Ennder
-
Posts
11,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Ennder
-
Pitching WAR is very unreliable, I know fangraphs uses FIP which is going to give all kinds of goofy results. I'm guessing BR just uses ERA for its measurement which is even worse.
-
We have a bunch of bad defensive players so not sure you can say they are playign under expectations. Escobar and Gomez are the only 2 that should be above average.
-
Brewers are 37-44 after the first half of the season. In order to really have a good shot at the wild card they have to go 53-28 in the second half which is a .654 winning percentage. No trade the team can make will realistically put them in the playoff hunt. They have to just pray to get really lucky/hot and have a 12 game winning streak or something to have a chance at sniffing the playoffs. The first half they just played too poorly to overcome most likely.
-
Well that is why I say maybe Wolf. If you are using career statistics he is clearly better than the rest, if you think his bad 9 game stretch this year was him aging then he isn't, if you think it was just a bad stretch then he is probably clearly better than the rest at this point. Others like Parra might have more potential but they also have more question marks. I guess I'm not hung up on 9 games and I don't see how you remove Wolf from the rotation because of 9 bad games even if you ignore the fact he is signed for 3 years. To me Bush is the only person who makes sense. Parra and Narveson have too much upside, Wolf and Gallardo are better pitchers than Bush. That leaves him the odd man out if they decided Davis is the better option.
-
There are like 5 good managers in baseball so a new manager doesn't excite me that much.
-
You have to go back to early 2009 to find a stretch of even 10 games where Bush hasn't been terrible by peripherals is the big difference. The second difference is Bush is likely gone after this year and Wolf is likely with the team for at least one more season if not two. I'm not saying Wolf is without a doubt one of the top 5 pitchers, I'm just saying that this seasons stats are a terrible way to judge something like this. If I had to look at our current 6 starters assuming they were 100% healthy I'd guess that Bush is the weakest of the bunch, but Gallardo and maybe Wolf are the only two who are clearly better than the rest. These are a bunch of question marks in general.
-
Not surprised by this, they have had tons of young talents and went out and traded for talent and spent money on deadline trades and still have never done anything. They are a good team to compare the Brewers to if you want to spin a positive light on the Brewers. -
You mean a very small sample of recent statistics suggest it. I mean he is having the worst healthy season of his career but it still putrid small sample of 16 starts and to be honest the really bad part has only been 9 starts now, since 5/14 in Phi and 3 of those starts aren't bad at all. Looking at such a small chunk of a pitchers stats is going to come to all kinds of bad data.
-
Some of the things Macha says really bug me
Ennder replied to logan82's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I would think a good manager lumps pitchers into categories instead of worrying about results against a single pitcher. -
A strong case can be made that it hasn't been worse either. (only looking at starts here) Gallardo - 2.97 FIP, 3.46 xFIP, 2.56 ERA Parra - 1.77 FIP, 3.63 xFIP, 4.37 ERA Narveson - 4.19 FIP, 4.25 xFIP, 4.87 ERA Davis - 4.67 FIP, 4.50 xFIP, 7.56 ERA Bush - 5.14 FIP, 5.24 xFIP, 4.56 ERA Wolf - 6.04 FIP, 5.39 xFIP, 4.92 ERA Since Wolf obviously isn't going to be removed I'd say Bush has been the weakest on the year though he has been a bit better the last few starts. I think the only terrible choice here would be to remove Parra from the rotation. There really isn't a good or right choice with the rest of them. Narveson and Parra both kind of forced their way into the picture and now it is just kind of murky.
-
If it is a buy move that helps us next year too I'm all for it.
-
yeah. But again this is looking at results instead of how good the player actually pitched, the two things aren't the same. If player A and player B pitch like this every single night player A is going to end up the better pitcher because Player B isn't always going to get insanely lucky and give up 0 H.
-
Sure, but you don't assume this is what has happened after a single game either. I've seen plenty of players go on a month long heater who 'figured it out' and then went back to being the same old player afterwords.
-
I guess I mean the act of getting 0 hits itself doesn't impress me. I mean someone who goes 9 IP, 4 H, 0 BB, 10 K had a more impressive game than a 9 IP, 0 H, 4 BB, 5 K game. The hits themselves just aren't that big of a deal in that type of line.
