothetically lop off 5% or 10%, then your low data range point would have to be around .600 up to 1.100 max. Cut 5% off of Carlos's .600 - 1.100 OPS range, and from .811 (211 points from the "minimum"), he's now at .800 or so, which isn't great, but ceratinly not Hammonds-esque. But as you know, lopping 5% off any numbers means operatig in the hypothetical world, anyway. "While I don't always agree with your arguments they are almost always reasonable. You are proving to be very stubborn on your insistance that RBIs can be used as a good individual measure of hitting prowess." First of all, thanks Russ. I try to be reasonable, although sometimes, ya never know with me... Anyway, I DO see what you're throwing out there, with regard to RBI opportunities. I'm just taking a simpler approach, I guess. I see 2004's middle of the order: O/Jenks/Clark and we failed to cash in runners and finished in last. In 2005, use Clark as the table-setter he was destined to be, and swap Jenkins to 5th with CLee 4th. Now that's a scarier 3/4/5, right? I know, I know, I'm oversimplifying, because the career years of Capuano, Clark, Hall and Turnbow accounted for probably 7-10 games of improvement in the standings alone, maybe more. But honestly, 2 healthy boppers in the middle of the lineup cashing in runs makes for a healthier, more productive offense, and we win more games. I'm just sayin'... Here comes the edit!: "Well, Prince Fielder could be good...but we'll never know if we don't try him" Pogo: We can afford to break in a budding slugger like Prince in '06 because we already have 2 established ones. Take one away (and make it the #1 guy, to boot), and you're placing too much of a burden of the rookies coming through. Besides, we're debating giving the #2 man in the draft, with a spectacular baseball pedigree and rapid, spectcular development through the minors, and adding him to Jenkins and Lee. Nelson Cruz and Corey Hart are aging nuggets who don't have similar "can't miss" labels attached to them as Prince and Rickie do, and rightly so. They're maybe's. Rickie and Prince are probablies. "It is asinine to expect to "know" that these guys can play in the majors before you trade Lee" But isn't that what you've been saying about Cruz and Hart, writing that it's definitely possibel they can replace Carlos Lee's production in 2006, and that they can "easily hit 20-30 bombs" ? No one knows how these 2 outfield nuggets can perform in the majors, but Prince and Rickie already have begun to. Big difference.

""what we don't want is for Carlos Lee to be hobbling around in 2009 because the brewers still owe him 18 million..." Me neither! By the way, is that $18 mil per year, or for 2 years? Because there's a huge difference, and I think we can be nearly 100% confident that DM wouldn't commit $18,000,000 a year to anyone. Despite that, given his solid health history, why should we expect CLee at age 33 to start hobbling around injured, often enough to make us worry? At age 36, 37...I'm right there with ya. "I thought we were past this stage? " Not when this thread still shows quotes like this: "His stats this year indicate that he is replaceable..Yes, he hit 31 jacks, yes he had 100+ rbi's...but beyond that Carlos was pretty middle of the road...so, if he decline even 5% he will be a burden on the team.." Try this, pogo: HYPOTHETICALLY, take Carlos's 32 HRs, 114 RBIs and 13 steals, and build in a 5% decline. That's still 30 HRs, 108 RBIs and 12 SBs. He'd still lead the team in each category, and by a lot. Drop it by 10%: . Still the leader. 20%? STILL worthy of being paid the going rate for team HR/RBI leader. You also noted that CLee's 2005 #s suggest he's replaceable. By whom? I've asked this twice before, and still haven't received a real counter-response: For $8,000,000 a year, who in the majors is available to us, who can hit 30+ HRs and drive in 110-120 runs, right now? I mentioned Berkman and Vernon Wells, to give everyone a head start, but their teams will wisely keep them. When someone presents an answer to this, or, better yet, when guys here stop marginalizing Lee's accomplishments because he's not 100% perfect, then THAT'S when this stage of the discussion will end, but I wouldn't hold my breath...

"Well that's the point. Lee delivered like a $5-6 million player. He's going to be paid $8.5 million. And likely $9 million the following year. " So? We absorbed Carlos's salary because the White Sox wanted to shed it. They felt they had enough boppers, committed to less production from Jermaine Dye for less money, and they didn't have enough in the speed/leadoff department, so Kenny Williams took a deep threat and made the deal. There wasn't ever a question of whether Carlos can still do his job or not. Free agent sluggers would have cost us more than $8 million, and even then, they probably would've been told by their agents and some peers that the Brewers have cooties, and you shouldn't go there. Therefore, Mark allowed Doug to pay (even perhaps *shudder* OVERpay by 2 whole million dollars or so!) to bring in an established masher who can convert these baserunners into points on the board. It's not as if DM blew up Mark's budget, and spent even $10,000,000 a year on a to backfill the CRUCIAL cleanup hole. Besides, by process of elimination, someone's got to be the top-paid hitter on the team. If not the primary HR/RBI threat, then who? Marginalizing what Carlos Lee brought to our offense is like saying Jennifer Garner is ugly because her smile is a little crooked.

