kramnoj

"You need to chill. No objective thought?" I need to chill? You are the one assuming things I haven't said. Why is that? Look at your tag line. You think that makes you objective?

I think you should let him make his point. So far, he has been pretty clear. He said pitch him till he's gone. He didn't qualify it. So we should pitch him next start, and if that's the last start he ever pitches, than Invader will be happy. Secondly, why would you think that I'm talking about next year? I'm not. I'd much rather have Sheets get healthy and come back later this year, so that if this team makes the playoffs, he's a part of it. Pitching him till he's gone isn't going to help this team in October. Thirdly, I didn't call you a meanie. I just think you have no objective thought around this, whether it be due to jealousy, frustration, whatever.

So you're saying he's partially serious? It still doesn't make any sense. I understand the frustration of a fan, but the idea that Sheets should be treated like a Kleenex is absurd.

"The Brewers use up whatever is left of him (which they are paying for anyway), and then he is gone at the end of the year, and another team can sign him if they wish as a reclamation project" So your preference is that Sheets ignores his pain and shreds a muscle rather than wait for him to get back to 100% and actually pitch healthy? How is that close to logical?

"However, when someone is only hitting in the .220 range I just can't ignore that. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. It's just how I feel. ' You said that batting average is valuable. That has a very specific meaning. You said that Branyan stinks because he has a low batting average, one that is below your comfort level. Your comfort level has nothing to do with the value that Branyan has. If you don't like a low batting average and it frustrates you to watch Branyan, that is a supportable opinion. But to say that Branyan stinks is unsupportable.

azcheesehead- "However, would anyone be upset if he went into the clubhouse after another pathetic showing and threw some stuff around and perhaps refocused the team, ala Lou Pinella or Jim Leyland?" Do you remember the altercation that Yost had in the dugout last year? What did that do to improve the team?

It's true that old timers didn't do that. Old timers pitched until they couldn't pitch anymore. That was also a lot easier to do when shortstops didn't hit 30+ HR a year. Is it your preference that Sheets pitches until he has no ability to do so?

I don't have a problem with him. I just don't think he's any good. I do put a lot of stock in batting average. Right or wrong. I still think it's a valuable stat. Why do you think it's still a valuable stat? I am asking that as a serious question. Batting average correlates to runs at a lower rate than on base or slugging.

If this was responding to what I said, I wasn't talking about his defense there, although I can see why you would read it that way. I meant that his bat isn't good enough to carry himself as a starter at those positions. His bat might be enough to start at 3B, and his defense seems passable there too.

"7 Teams later, (I would assume the other 25 teams knew from the start that he was no good) and nobody wants him. Which is evidence that he has no value to a Brewers roster trying to contend for the NL Central. " Are you serious? Is this a rule for all players, or does it only apply to Branyan? Did Kenny Lofton lose value when he got on his 7th team? Sheffield was on his 7th team last year, he did ok. I won't go further, because I have a hard time thinking this is a legitimate argument, and you are just flailing around, looking for a reason to support your unfounded dislike of Branyan.

Branyan's OPS+ the last two seasons are 113 and 96. That is above average and slightly below average. Why are you ignoring his slugging? As for your comments about nobody wants him, and then being on 7 different teams, those contradict each other, don't they? There are 30 different reasons why Branyan isn't in the big leagues. Some teams have better players, some teams want to sign younger players, some teams may not understand his value. But just because no other teams wanted him as a starter has no relation to Branyan's future possible value to the Brewers, which is what this discussion should be.

Branyan isn't with ANYBODY because everyone has better talent. The guy flat out stinks. I don't understand the obsession. It's like a cult. He doesn't stink. He hasn't had a season where he has stunk. Also, not everybody that likes Branyan as a backup/platoon option is in your cult. Some people just understand the value he brings beyond his battiing average. In his career, Branyan has been a good offensive player. He's not good enough to be a starter in the outfield or first, and he may not look pretty at 3B (although the raw stats don't look bad), but he brings value that some don't see, or refuse to see.

I don't know how that makes any sense. First, 2005 was the first year in awhile that the Brewers didn't have a losing record. Secondly, the platoon of Hall and Branyan at 3B was quite productive. Obviously, Branyan isn't with the Brewers because they think they have better talent. But if that talent doesn't translate to wins on the field, that division will fade away. I would prefer giving Branyan a shot before that happens.

Another great thing about Branyan is his 10-year career batting average of .229 and his 755 career strikeouts. Sign me up. You throw those stats out like they actually mean anything. Branyan can be a productive player with a low BA and striking out. If the Brewers continue to struggle against right-handers, it may be in their interest to bring up Branyan and see if he still has anything. Branyan was actually quite valuable offensively in his two years in Milwaukee, with OPS+ of 115 and 125.

I would say that you'll be happy with most seats. The ones that I would avoid would be terrace level near the foul poles because in some seats you won't be able to see outfield plays that are near you. One fun experience is going to TGIFridays before the game starts. A couple of times I have gone right around 5 PM and we have been able to get seats right by the window and have dinner and watch BP. You still need a ticket to get in, it's just a different experience. It sits over left field, in case you didn't know.

