bill hAll Star

Roth is great, I'd put myself in Deadspin's demographic generally...but I'll admit that they love to drum up the idea of "winning in spite of the MLB teams' owners' greediness" as the sole reason/tone of their articles.

I don't think that if the Brewers have a chance to package some players and consolidate/upgrade their rotation that they'd necessarily pass...but we've now seen it play out through a full season. This staff devalues the role of starting pitcher. They'd have to get a heck of a deal to pull the trigger on a frontline starter. They'll continue to dumpster dive and then use their depth as either a rotation strength or in long relief roles.

1. Moustakas' control is only guaranteed through the end of this season so they'd have a black hole at 3B next year potentially. 2. Have you seen the success they've had with him at 2B? This had to have been their plan.

They're going to bullpen at least in some form for some of this. I don't think they're going to feel the need to officially start 4 of their guys. Maybe all of those guys get some sort of long run in the middle of the game, but I could see them running a bullpen game or 2 out there.

You can't really think like that, though. If Aaron Rodgers throws a perfect bullet to a wide open, usually reliable receiver who then tips it into the hands of a defender, he cannot say, "was that the wrong decision?" You do it again next time. Same goes for decisions closer to 50/50. Keep making the best decision for the situation at hand. Trust your process and the results will come (they clearly did over the first 163 games). Today, the exact same situation could present itself (say a righty is on the mound in the 3rd for COL to make this example better) and it could break that Granderson was needed late in the game and that using Santana first worked out. While I understand the point, I think the analogy doesn't really hold. A receiver dropping the ball is a contingency that should never into the calculus. Using a very good PH early and not having him in a higher-leverage situation should always be considered. It's an inherent drawback. And I like the idea of letting process evolve to a point. You shouldn't radically recalibrate, but, just like a hitter adjusting to a different pitching approach, a good manager to me is looking at ways to fine tune strategy. Maybe that's not what's going on. I don't really think it's that big of a deal. But, as much as I love Keon, I love him for his defense and speed, and I want to avoid a situation where he has a bat in his hands high-leverage (especially when you couldn't even use his D because then you'd have to remove Braun). But say Counsell or Stearns or whomever is involved in this calculus decides that using Santana there is the better choice 53% of the time and using Granderson is better 47% of the time. No need to recalibrate...go with the 53% decision every time even if it failed the previous time. It could've been a completely gut feel decision that did not improve their odds and no odds were considered, I don't know. In which case, sure, he could think about it. I just think while I'm over-analyzing the heck out of defending "trust the process" in the above posts and paragraph, there's also a lot of, "see, this doomsday later game scenario kinda happened" when not factoring in what had to happen to get there and the merits of the original decision.

You can't really think like that, though. If Aaron Rodgers throws a perfect bullet to a wide open, usually reliable receiver who then tips it into the hands of a defender, he cannot say, "was that the wrong decision?" You do it again next time. Same goes for decisions closer to 50/50. Keep making the best decision for the situation at hand. Trust your process and the results will come (they clearly did over the first 163 games). Today, the exact same situation could present itself (say a righty is on the mound in the 3rd for COL to make this example better) and it could break that Granderson was needed late in the game and that using Santana first worked out.

This is why it was not the best decision. No one on base, 3rd inning, not the time to burn your best PHer. I'm going to guess that if Saladino was on the roster, this is when CC uses him. How does Santana = Saladino in any way? It was a mistake, plain and simple. A runner on 1st base in front of Cain/Yelich/Braun has a very high probability of scoring and it looked as though the game was going to be of the 1-0 variety. The game was tied. Santana is the perceived best OBP guy at this point out of that group. The Rockies' best relievers are all righty so the fact that Santana wasn't there to face Rusin is because we thought we'd likely be facing Ottavino or Davis (use Granderson) later. If Santana had been available, it's possible they bring in a righty for him instead of letting the lefty face Broxton. He's still a better option but I think we assumed that you could use Granderson vs. a righty in a late game situation. If there were 2 outs and he used Santana I may have an issue with it.

Agree, but one correction - he was a RH pitcher.

I think that was a case of Counsell maybe getting a little too cute with matchups. It isn't like Broxton is a pitcher-type up there like Gore, though. The guy hit 20 HRs last year. I would have rather seen Granderson there, but it would have been lefty-lefty and Counsell has been very careful not to put Grandy in that situation. Could hit Kratz there as well I suppose, but then you're not covered if Pina gets hurt. Grandy is awful (I mean really awful) against lefties at this point in his career. Broxton is pretty good against lefties. Either decision can be defined as "too cute" because if you put Grandy in for his slightly better plate approach you're doing it knowing the fact that he cannot hit lefties at this point in his career.

