Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

kramnoj

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,293

  • 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 kramnoj

  1. kramnoj
    Would anyone have wanted to pay Jose $10 million? This is a bad argument. Nobody would have paid Jose that money, because that wasn't the kind of money paid for players of Joses' caliber in 2002. As to the other part of your argument, are you talking about his last year with the Brewers? Because Jose was probably the 2nd best hitter on the Brewers that year, and had good-very good hitting numbers for a SS. Were you happier with the hitting performance of Royce Clayton the next year, who struck out half as often but OPSed .634? I know the current alternatives aren't there but let's explore them before we pay a guy who wasn't the solution but part of the problem as the team was struggling down the stretch. Plenty of people have explored alternatives here. As far as players in FA, it doesn't look good. We could take on a bad long term contract like Gary Matthews or Juan Pierre, but I don't see how that improves the Brewers. The best alternative that would be the hardest to quantify would be a Podsednik/Clark type player who hasn't yet seen significant major league action. I'm sure that Melvin and Ash are looking for those players to see if they are freely available or would be cheap acquisitions.
  2. kramnoj
    As for Davey Johnson, it should be pointed out that he lost his job with the Reds and Orioles due to his inability to get along with the team's owners, Marge Schott and Peter Angelos. This is certainly worthy of being pointed out, but I don't see this as a mark against Davey. Are you saying that he wouldn't be a good manager because of this, or that he isn't in consideration because Attanasio wouldn't hire him because of this, or something else? It's hard to find managers who have had more success than Davey, there is a reason that he is favored by fans here.
  3. kramnoj
    HTR, have you looked at Davey's managerial record? It would be difficult to use the word failure when talking about him. Davey managed very good Mets teams in the mid-late 80s. He was fired in 1990 when he was 2 games under .500 42 games into the season. Bud Harrelson managed that team into a 91 win season, but then Bud was fired the next year as the Mets sunk below .500 and didn't come back up for 7 seasons. He takes a couple of years off and then joins the Reds in the 93 season. He manages the 94 team to a 1st place finish and then the season ends prematurely. In 95 he has another 1st place finish. He leaves the Reds, and it takes them 4 years to have a good season again. He takes over the Os in 96, a team that had a losing record the year before. He takes them to the WC in 96 and then finishes in first place in 97. He leaves the Os and they haven't had a winning record since he left. His last stop with the Dodgers was unremarkable, but Davey was a successful manager in his previous stints. He has no obvious flaws that I remember, and I much prefer him over what appear to be the final 3 candidates.
  4. kramnoj
    I'll play along. The New York teams missed the playoffs. The team from the smallest media market made the playoffs. Tampa is in the World Series after years of futility by acquiring young inexpensive talent through the draft. Teams that are run well do well, with a little luck. There could, and should, be more revenue sharing, but teams can compete if they make good decisions. Large market teams did represent a large portion of the playoff teams this year, with both LA teams and both Chicago teams, and Philly is one of the largest markets, so money is obviously an advantage. But we were just a couple of games away from Minnesota being in it instead of Chicago and Arizona being in it instead of LA. I do think there should be more revenue sharing, but I also think that should be accompanied by rigorous oversight of dollars received to make sure that this money goes to baseball operations to improve the team. I don't want a salary floor, because I think that just overpays mediocrity. But I do think that teams can do well with academies in foreign countries. I think baseball could do better to provide better baseball facilities to urban areas in the US to promote baseball. Really, I don't think there's a team that is run well that can't make the playoffs. It's harder, and that's unfair, but the sport is making progress, and the cash from MLB AM certainly helps.
  5. kramnoj
    Keith Law of Scouts Inc and ESPN chimed in on a bbtf thread and said this in response to someone saying that Brenly is a terrible tactical manager: "Go with your instincts. Repeatedly bunting in front of the guy who hit 57 homers that season was just the most egregious of his many boneheaded moves in that World Series."
  6. kramnoj
    http://www.baseballthinkf...plus_defense_opd_results/ is the updated season total for this stat. The important thing to remember about this stat is that it is tied to comparing against position players in the same league. So when Pujols has an amazing season, it makes all other NL 1Bs look poorer by comparison. I think it can lead to skewed results, but I like to look at a stat that combines offensive value with play-by-play defensive value.
  7. kramnoj
    ESPN has lots of staffers that are NY and Boston fans, but that's not why they focus on those teams. They focus on those teams because those teams have the largest fan bases (with the addition of the Cubs). Large fan bases equals ratings equals add dollars. It will be interesting to see how fair the MLB network will be to all teams. With the NY teams and the Red Sox having their own networks, you could make the argument that the MLB network really shouldn't cater to those audiences, that it should be more broad based.
