bjkrautk

Hard not to like a deal that increases the talent level available in 2011+, with minimal cost. I think it's better for Edmonds, who can play what everyone assumes to be his last 2 months of MLB in a pennant chase, as well. If it means Lorenzo Cain plays almost everyday down the stretch, even better! Is it just me, or have the Brewers been better than most other teams at finding veteran players who've been out of the majors for at least a year, and making them productive reserves (Kapler, Cirillo, Edmonds)?

Considering Hart went to arbitration in each of the past 2 seasons, I can't really blame DM for getting a deal done while Hart (and therby Hart's agent) were agreeable to the idea. It's hard for me to love the signing for the same reason that it's hard for me to hate it: there's a ton of uncertainty as to whether he's going to flourish or regress from this year's numbers.

Parra stays in rotation (J-S Online Brewers blog) On some level, I completely understand the rationale behind the decision to take Capuano out of the rotation. He was making a spot-start since Gallardo couldn't come off the DL right away to take Davis' spot in the rotation. Parra is younger and under Brewers control for a longer period of time, so it makes more sense to use the increasingly lost season to evaluate what you have in Parra. Simplest terms: Parra has better 'stuff' than Cappy did before the injuries. On the other hand, I have so much respect for what Capuano has done - both in working his way back from injury, and serving sparse duty in the bullpen without a negative word despite his past history as a starter - and have so much disappointment in Manny Parra, that the correct decision for the ballclub just feels wrong. Anyone else feel the same way?

Given his history with their organization, I'd be shocked if Nats 3b Coach (and former Brewers Rookie of the Year) Pat Listach isn't interviewed for the job. As much as I dislike the Cubs, not a whole lot of that carries over to Piniella.

http://sports.espn.go.com...ers/splits?playerId=5915 19 HR with none on; 4 HR with runners on.

That was my takeaway from what Macha is saying. This was the part of the J-S Online story that mattered to me: I have little doubt that the NFL would impose fines for the intentional plunkings of Fielder over the weekend. That the league office tends not to get involved until a brawl (or an ejection after benches are warned) takes place leaves the gray area for retaliation....to say nothing of the first-plunking-is-free nature of warning both benches. On the flip-side, I don't think I would have enjoyed the team cuffing Tommy Hanson around on the diamond as much were it not for his hitting Braun in the last series, and then hitting Fielder immediately after Braun took him deep.

Every once in awhile, I'll work "Screw the curveball, Ricky; give 'em the Heater" into idle conversation. Major League was such a great baseball movie.

Weeks gets payback on Hanson for hitting Braun (without malice = bonus). What goes around, comes around.

Aside from finally learning to take walks (his OBP is .089 higher than his Avg.), his numbers have all reverted to his career averages. Considering half of his starts have come as a corner OF, those numbers aren't that stellar. I'm glad for his sake that he's resurrecting his career, even if it is in the 'super-sub' role that he didn't want here in Milwaukee.

http://twitter.com/BrewerNation/status/18468064782 It says the Brewers - according to the twitterer's source - prefer Moore to Davis. No mention of Odorizzi or his schedule to reach the majors. (...and for the record, the rumor was discussed in this very thread.)