Chase Anderson’s time with the Brewers might be done. He didn’t take being bumped very well and I’m sure this won’t help though I agree with it. Is this an actual thing that he had issues with being pulled from the rotation? He's under contract for next year (not an option year or arby) and I expect him to be a part of the 7 or so guys in the mix for the rotation. He definitely can get his fly ball issues under control and be closer to 2017 Ace Chanderson with some work or at the very least be a capable 5th starter.

Noted in the other thread, but Broxton would be out for "this series and the next" so game 5 and for the NLCS. Could return in the World Series.

If this has to do with the Cubs and Terrance Gore, they wouldn't have been in extra innings if it wasn't for him. Would you prefer to lose in regulation or extend a game into extras while losing an offensive threat? And, Keon's offense is light years better than Gore's (not saying much). Amen to this. This is the whole bullpen theory. Use the best player for the situation that you can so that you can see tomorrow (next inning). Don't save them tomorrow when it may likely never come. Also, this sounds hilarious, but I'd consider Terrance Gore over a lot of decent MLB players at the plate in some of those situations from Tuesday night needing just 1 run. Just that situation and basically none other. If Oberg's pitch is a millimeter to the right and hits his elbow, Gore is slightly more patient and takes the walk, or Gore tries harder for a bunt hit (why did he only attempt it basically once or twice in 2 ABs?) it's an automatic triple.

Broxton is the pinch run/defensive replacement guy. The 25th spot probably could've gone any which direction. More lefty pop (Thames) Pinch run/defense (Broxton) LOOGY (Cedeno) I can almost guarantee that Cedeno or Jennings would be on the roster against the Dodgers and likely the Braves. More lefties to worry about.

Maybe he'll get a big bag of gummy bears as a pregame snack.

Yeah, I'm very prone to getting out of hand over some cliched statements and this would be one of them. I already had a few water cooler discussions of, "the A's got too cute last night" with some people that don't even do critical thinking and consider the fact that any mediocre starting pitcher is also liable to give up that same offensive output against the Yankees.

He'll be useful again next year. A solid regular season starter and maybe they can work on some of his issues and get him to be a guy worthy of a playoff roster spot. But we are full speed ahead on out-getters taking over for most of the innings this playoffs.

The Big 3 (Hader, Jeffress, Knebel) pitched almost exclusively in games where the Brewers were tied or ahead. That was the formula. While the bullpen is the strength of the pitching staff, the formula worked because the starting pitchers could get through the batting order twice while keeping the game close. I don't see the value in deviating from the formula, much less doing so by putting up the one pitcher who had a bad start against the Rockies (3 IP, 7 ER) in Woodruff over a trio of guys who pitched reasonably well against the Rockies (Miley, Gio, and Peralta)...just because the guy with a poor outcome throws with his right hand. Woodruff has been much better lately but Hader/Jeffress/Knebel will likely be used in ties and maybe even 1 run deficits now. It's the playoffs. You have somewhere between 27 and 45 innings to win this thing (barring extra innings). Get your best guys out there. The formula of Miley/Chacin/Peralta/Gio doing "pretty well" over 5 innings is a good regular season formula. That meant we got 70 games where we could win 65 of them by putting down the hammer with the big 3. But now we get to just use our loaded bullpen and still maybe get Miley and Gio in there for a stretch in the middle of the game and play situationally while making sure we get our best guys in there in the limited innings.

Look, the Brewers did unconventional but statistically edgy (smart) things all year and here we are, a 95 win team (or I guess 96). Just trust Stearns/Counsell. To answer your question, they can play it situationally. Miley, Gio, etc. can still get 4-5 innings in the middle of the game. If the Brewers are up 8-1 they can or if we have to burn some guys early then you have to put Gio/Miley in and pray...but you've thrown your best darts first in that scenario. Think of it this way: I think most would agree that 5 innings of Miley is inferior to 5 innings of Hader/Woodruff/Soria/etc. properly matched-up. So why not get those 5 innings out of the way early so you know you've pitched them? Then you can decide to throw the bottom of your bullpen for the end of the game or go to Miley in the middle or end of the game.