"People just get excited because of his HRs and RBIs. " And we're wrong about that, how, Russ? I'm sure my stance on this issue is already clear to those who bother to read me (and for that, my condolences!). But sometimes a player's value is simpler to quantify than everyone thinks. Carlos always tends to stay healthy, he steals more bases than you'd expect, he hits lots of homers, and is consistently among the top 10-20 in the majors at driving in runs. That was enough to convince Doug Melvin, a man who's forgotten more about evaluating talent than all of us here will know, to acquir ehim, and judging by what Carlos delivered for us, it should be enough for any of us here, too. Trust Doug! Who cares if you can dig for flaws in his OBP, VORP and park-adjusted standard deviation? He's paid to homer and drive in runs, and he did just that. Besides, if he doesn't, who will? Nelson Cruz? I have already grudgingly admitted Brady Clark turned in a terrific season. Would it be fair of me to say Clark didn't hit enough home runs or didn't drive in enough runs and therefore should be traded, because I still don't like his style? Of course not. I accept the fact that he did what his role suggested he do. Same with Carlos. If you look long enough for arcane statistics to marginalize a player's accomplishments, especially in such a stat-heavy sport as baseball, you'll find them. But they won't mean much at all, if the man delivers what he's paid to do.

"And keep in mind the Cell gives away HRs more than any other park. " More than Colorado? Cincinnati? Philadelphia? Houston? And even so, has this been the case over years and years, or just this season?

"i think geno was pointing more towards a concern with jenkins' plate approach changing significantly if he feels he's the only true slugger in the lineup, rather than lee's low OBP affecting jenkins' rbi opportunities. if jenkins doesn't have other run producers (before or after him in the lineup) he starts trying to pull the ball out of the park all the time, and that can lead to some pretty bad at-bats / cold-streaks." You beat me to my own clarification, DJ43. Thanks! I recall a year (I want to say 1999?) where Jeromy was hurt for 3+ weeks, leaving Geoff to fend for himself as lone RBI threat, and he was kicking that front leg out like an angry mule, and swinging at pitches so far inside, the 1st base coach would flinch! Jenkins, when healthy, can thrive when properly supported by a more dominant, scarier slugging threat, so he can relax and be the Robin to Jeromy's, Richie's and now Carlos's Bat Man. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif Sorry... "...you should be wary that Brewerfan.net appreciates not having a huge amount of repetition from one poster harping on the same idea... " Aw, c'mon, pogo! If it weren't for beating a dead horse into the ground with multiple posts about the same topic, I'd be out of bidniss! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

"What if Lee and a package gets you a true #2 starter, and that's all you do? Then you've traded Lee plus the risk of our #5 starter situation for serious rotation improvement and the risk of Cruz/Hart/whomever in LF. I'm not sure whether that's a good trade or not, but I think the question is close, and that dimension has to figure into this discussion." While I do understand the concept in play here, the idea of giving up a top 15 RBI guy for a #2 starter doesn't work for me. I'm not saying it's stupid or anything. I'm just more of a "stick-with-what's-proven-to-work" kind of Brewer fan. I guess I've been burned so often in the past when we've salary-dumped All-Stars for maybes, that I'm gun-shy about wanting to ever face that again, even since we've been de-Seligified. Under your scenario, here's what I'd expect for 2006: Carlos Lee (.275-32-115, 15 SBs, .500 SLG) gone. Replaced by Cruz or Hart with the same # of plate appearances: (.250-15-50, 20 SBs, .400 SLG?). In turn, Jenkins goes from a secure, insulated .292-25-86 back to only-slugger-in-the-lineup 2004 form: .267-22-70. Painting with a very broad brush, and heavy on speculation here of course, I would expect this hypothetical 2006 Jenkins-4th/Hart-5th combo platter to drive in around 80 less runs. That could cost us 10 games or so in the standings. Can a true #2 starting pitcher improve on Obermueller/Glover by that many games? I can't say yes. Think of what defines a #2 starter: These days, with 30 teams, and the top 60 starters going roughly 190 innings, that means 31-60 tend to win around 13-14 games, with an ERA around 4.10 or so. Sure, Obermueller/Glover/Santos stink. But as our default composite #5 man, they'd likely combine to go 7-15 with a 5.10 or so. Agree? Even if you don't, I can't share your optimism when downgrading our offense by a helluva lot, and adding a slightly above average starter in the interest of making up that lost ground. Make it Jenkins for a Jon Lieber/Brian Lawrence type, and maybe we're closer, but even then... But then again, that's just me.