While what you're saying is true, I think you're missing (or at the very least obfuscating) my point. Yes, any pitcher could suffer a serious injury on any specific day. The chances of that injury happening to any specific pitcher on any specific date is relatively small. That said, the odds of a minor league pitcher needing surgery somewhere over the course of the next 2-4 years (before they can contribute at the major league level) presents a significantly larger risk than the chances that Wade Davis (or any other "MLB Ready" pitcher) will get hurt while making a contribution to the major league team. Moreover, injury risk is a relatively small component of the total risk when projecting minor league pitching. There are any number of other things that can derail a starting pitching prospect: - Off-the-field problems (Jeffress risk) - Struggle throwing pitches for strikes against more disciplined hitters (Ben Hendrickson risk) - Failure to develop enough quality pitch types to be effective starters at the major league level (Eric Gagne risk, if you remember his time as a SP for the Dodgers) - They might simply fare better coming out of the bullpen (Carlos Villanueva risk) - May never put things together so that their results match the quality of their stuff (Parra risk) Much like the injury risk, there's no guaranty that an MLB-ready pitcher isn't going to run head-first into one of these risk-factors. (In fact, all of my labels except Jeffress were well-regarded, MLB-ready starting pitching prospects at some point.) The real difference is that we have already witnessed the player succeed against better competition (including major leaguers, where Wade Davis is concerned), without tarnishing those projections. The further away the player is, the more difficult it is to evaluate these risk factors. If the two players are considered roughly equal in terms of talent, I'm going to pick the MLB-ready talented pitcher over the impressive-but-unproven A-baller.

Whatever happened to TINSTAPP, Al? To me, the important thing is not maximizing talent, but maximizing return on investment (at the Major league level). We measure talent independent of risk that the player is able to tap into that talent with regularity (see Parra, Manny). There are no shortage of things that could go wrong with a pitching prospect at the lower levels of the minors {injury, off-the-field troubles, their command / stuff doesn't look as good against advanced hitters, etc., fails to develop dependable 3rd pitch and has to go to the bullpen, etc.} The "MLB Ready" starting pitcher has cleared most of those hurdles, and can start making a contribution almost immediately. If Doug Melvin makes the move for Moore (or Minor for that matter), over someone like Garza, Davis, or Sanchez (who I like in that order), it's because he thinks that player has a real chance to develop into a #1-2 starter, rather than a 3-4 guy who could maybe peak as high as a #2 guy. Players like Yovanni Gallardo (or Hellickson for that matter) don't get traded when they're ready to contribute at the MLB level; guys like Dave Bush do. Personally, I'd rather have the guy who can contribute now, while you still have the current nucleus of your ballclub that can compete for a playoff spot in 2011 if things break right (or 2010 if two other teams in the division break down). There's also a certain level of "giving up on the season" PR (and expected loss of revenue) that comes with trading for low level / high-ceiling types that I suspect Mark A. would have to be sign off on before the deal could go through.

Since McGehee is 9th in the majors in OPS at 3b this season (using 200 PA as a baseline), either you're confident that Gamel is - right now - already better than 2/3rd of major league 3b's, or you have an odd sense of what 'replaceable' really means. http://espn.go.com/mlb/st...on/3b/sort/OPS/minpa/200

The inspiration for the Peanuts comic Kite-eating tree? The Jerry Bruckheimer production studio's logo?

I was of the understanding that Leno still does stand up in addition to his run on TV. Unemployment (or, put more realistically, retirement) was never really an option for Jay. If nothing else, Leno lost the PR campaign surrounding the move from-and-to the Tonight Show. I'm sure the network made it clear to Jay that Conan getting fired was independent to Leno's taking back the Tonight Show (as in, if it weren't Leno....it would be someone else). That said, Jay's continued (poorly-rated) nightly appearances on TV during the entire affair existed only because he wanted to stay on TV, and the network didn't want him going anywhere else. No shortage of blame to go around, really.

Based on the current scoreboard, I have my doubts as to how often they'll actually show replays on the thing. (Wouldn't want to show up a umpire by putting a play up there fans want to see again.) Does this mean that, by 2021, the Brewers will be talking up their new 3d scoreboard? ("It's just like being at a ballgame!")

J.J. Hardy's 1st half in his rookie season (2005).187 BA, .293 OBP, .267 Slg., .560 OPS (187 ABs) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5908&type=batting&year=2005 How quickly we forget. (Granted his .860 OPS after the break that year is a contributing factor in that forgetfulness.) Regardless of whether you like how Hardy was treated last year or in the off-season, if he hadn't been traded, Escobar still would have played 30-40 games for the Brewers this season (and would have out OPS'd Hardy in them). I like J.J., he was one of my favorite guys when he was here, but he was always a very streaky hitter.