We paid 4-5 times what we would have paid a comparable young player. He is not a top of the rotation starter. He is rotation filler. I don't understand your point. Which comparable young players are you talking about? You can't be talking about free agents, can you? I also don't understand your distinction between top of the rotation and filler. They all get the same number of starts. Suppan provides value by giving a lot of league average innings. The Brewers don't have 5 better starters than Suppan, so Suppan is a valuable member of this team's chance of getting to the playoffs this year. I would be shocked if Suppan's salaray prevented the Brewers from making any decisions they want to make.

"I will admit it's not the juciest, most delicious analogy, but it works imo." I'm not sure how it works. In my first post in this revived thread, I said that runs are team dependent. What does your analogy do to go beyond that? Analogies should be used to bring clarity where there isn't understanding. If a child doesn't understand fractions, you can explain that 8 pieces of a pizza represent 8 fractions of one number. That is an analogy. I don't understand what you are saying beyond what I have already stated. Weeks needs his teammates to score runs, but his speed represents a portion of the runs that he scores. Is that really so controversial?

This is so strange. People keep arguing against things that I'm not saying. I haven't argued that runs and speed are directly related. I've argued that speed is a part of the value of runs. In your case, sure, Bonds speed will have very little to do with his runs scored. This started in another thread. The poster known as Rickieweeksjr started his spiel again about how Weeks isn't a proven major leaguer because he has hit less than .250. I posted Weeks run scored because I found it interesting that Weeks has scored more runs than he has had hits. I thought that was an interesting way to show that players have offensive value beyond hitting the ball. Sure, it's an early season stat that won't last all season, but I was just utilizing it prove that BA is not a good way to judge Weeks value to the team. Than FTJ posted that runs scored are a worse data set than BA. I personally don't think that's true, and it is in no way true when discussing Weeks, which is what I was doing. I've said that runs have value and that there aren't a lot of players who score runs that aren't providing value. I have never said that runs are the way to judge all players, but for some people everything has to be positive and negative, and nuance isn't valued. I haven't even said that Runs Scored should be the only stat to value a player, or even the best stat to value a player. I used it to make one point. Since then, people have assumed things I haven't said just because what I wrote isn't part of sabermetric orthodoxy. I love sabermetrics, but anyone who just parrots what they've read and doesn't actually use common sense is missing the point.

"Fun doesn't equal accurate though. Sure its a discussion forum meant for fun, but arguments still have to be true first, then fun second." I think you should actually prove that anything I've said is inaccurate before throwing that around.

"Runs are a result stat that have many influencing factors. As are wins and even ERA. I know you've acknowledged this, but then why use runs if you have to adjust the result for its proper context all the time? (Which would be a complicated process.)" Because I think it's fun to look at something beyond OBP. Really, this should be a discussion forum. I come here to discuss things. If the only purpose of a stat discussion was to beat people over the head with OBP, why would anyone waste their time here?

Either you misinterpreted what he meant, or you ignored it. Of course speed translates to runs, but you don't measure the runs you gain through speed by runs scored. I didn't say that runs were the way to value speed, but I did say that speed is part of the value of runs. I don't understand your second sentence. I'm not trying to create a seperate measurement for runs gained through speed. I'm saying that runs go beyond waiting on base until being knocked in by a teammate.

"Backwards. Good players get playing time, get on base, and do so infront of other good hitters or between other good hitters." You should really read my posts before telling me that I have it backwards. I've already acknowledged what you said. Telling me that I have it backwards is just insulting. "There's a value in speed, but runs isn't the way to define it." If speed doesn't translate to runs, it doesn't provide any actual value. "If he was batting 7th, his runs scored would most definitely be down. At that point, what would his value be?" Again, I've already said that runs are dependent on other players. There's no benefit to asking questions that aren't related to what I'm discussing.

"The way I read your post, was that you were giving credit Weeks for his runs, and I see that as largely good luck for Weeks. " "No one has remotely suggested than runs are worthless," So you think Week's runs are largely good luck, but you haven't remotely suggested that runs are worthless. If something is largely due to luck, how much value can it have?

"Saying Weeks is a good player because he scores runs would be like saying he is a bad player because he doesn't get RBIs." I don't really think that's true. Again, I've looked, and there really aren't that many players who score a lot of runs that don't provide value. Of course those runs are tied to OBP and are dependent on other players. But there are players who score runs beyond just getting on base and waiting for someone to drive them in. Think back to Hart scoring from second on a sacrifice hit. Sure, his run was team-dependent, but how many players will score a run there?

"Whether or not he comes around to score is almost completely out of Rickie's control, so to give him credit for that is like giving a pitcher credit for 'hanging tough' on & retiring a batter because Ichiro pulled back what would have been a HR." That's not a good analogy. Rickie is going to score a lot more runs than Ichiro is going to prevent HRs. Runs certainly can't be the only way to value a player, but I don't understand why it is being disregarded so quickly. Really, if someone can point me to a piece that says that runs are worthless and should never be used to value someone, please do so.