-
I'd think as long as Parra, Gallardo and Wolf are starting the rest isn't going to be a huge deal. Those 3 are likely the start of the rotation for next year. You can make a case for starting all the other guys from giving Narveson a shot to increasing trade value for Bush/Davis etc. None of those guys are likely to be more than a backend of the rotation type so from an actual winning standpoint I doubt one helps us more than the others.
-
Player skill is developed over a large sample, not a single game. We just view baseball completely differently, you are hung up on results and I'm not. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on these things. When 21 balls are put into play against a pitcher and not a single one finds some sort of hole it is luck, I don't care if they were all weak ground balls(which they weren't). ER and H are just not stats I put much weight into over small samples, they are extremely high variance(luck if you will) and they just don't really tell you what happened. You can pitch a good game and give up a bunch of runs, you can pitch poorly and give up no runs, you can pitch a good but not great game and give up no hits, you can pitch a great game and give up 4 hits. This game wasn't Jackson's best of the season imo and it wasn't one of the 20 best in the majors this year. We'll just agree to disagree. This game was 'historically significant' it just wasn't impressive. As for Edwin Jackson's actual talent, I think you are giving him way too much credit in the first place. His career xFIP and ERA are right around the same as Dave Bush's and while he throws in the mid 90s he has a below average fastball beacuse it is very hittable. He has had a negative value on his fastball every year in the majors. The pitch that is keeping him in the majors is his slider.
-
You don't throw a no hitter without getting lucky unless you strike out like 15 hitters during it. It doesn't matter how great you pitched or didn't pitch. No hitters are mostly just flukey games. The fact he gave up 8 BB during his no hitter just makes it even less impressive. Looking at this game specifically he gave up 8 flyballs, 11 ground balls and 2 LD and threw almost as many balls as strikes and none happened to fall in for hits, pretty much nothing but a fluke. His 5/17 game against Arizona was much more impressive as an example even though he gave up 4 hits.
-
Because I don't? This was not one of the 30 best starts in baseball this year most likely, it certainly wasn't better than say Gallardo's last game. He had a bunch of balls hit right at guys, just doesn't impress me.
-
My respect for the no hitter just keeps going down and down, at this point I don't find them impressive in the least.
-
The time to sign him was the start of the year, since they didn't do that and he is having a big year and absolutely none of the injury risk has changed it is now a bad time to extend him imo. This is why I wanted it to start the year, being healthy for even a full season doesn't change a thing from a risk standpoint for him, he is always going to have concerns with the wrists, all it does is drives up his price.
-
my guess is 22 of 30. My guess is 28/30 with the 2 that don't being terrible managers. 120 pitches in a complete game where you rarely had anyone on base is not a big deal at all. I agree with the 2nd part of this but to be honest they aren't babied all that much more than 30 years ago. Just 30 years ago hitters didnt' work counts as much and they weren't as good so you didn't throw as many max effort pitches. If your 350 IP pitcher of yesteryear played today they would not throw much more than 240 IP, the game has changed way more than the pitchers have.
-
The 5+ bb/9 as a rotation in May was not just pitching calling, it was pitchers not being able to throw strikes. The HR blip in April most likely is just luck since it didn't come with a FB% blip. From a pure peripheral standpoint April was the best month for the starters and that was before Lucroy, they have improved from a results standpoint but results rarely mean much over such a small sample.
-
ERA/xFIP by month for our starters has been... April - 5.09/4.30 May - 4.63/4.94 June - 4.21/4.55 In April we gave up way too many HR, in May we gave up way too many BB, this month things have stabilized some and we've had good luck with BABIP and LOB% to offset some of the bad luck we had earlier in the season.
-
Pretty much. If the Yankees had a $15M payroll you would include them in the small market teams regardless of the actual market size and they would be a bad team most of the time. Market size itself has very little to do with success in baseball, it is the money that controls that. Obviously this contradicts my earlier statement and I agree, it would be rough for me to call NYY a small market team under this situation, this is a large market team who didnt' spend their money. To compare it to another sport, the Patriots pay their average player less than most teams because they are a large market and successful team and players will sign at a discount to play for the team and get the endorsements. The Red Sox have to pay their average player more than most teams because players know that the large market teams will overpay to get the most wins and they will be able to drive up their prices. It is an extremely different dynamic between the two sports.
-
This team was drafted to put fans in the seat to rebuild the fanbase as the first step of rebuilding the franchise, it is unfortunate that none of them improved all that much defensively but it is hardly Macha's fault either. If you really want to blame someone look at Melvin and the scouting guys not the manager.