I can definitely jump on board the Uncharted 2 hype train. Great single-player experience. Not a perfect game (many of my gripes would be tied to railroad crossing signs & helicopters....and if you've played the game, that says enough), but it's such a fun narrative that you want to keep playing to see what's going to happen next. Some other quick reviews: Final Fantasy 13 - aka, the reason I bought PS3...3 years before the game came out. Even with all that extra time, the game still felt unfinished. As someone who has played Final Fantasy games since #1 hit the NES (without looking....1988?), the lack of any side-missions through the first 2/3rds of the game really stood out. The game is by the same team that developed FF7 and FF10 (both being the first FF games on new console hardware, that being PS1 and PS2, respectively), two titles which both gave players reasons to delve back into areas they had previously been. The lack of any ability to re-direct (or travel from place to place on the planet Cocoon), or a reason to do so made the game look and feel very much like an on-rails RPG. While the game environments look beautiful, the lack of anything meaningful (or even meaningless - as there have always been people to talk to in previous games with nothing important to say) made it feel empty in a way the designers probably didn't intend. The combat system doesn't really get in the way (you're more of an RPG conductor than a player - giving members of your parties roles and mostly letting them pick how to go about them), but just making the same commands faster doesn't make the experience better....just different. FF13 isn't a bad game; it has most of the things that I like in the genre. For a game in which the sense of place is so very important to the characters' focus....it just doesn't convey those feelings well to the person holding the controller. All of the things that would make me want to go back to that game (like I do the with so many of the previous games in the series) aren't actually there. Prof. Layton and the Diabolical Box (DS) - If you liked the first game primarily for its puzzles, this game has more of them. While the presentation and most of the elements of the game stay the same, I just didn't enjoy the story elements of the second game nearly as much as I did the first. (No spoilers, just that the final reveal felt dissatisfying.) Also, one of the games' side-objectives didn't involve puzzle solving, unless you consider trial-and-error to be a valid puzzle solving mechanic. (Making tea in-game literally involves tossing 3 ingredients into a pot, and then seeing if you come up with one of the in-game formulas. While it's possible to go through every potential combination....systematic t&e isn't fun.) Play the first one instead, if you get the inclination. Just bought Puzzle Quest 2 over the weekend. Don't expect a review any time shortly, as that game is meant to be ground through to the level cap. Initial impression is that it's fun, albeit one of the few times in games where I could use a bit of hand-holding to explain the changes from the first game.

It's not a 'necessary' update, since your iPod Touch will run just fine as-is (although I'm sure you'll have to reject prompting with some degree of regularity). There may be some apps for the Touch that will require an OS upgrade down the line, FWIW. My one gripe with iOS4 on my Touch is that podcasts - while the player is vertically-aligned - keeps the podcast description up with the timecode / manual play controls. Not a big deal for audio, but a pain in the rear end during video podcasts. The only remedies I see are to turn the player on its side (which drops all the controls for audio-only podcasts), or tap the screen in order to hide the manual control overlay. It's an exceedingly minor gripe....but it's the type of thing that I'd expect to be able to fix easily in an options menu for a non-Apple product.

A normal tennis set would take - at most - 13 games (with one player winning the set 7-6). The scoring in this match has gone 4-6, 6-3, 7-6, 6-7, 59-59. It's not quite like a 40-inning game....27 would be closer to reality. Imagine a baseball game where the 9th inning lasts longer than two full-length baseball games. That's what this is like. I'm not much of a tennis fan so let me get this straight. These guys played 108 full games in the final set without a single guy breaking serve? When i saw the 59-59 i assumed it was tiebreaker points. Is the tiebreaker now gone in tennis then? Wow that is utter insanity. Lifted from Wikipedia: As for breaking serve, after about 5 hours of play Isner was still serving 118 mph aces. Neither guy had a ton of range to track down the other's serve, which is why they both had 90+ aces when play was suspended.