  8. kramnoj
    I think it's time we all start accepting that he won't be back. There's no reason to accept it until it happens. I'm guessing Neyer knows less about this than any of us here. He is supposed to cover 30 teams, he isn't likely to have any special insight on this issue. I don't think anybody expects CC to come back. But there's a chance and for some of us it's fun to remain hopeful.
  9. kramnoj
    I had never heard of the limit on signing FA until recently. Has that ever been in play where those rules were the reason that a team couldn't sign a FA? I don't recall it. Edit: I had thought this would be an issue with the Yankees this year, but maybe not. They will target Texeira and two SP, so that should fill their biggest holes. I guess they can sign C level FA or make trades if they feel the need to fill other positions.
  10. kramnoj
    According to ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3651897 Ellis is coming back with the A's.
  11. kramnoj
    It's important to distinguish between revenue and profit. It's also important to realize that the Yankees don't own 100% of YES. There's no question YES brings in huge profits to the Yankees, but it's not $340 million.
  12. kramnoj
    I would have much rather had the Brewers announce who they've hired and let us all know from that that Sveum was not their man, rather than kind of single him out as someone who is not fit for the position before they've even picked a manager. I'm not sure what the distinction is. Either way the Brewers felt that Sveum wasn't the right fit at this time. This way Sveum knows where he stands and has more time to start looking for employment elsewhere. How does it benefit Sveum to be sitting in limbo until the Brewers make (or announce) their decision, which could be weeks away?
  13. kramnoj
    Its nice to have an old knowledgable coach but it doesnt build great chemistry. This is stated too plainly. I guess I'd like to know what you mean by old, but plenty of older managers have won in baseball. It's tough to find a team where chemistry led to winning, as opposed to the other way around. Can you think of some? All in all, look at the nfl right now, it is all new young inexperienced coaches, and its working, teams arent living in the past bringing in all these old guys because they have more experience. They care about knowledge, energy, and leadership, NOT just experience. There's not much to compare managing in baseball and being the head coach in football. Football is all about preparing for one game, and having 5-6 days to do it. Baseball is about managing for a season while trying to win a game each day. They really aren't comparable.
  14. kramnoj
    When it comes to on-field success, I personally struggle to understand why recycling old managers that nobody else wanted last year is better It's easier to fail with a Proven Veteran (whether that be a player or a manager) than with a Rookie. The press won't question you as much, and the public feels more comfortable with known commodities. When I was selling Gateway Computers, there was a saying in the buying industry: "Nobody gets fired for buying Compaqs". If you take a chance with someone that has had success before and they fail, that's just bad luck. If you take a chance on an unknown and they fail, you made a bad choice. I can't help but think of the situation in Tampa - the much heralded & traveled Lou Pinella couldn't get it done, but the relatively unknown Joe Maddon is pulling many of the right strings. I'm assuming you know it's not that simple. I think it would be worth a thread to just talk about what people think is most important in a manager. Is it the in-game tactics? The Human Resources managing of people? Managing a pitching staff? Where do people rank Public Relations with their preference of a manager (I think it's one of the last things I would consider, but plenty of people didn't like Yost's post-game style).
  15. kramnoj
    I've read his blog frequently & can't recall ever coming across something like what I boldfaced. Not that this is a big deal, but I find writing interesting. Sometimes writers will have a slightly different style depending on who they are writing for. It could be that THT wants him to be more assertive.
  16. kramnoj
    Writers are trained to write confidently. It makes for a more definitive reading. The Brewers never made an extension offer to Sheets this year, at any time. Sheets even said something about knowing he's not wanted, or can't invite yourself back, or something to that effect. I'm guessing the author used information like that to come up with the definitive statement.
  17. kramnoj
    Jeter threw a tantrum. I challenge you to document that. There really isn't much to support the notion that anybody ever had a discussion with Jeter about moving. It's not Jeter's job to go to management and offer to move. It's his job to be the best player he can be and play where he's told to play.
  18. kramnoj
    Brewers were the top-rated prime time show 44 times out of 80 nights this season. I think there is something missing there. Why is that limited to 80 nights? Are those the only 80 games that were measured by Nielsen? Are those the only 80 games in Primte Time (that can't be right). Is that 80 road games (I don't think that works either). It's great news either way that the Brewers were so popular, I just was curious about that. Edit: It must mean that there were only 80 prime time games shown on FSN. All other games were day games or not shown of FSN (FSN didn't broadcast the games in Milwaukee on Saturday hardly at all, did they?). I didn't think half of the games would be day games, but that must be the answer.