"I think Geno makes fair points about Lee's health and consistency. That said, Roto's analysis is very sound. Lee is not a good OBP man." Point well taken, Greg. And don't get me wrong, I'm not touting Lee for his OBP. I readily admit it's not that great. But as I've always believed, he's being paid to hit cleanup, take the RBI pressure off Jenkins, and just do what he always does: 30+ HRs, 110+ RBIs. Isn't that enough? There are many types of hitters to piece together to create a winning lineup. You need your OBP table-setter types who are not responsible for driving in runs (nor slugging...as much), your defense-first guys whom you're OK hitting 7th and 8th, and you need your 3-6 guys to do what Carlos does. Sure, I wish his BA would have been better, and I'd be apprehensive about him batting 3rd, as a Pujols does, but he's always out there, banging in runs. We need guys like that, so let's keep him. "The folks who say you have to consider need and available alternatives are certainly right. Nobody is saying "Give Lee away with no backup plan in place." What I hear Colby and others saying is "Look for a backup plan, because trading Lee would be a good idea if we could pull it off." " OK. But as I've asked earlier this week (and got no responses on) was: Could we trade Carlos Lee, and get the same pretty much guaranteed production at the cleanup spot without adding payroll (i.e., a TEN million dollar a year slugger)? I even spotted everyone a Vernon Wells or a Lance Berkman (which I'd do), but as we know, Toronto and Houston are going to hang onto those young-ish sluggers...as should we. "The facts suggest that Lee helped, but a lot of other factors -- Hall, Jenkins, Capuano, Turnbow -- were substantially more important in the turnaround." I agree that these 4 guys (hell, I've even grudgingly add in a shockingly good year from Clark http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ) performed much better than planned, and that obviously helped boost our fortunes in '05, by a lot. But try this scenario: Factor out the Podsednik trade. In LF, batting cleanup, it's Geoff Jenkins, flailing away at every pitch in his area code. In CF, probably still leading off, it's still Podsednik. In RF, batting 5th, it's Brrrrrrrady! Call it opinion, but if your 4-5 hitters in 2005 are Jenkins-Clark, that's nowhere near as productive, and we're leaving lotsa money on the table again as we did in 2004. Jenkins's numbers aren't as good, and we score a lot less runs, because, based on what Clark did when responsible for RBIs in 2004, I suspect he'd drive in around 50-60 less than Carlos did, and we're improved over '03, but still around, perhaps 74-88. Fair?