A normal tennis set would take - at most - 13 games (with one player winning the set 7-6). The scoring in this match has gone 4-6, 6-3, 7-6, 6-7, 59-59. It's not quite like a 40-inning game....27 would be closer to reality. Imagine a baseball game where the 9th inning lasts longer than two full-length baseball games. That's what this is like.

http://atdhe.net/20580/watch-wimbledon-mahut-vs-isner That's the live-stream for one of the matches at Wimbeldon. They're tied at 55-55 in the final set (since it's a grand slam event, there is no tiebreaker). The match started yesterday, and had to be suspended; they've been on the court for over 6 hours today. This is the longest running tennis match in history.

Narveson has already out-performed Bush against the Twins this year.

I think I saw Bush listed as the starter on ESPN a few days ago. My best guess as to why he's getting skipped: http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=300521109 I don't remember seeing or hearing 'official' confirmation that Bush was going to have his turn in the rotation skipped, but that's more a indictment of the J-S staff than anything else.

Since I'm the one who started all of this, allow me to put it in context. The reason why I even mentioned 'luck' is because Bush and Narveson, in a relatively similar number of innings (58 for Bush, 54 for Narveson), the two players have allowed a similar number of runs. (38 for Bush, 36 for Narveson). The reason that their ERAs are nearly a point different is that nearly every run Narveson has given up has been 'earned' (35-of-36), while Bush has had more unearned runs (only 32 of the 38 runs allowed have been earned). I was pointing out all of the ways in which their performance has been similar, and how I'm not so sure the organization should be 'committed' to either one as a long-term answer. I'm downright paleolithic when it comes to pitching SABR-metrics. I'm not a believer that a pitcher can only control HR, BB, and Ks; I believe that a pitcher makes his own "luck" most of the time. I have no problem dealing with 'earned' runs as the better determinate of a pitcher's ability....but I don't think you can dismiss the unearned runs entirely. It's possible to have your defense make an error, and still end the inning with the runner standing on first base. Unless you're looking at a Jose-Canseco-in-the-outfield, Fly-ball-into-HR-type of error, it's something that the pitcher can (and has to) work around. It's part of the game, a game where we still assign wins and losses to pitchers based on whether they gave up more runs than the other team's pitcher, regardless of whether they were earned. I have no reason to believe that the defense was significantly worse when Bush takes the mound over Narveson, so I can't simply wash my hands of the discrepancy in unearned runs. In fact, let's rank Veteran Brewers (my smallest sample below is 322.2 IP) pitchers by how frequently they give up unearned runs over their careers: C. Villanueva .0174 Unearned Runs / IP Y. Gallardo .0199 T. Hoffman .0292 R. Wolf .0298 T. Coffey .0372 D. Bush .0395 C. Capuano .0461 J. Suppan .0491 M. Parra .0651 Although Carlos's numbers at the top of the list jump out at me a bit, the numbers largely track with my perceptions and expectations for these players based on their careers. (I'm not going so far as to place a predictive quality on it, but it seems noteworthy that better pitchers seem to give up fewer earned and unearned runs over time.) Stranding baserunners is a part of the game, regardless of how they got on base to begin with. 90% of the time, when I talk about pitchers, I use earned runs as one of my metrics. It's the stat that I go to most often. (Heck, I'm one of the few kooks who believes that the quality start is a useful statistic, so I'm not even sure how many of you could make it this far without rocking back and forth, mumbling somthing about xFIP.) While I rely on it for the 'eyeball' test of a Brewers pitcher, I've never noticed one of them trying to let the runner score, just because that runner reaches base on an error, and that run wouldn't 'count' against him. Having an error behind you is never "lucky," but neither are the circumstances around a run scoring due to that error.