  19. kramnoj
    Commitments for 2009 Blue Jays: Rolen 3B $11M Halladay SP $14.25M Ryan RP $10M Wells CF $1.5M Overbay 1B $7M Rios RF $5.9M Downs RP $3.75M McDonald SS $1.9M Bautista 3B $1M? Scutaro UI $1.1M Frasor RP $2M? Tallet RP arby $2-3M? Hill 2B $2.59M Camp RP arby $1-2M? McGowan SP pre-arby $.5M? Marcum SP pre-arby $.5M? League RP arby $2M? Litsch SP pre-arby $.5M? Wolfe RP pre-arby $.5M? Carlson RP pre-arby $.5M? Inglett 2B pre-arby $.5M? Richmond SP pre-arby $.5M? Lind OF pre-arby $.5M? I have around $71M. That doesn't include a catcher or what looks like a DH. Those players listed above probably all wouldn't be on the same roster, there are too many infielders and RP, but they are making minimum and they would probably all appear sometime in 2009. I am assuming that Burnett opts out and leaves. They can bring back Barajas for $2.5M. Opening day payroll for this year was almost $98M. If they keep the same payroll, they could probably spend about $20M+ on FA. That could definitely get them 1 SP. I wonder if they make a move for Furcal at SS, or Ibanez to play LF. I assume they could only get one big FA, it just depends on who they want and what the competition is for their targets.
  20. kramnoj
    Well, that's complicated. He has been a good leadoff hitter. This past year, he wasn't good. But that's not really what I questioned. I asked a question, because I was curious about the answer. I've seen other people say that they don't like strikeouts in the leadoff position (some have said the same thing about Cameron in the leadoff role). I'm just trying to understand the reason people think that.
  21. kramnoj
    Well they really have no good options. Weeks needs to swing away more and strikes out too much to leadoff. I don't understand this thinking. If you hate strikeouts, you hate strikeouts no matter when they happen in the lineup. But I would think that strikeouts have the lowest impact in the leadoff role. A strikeout means you saw at least 3 pitches, and probably more, so you have the benefit of making the pitcher show his stuff, like announcers like to talk about. Also, if you are batting leadoff and nobody is on base, there is no argument that a strikeout is worse than a regular out, because the hitter failed to advance a non-existent runner.
  22. kramnoj
    I've thought about Crisp in CF for the Brewers next year. I personally would prefer Cameron back, but depending on other moves the Brewers want to make, the team may not decide it can spend $10M for a CF next year. Crisp might be the 2nd best option, depending on what it would take to get him. I don't have a sense of how Boston values Crisp. Going into last year he was a 4th OF with $11M committed over the next 2 years who was coming off 2 poor seasons. Now Crisp has a decent season and Ellsbury disappoints. Before last year, I think Crisp could have been had cheap. Now, Boston may decide to keep him as insurance since it's only one year.
  23. kramnoj
    ok well I won't convince you so it is a useless argument I guess. This just isn't true. I can be easily convinced if I see actual compelling evidence. You aren't presenting enough actual evidence to support your claim. You are now saying that comparing two players out of a population of the hundreds (and more) of players makes the stat borderline useless. Is there a readily available stat that does a far superior job in handling these circumstances, and how much better is it overall for all players?
  24. kramnoj
    I don't think you'll find a single mathematician that doesn't think OPS+ is partially flawed, the only argument is going to be the degree. The flaw is in how people use the stat, not in the stat itself. You list your dislikes of the stat, but I fail to see how those show that OPS+ is very flawed and borderline useless. That all might seem like nitpicking but when you take a stat that is only 90% predictive to begin with and you add a bunch of extra error sources you get farther and farther away from a useful stat. Nitpicking is fine in a good discussion. As far as the 90% predictive, it doesn't seem like there is a rate stat that is far more predictive than OPS, even with the nits you are picking. Those flaws exist within the 92% correlation, so you aren't moving further away from that useful stat because of them.
  25. kramnoj
    Is there any support that says it isn't flawed? I take this non-response as saying that your doubts of OPS+ are opinion, not the result of any actual study. I don't think it's reasonable to say that something is very flawed and borderline useless until you are actually able to show that it is. I don't have anything to show that OPS+ isn't flawed, in what it is designed to do. If it was, I think that it would be easy to show with all the bright minds that do baseball research. I certainly trust the work of a former mathematics professor over unfounded doubt. OPS itself is pretty flawed too(underrates OBP) This is overstated. It doesn't judge all players fairly, but for as simple a stat as it is, it seems to do remarkably well in correlating to Runs scored. Here is one study that looked at a bunch of popular statistics and their relation to Runs: http://jinaz-reds.blogspo...-do-i-keep-using-ops.html
×
×
  • Create New...