There are some baseball-ish things to lean back on with the Woodruff part. Peralta may get a long run in the middle of the game anyways for either game 1 or game 2. Woodruff got lit up at Coors which a lot of people do. Peralta, yes, dominated there, but he's a deceptive pitcher throwing his first pitches in the majors in that Colorado start and I think the Rockies were baffled. Not sure they will be the 3rd time. I think Peralta may play a more important role anyways. He may have to fill innings 4-6 in game 1 or game 2 so he'll have his say, potentially.

I'd argue that Hader, Jeffress, Soria, Burnes, Knebel, Woodruff, etc. got the Brewers to the playoffs with some help from Miley, Chacin, Gio. I'd further argue, how much did Gio really help us get to the playoffs? Miley...sure. Gio, minimal help. He made 5 starts, 3 good ones against crap teams and 2 mediocre at best ones against decent teams. I however would make the same argument for woodruff from that grouping...except he's clearly been far better than Gio over the the same time period. Sure...but my general point was that the team made the playoffs because the bullpen would shut the team out for the final 4 innings and the starters did "OK" for 5 innings. Doesn't really matter which names. Now in the playoffs you can get even more aggressive using the bullpen. Do it.

I'd argue that Hader, Jeffress, Soria, Burnes, Knebel, Woodruff, etc. got the Brewers to the playoffs with some help from Miley, Chacin, Gio.

You answered your own thought with that question. Woodruff + (situational decision) + back end of the bullpen is just as good as Miley + bullpen. Woodruff could go 3 if he's dealing and he doesn't have many dangerous situations with guys on base and a tough lefty batting. Or Woodruff could just get through Arenado, Story, etc. and we then go to Miley for 4 innings. If the Rockies have a threat early, we may need to try to put the fire out early and hope for length later.

Are you completely certain that Mike Fiers throwing 100 pitches might not have also given up 2 early runs? The Brewers are going to do something similar, I think, but it's not an elimination game yet. -Someone like Taylor Williams starts to face Blackmon and a few righties. Him or maybe Soria. -If the game is tied or the Brewers take the lead, the Brewers go to Miley because the Rockies probably put some lefties in the lineup after that. -If the Brewers get down, we still may see Miley. Because the A's got down in an elimination game, they worked mostly backwards with their bullpen to try to preserve the game.

The Rockies lineup is definitely their weak point. Finally getting Dahl involved is huge for them as an extra good bat but we saw last night the terrible depth they have. Parra is alright for hitting a single but I thought the Cubs had it won by the time it hit extra innings...the Cubs' entire remaining lineup was dangerous hitters + Gore who was dangerous in that situation. The Rockies kept calling on guys that hit .190 away from Coors to try do drive in key runs. Thankfully Wolters sat on a changeup and did. I'd give it this: Starting rotation: Rockies by a lot but it becomes much closer with the starters they've burned Bullpen: Brewers by a bit. Rockies' bullpen is not consistent after the top 3 guys but it's decent Starting lineup: Brewers by a bit. Bench bats: Brewers by a lot. Defense: Even. Rockies infield is better, Brewers outfield is better.

Think I read they are already on the hook for $136 million next year. That's without big arby raises to baez, schwarber, hendricks, edwards, montgomery, probably a small hike to Bryant despite injuries this year, and taking off a bunch of soon to be fa's from this year's roster that leave holes to fill unless they are resigned (Hamels, Murphy, Wilson, Chavez). That's also without excercising the likely options for Quintana and Strop to remain with the team. They also have the Addison Russell issue to deal with - he would have been due arbitration, but given his performance and off the field issues he is probably done as a cub. For a team that boasted seemingly unlimited quality MIF options as recently as the start of 2018, they will be down to baez at SS and a late 30s zobrist at 2nd with very little mlb-ready depth behind it should Happ stay an OF. Without adding any significant fa's, their payroll commitment for 2019 is easily pushing 175 million after some team options and arbitration raises are factored in - that's without resigning Hamels and doesn't include filling out the full 40 man roster. Also added to that is that they have front-loaded guys like Heyward, Zobrist, Lester (2020). It decreases the amount that they owe to those players next year but the luxury tax calculation basically averages their previous year commitments with current commitments. So in the end it will probably even out in what they owe because they're probably going to pay more luxury tax given that calculation but a bit less in yearly salary to those guys... But it factors in a bit when saying, "they have $175 committed" because they actually may be closer to the luxury tax and may go further over given those front-loaded deals being considered.