"As for the VORP debate, if you want to normalize for Lee's durability and not give him credit for 700 PAs, use VORPr. If you rank NL LFs by that stat with min 300 PAs, Lee is 12th out of 18. Behind Jeff Conine, Ryan Church, Reggie Sanders... " Sure, RA, he's 12th-best in the NL. Hell, he's downright awful. In fact, let's factor out the times he faces Reds pitching and all those games in bandbox ballparks, and he's perhap the worst player in the majors! Why won't anyone give the man credit for being durable and consistent? Creating formulic ways to marginalize his day-in day-out productivity is not fighting fair. It's like hypothetically factoring out the Rangers great infield and saying they'd otherwise be as bad as the Royals. Would YOU rather have a cleanup man like the always-injured Reggie Sanders, the over-the-hill Jeff Conine, the unproven Ryan Church, or a guy who you know will hit 30+ bombs, drive in 110-120 runs and allow Geoff Jenkins to relax a bit and not go for the 7-run homer every time up? Yet another reason why VORP does nothing for me. "I think you could find just as/almost as good of an outfielder as Lee in trade for much less money. Consider teams like the DevilRays and the Rangers have a stockpile of outfielders. They don't need another outfielder, but you could trade Carlos for pitching and then trade some pitching for an outfielder. Guys like Kevin Mench, David Dellucci, etc. make a lot less money for basically the same amount of offens First of all, Ray, welcome. Haven't seen your posts here before. Now, on to your post excerpted above. You write that Kevin Mench and David Dellucci produce basically the same amount of offense as Carlos. Not even close. Over the past 3 years: CLee: .291-31-113 w/18 SBs, .499 SLG....305-31-99 w/ 11 SBs, .525 SLG....265-32-114 w/ 13 SBs, .487 SLG DDellucci: .227-3-23 w/12 SBs, .352 SLG....242-17-61 w/ 9 SBs, .441 SLG....251-29-65 w/5 SBs, .513 SLG KMench: .320-2-11 w/1 SB, .464 SLG....279-26-71 No SBs, .539 SLG....264-25-73 w/ 4 SBs, .469 SLG These guys don't get paid as much as Carlos, because they don't consistently PRODUCE like Carlos. Sometimes the system works. "I guess this shows the dangers of one stat analysis. I doubt if any GM would consider him truly average. However he may have more value to the Brewers than another "average" lf because he is a right handed power hitter. Much of a players value has to be considered in the context of how he fits with the rest of the lineup. Lee was perfect for what the Brewers needed. " clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap! Couldn't have written this better, myself! ONE stat is taken and invoked as gospel, to tarnish a fine overall season. The Brewers badly needed a slugging partner to support/protect Jenkins, who has shown he can't shoulder that burden as cleanup man by himself. He was acquired when we needed an offensive boost the most. I'll ask those of you who view Carlos as "average": Since we all pretty much agree Doug Melvin has razor-sharp instincts in terms of talent evaluation, would you say Doug was responsible for not that great a move? Me neither.

"That's why some of us won't be upset if/when they are dealt for better players. They are average. Considering the past 13 years, average was great for us. Now lets get above average players, especially at 1B and LF where your power mashers are supposed to be. " Ahh, Robin19, you crack me up! Some roto service takes one season, doesn't factor in SBs (for a roto service?! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif ), durability, age nor consistency, and therefore labels Carlos Lee as "average." Fine. Unfortunately, this short-sighted assessment which only factors in 2005 OPS, had led an otherwise solid Brewer fan like yourself to want to deal for a better left fielder. *ahem* Like who? Give me a trade scenario, where we would not be adding much, if any, salary (because we can't boost our payroll to the $60,000,000 mark yet...or ever), and be getting in return a "power masher" as consistent as Carlos has been. Could we trade for, say, Vernon Wells or Lance Berkman? 'Cause if we can, then yeah, let's do that. But that won't happen, because teams who have consistent young-ish slugging outfielders tend to keep them...as we should.

First of all, thanks to backup catchers and 1992 casey, for the kind words. Much appreciated... Anyway (migod, this thread got long FAST, didn't it?), Brian, you ARE right of course about there being a difference between airing out umpires vs. airing out your own players, and judging by my stance on the very public and embarrassing Mike DeJean-vs.-Jerry Royster debacle, you KNOW which way I'm leaning here. I guess my point was that Bobby Cox may project a passive veneer, but it's tough to reconcile that with the fact that he's been tossed so often. That's all...

"Like I said earlier in the thread, you have to look at who trained him. He said next to one of the most effective stiffs in the game, Bobby Cox." Yeah, Brian, but hasn't Bobby Cox been ejected more than anyone in history? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he may even have been the only manager to have been run, in a World Series game! That said, Ned is not an over-the-top quote machine like Guillen, whom the Tribune's Rick Morrissey today annointed the "Say Anything Kid" and that's a very good thing. Honestly, I'd much rather have low-key Ned than a screwball who, when he was a Marlins coach, could be seen looking around for the cameras, and only then, gave the "choke" sign to the Cub dugout during the Bartman series. (And yes, the Tribune already HAS reprinted that picture this week - I'm looking at it right now!). That's why I hated Royster so much. He not only was a godawful manager, but he embarrassed us in the process by not being able to handle himself with even a little professional and organizational class. Guillen, right now, is a cartoonish example in how to NOT manage in the face of some adversity.

"Even the stanchest SABR-freindly folks recognize that current defensive metrics don't seam to paint an accurate picture of player's abilities. " Fair enough, Russ, but which defensive measures DO the SABR types embrace? Any? It just seems that offensive formulas are "easier?" to quantify, and are perhaps more readily accepted. Perhaps someday, someone will figure out THE universally-accepted defensive formula...maybe you! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif "I don't like Yost at ALL but he's not going to criticize Hardy's defense through the media, nor should he." Honesttogod, after reading and hearing Ozzie Guillen's meltdown this week all over town (his players pretty much all play like their next mistake will get them benched, and he even threatened to quit after this year if they win it all), I've GOT to figure Ned would handle some bad Brewer baseball in a playoff race, infinitely better. Ned has his drawbacks, but I think he's beginning to grow out of his scary loyalty and favoritism (although Obermueller STILL starts!) and would be much better suited to a pennant race than a profane, embarrassing Royster clone like Good Ol' Ozzeroo...

Guys, you make compelling cases for not trusting this stat. Honest. I mean, I'll still take a look at it, but you HAVE exposed some inherent flaws. But if you're going to marginalize this formula, then why is it, that when statistical noise like VORP and MLB-Equivalency numbers for minor leaguers (even for A-ball'ers!) are brought up, they're accepted pretty readily?...and they're crap! I'll axe you this: OBP is accepted as gospel. Range Factor, however, is bunk, significantly and rightly so, because it's dependent on others (teammates, who's pitching, etc.). But doesn't it take 2 to put a walk up on the board? Not only does the batter stand there and not swing, but the pitcher has to throw 4 bad ones, right? And even then, the ump chooses to call Ball 4, and the catcher may even be either miscommunicating with that pitcher, or he's calling a bad game. Just askin'...

I like JJ Hardy. He's young, homegrown, cheap, has been hitting lights out since the All Star break and he doesn't seem to be cocky or anything. That said, maybe he really DOESN'T have good range as a major league shortstop...YET. Maybe he'll grow into the role next year, improve on his footwork, make better breaks on balls up the middle or in the hole...whatever. Why is it, that when a stat is unflattering for a Brewer player, that it's dismissed out of hand, even by Ned? Instead, why not take a longer look at this stat, ask how the various factors are computed and weighed, and perhaps work on improving JJ's range? I'm sure even JJ wouldn't have a problem with something specific to improve on. And if you're going to come up with a formula, and you DON'T factor in putouts, assists and innings played, then what DO you factor in? I think this may be valid, and could serve as a constructive thing to work on, which could turn into a positive...

"My numbers say 50/50 shot at .500 or better." "Do your numbers take into account Gary Glover starting 2 of the remaining games?" Does it matter, Dave? Glover's probably replacing Obermueller for now. And when Obermueller starts, we're pretty much guaranteed ONE loss that night. Glover? Unless he pitches both ends of a double-header, the results won't be worse, can they? Too bad Ben Sheets went down, because, for a while there, say mid-August, the Vampire had a 4.20 ERA and he was our WORST starter, which ain't bad. Sadly, since then, VS imploded (a 12.86 ERA since 8/16!) and became our lone candidate for Designated Rotation Stooge. When Ben S was lost, Obermueller stepped neatly into that coveted role, by posting a 10.32 ERA in 3 starts. If we DO keep even one of these dudes in '06, I'd go with The Vampire, who at least pitched decently as a starter from April through mid-August. But if Obermueller is still in the organization next year, Ned will be tempted to keep attempting this failed experiment and start Good Ol' Obie a few times. Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

This IS something of a key game tonight, and I'm pumped! DirecTV is showing it's on spillover ESPN channel 210, but the paper says regular ESPN. Hell, I'll take it, even if it's on C-SPAN. I'm genuinely thrilled to see us going for a winning record in mid-September (did I just type that?!), on national TV no less. With the Packers looking so inept against the Lions' defense, and the Bucks still a ways away from capturting the imaginations of Milwaukee sports fans, this is one of those steps back to respectability we've been waiting for ever since Mark Anastasia bought the team. If the Badgers lose even ONE football game, their season's over, so that leaves us an open field! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif C'mon Sharpie, make a name for us tonight, even if it's just against the Diamondbacks!

"the accuracy that I speak of is that a player's MLEs are usually a good indication of what a player will do in the future. At the same time, they aren't a projection" Sorry, JH, perhaps I'm ignorant (perhaps?! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ) but isn't "an indication of what a player WILL do in the FUTURE" a projection? Again, it's not you here I have the issue with, it's this formula. Do you really believe in it? Exactly how accurate has it been? 20%? 60%? I feel that a formula which is believed to be an accurate indicator of future performance stands alone when you can take, say, the last 3 years' sampling of numbers for a given pitcher or hitter, and see how closely it hews to current performance. For example: Carlos Lee averaged 29 HRs and 97 RBIs with an .855 OPS from 2002 - 2004, all at the major league level, of course. It's September of '05, and CLee is at 30 HRs, 103 RBIs and an .840 OPS. While not every player is this consistent, this works for me...