local hero

He also: Does not steal bases. Does not hit for high average. Does not hit for a high average with RISP All of the above has a significant effect on his ability to score and drive in runs. And yes, walking and stroking singles 95+% of the time you reach base doesn't help either, either, lol! James

would absolutely love to see them. James Here are a couple of links that may be helpful: http://www-math.bgsu.edu/~grabine/protstudy.txt http://www.sabernomics.co...rnality-it-doesnt-exist/ A read large sample of it and have many misgivings with the site's contention, as well as the links themselves. including: small sample sizes, the ever-omnious "mixed-results" (not usually terribly indicative of a scientific study) and the link I was most interested (as a student of statistics) didn't work at all (the link to the actual study). Most improtantly though, my largest hurdle was with his contention of looking at "protection" up and down the line-up which I am NOT a subscriber too (I believe it DOES exist, but usually to a much lesser degree). I appreciate the links, I will look them over in more depth later. James

Good grief. Of COURSE it does. Homeruns, triples, and doubles drive in guys from first and second base (with less than two outs). Ditto for placing yourself FURTHER up the basepaths....you are MUCH more likely to score. I'm not going to do the leg-work for you...just watch ESPN for one game, they'll supply you with all of the scoring tendencies everytime someone reaches base. Further, so the World Champion Marlin teams, the Diamondbacks and Brewer teams he played on were/are offensively offensive? LMAO! James

"Considering that Counsell is a career .258 hitter, he seems to do better with men on base. Of course, I think most people hit better with men on base, so the further question would be how does Counsell compare to other hitters while hitting with men on base versus without. And of course, nobody is trying to argue that Counsell is particularly good at driving in RBI. He doesn't have power, so it would be hard for him to do so." he also is a below averag run-scorer for an infielder and games played. So, he doesn't drive in runs with any proficiency, he doesn't score with any proficency, he doesn't hit with any proficiency, he doesnt hit with power with proficiency, he doesn't hit for extra bases with proficiency, he doesn't hit with RISP with proficiency, and he doesnt steal bases with proficiency. talk about your 5 tool player. James

There are wheelbarrows of information that seem to suggest that the notion of "protection" is almost entirely non-existent. would absolutely love to see them. James

I'm trying to leave this alone, but a few are not making it easy on me. Garnering extra base hits garners you more RBIS and RUNs. Counsell hasn't done this for virtually his entire career. Stealing bases increase your chances of scoring runs...he hasn't ever really done this, save for a couple of years. Hitting for a high average with RISP garners you more RBIs. He has hit .265 with RSIP over a 14 year career. Runs and RBIs are anything but out of your control. Some items work against you, but, when you do not do any of the above well, you are digging your own hole. Let's put this in perspective: no one in their right mind expects (ed) him to drive in or score 75-100 runs a year, given his scenario. That's not mine or any sane man's argument. My argument is directly linked to where he HAS hit and platyed throughout his career- and he underproduced for his role. Even if he's a local. James

If the bases were loaded everytime he hit a single, then yes, he would drive in a lot of runs... as everyone else is trying to say, RBI is a stat that is somewhat driven by opportunity. If someone bats .300 for a season, but the people ahead of him were rarely on base and that person only has 30 RBI on the season, does that make them a bad player? EDIT: sorry for continuing this completely off-topic tangent. he's a below-average offensive player, regardless of where he hits/has hit in the line-up. BTW: see the post above for what he's done with his "opportunities"...all 1200 of em'. To get this back on track sheethead, I for one have no "bias" against Suppan other than he's been a proven method to help this team lose more games than win them. With that "bias" in mind, I do not wish to see him throwing anything but peanuts for the Crew in 2010. That said, I do not know what brass' motives are. At this point I can't see it much beyond one final chance to, attempt to prive this guys's worth (bizarre), or, two, give them an absolute air-tight case to unload him (nevermind the 3 last three seasons and this ST, I guess). If you're like me and believe he's pretty much already in the SR, then you're not left with much else. I hope to be proven dead wrong. James

Last, let's talk rbi "opportunities". What has Counsell hit in 14 years with RISP? .265 Talk about making the most of your "opportunities". James

^ "that's not a response" NO, that WAS a response. Specifically, to your assertion that I'm making a "case" based upon stats that are "out of a players control". That is a ludicrous statement. Again, the opportunities can be limited, but there are a CONSDERABLE number of other variables at play, INCLUDING: a players ability to hit home runs, doubles, and hit with RISP. Me: "What about his career .255 batting average, is that out of his control too?" You: "Nobody said this" No, I said this. If your're going to absurdly assert that rbis and runs are out of a players control, why not just pile on? I mean, hitting in a poor line-up or largely unprotected SURELY inhibits the frequency of hittable ptiches, thus effectively lowering a players average? Where does it end? You must, at some point, make some reasonable determinations based upon wheelbarrows of history/statistics. In the case of Craig Counsell: he has been an unproductive offensive player for the majority of career by virtually any reasonable standard. James

of course they (RBI's) are conditional...virtually every statistic is to one degree or another. That doesn't render them wholly impertinent. Homers are dictated to a point by what park a player plays in 81 times a year...even the division. You'll score more runs on a team loaded with great hitters. duh. What I'm basing this on is a DECADE plus of play. When you garner ONE extra base hit per 18 PA's, you prolly won't drive anyone in. Check. When you don't hit homeruns, doubles, triples (god bless his 8 last year though), or steal bases, you probably won't score a lot either. These are MAJOR players in RBI and RUN totals. I'll give CC this: he can be at times a great late-game situational hitter and he's a patient hitter who can get on base. Both useful in their limited place. You can have the rest. James

^ ridiculous statement. If runs and rbi's are "out of a players control", they sure have turned a TON of players into warrantless MVP's, lol. What about his career .255 batting average, is that out of his control too? James

Yeah, right...for the better part of 14 seasons. He has < 300 Xbase hits over FIVE THOUSAND PA's ...I'd bet that has to be near a ML record and largely the reason for a horrendous RBI total, REGARDLESS of where he is in the line-up. He's never been a run producer, save for one or two years when he dang near had 6-700 PA's. PA for PA he is underproductive. James

I don't remember that being the case with Davis. Sure, DD isn't a bona fide #2 starter, but a $5.25 million 1 year plus option deal for an average starting pitcher is nothing to complain about. Again, Davis has consistently pitched around 200 innings, and should be expected to put up an ERA somewhere around 4.5. I'd give the Brewers a 15% - 20% chance of making the playoffs this season, for a variety of reasons. Most projection systems have them at between 77 and 82 wins, which sounds about right to me. However, with so many unknowns (Escobar, Gomez, Parra, Narveson), it wouldn't surprise me too much if the Brewers finished the year anywhere between 72 and 90 wins. I also don't think the NL Central will be very strong this year. The Reds, like the Brewers, have a ton of question marks. The Cubs are aging and don't look much better than the Brewers right now. The Cards are the odds-on favorite for the division, but if any of Carpenter, Wainwright, Pujols, or Holliday goes down for an extended period of time, they could be in trouble. Overall, I'm typically optimistic when it comes to Brewers baseball, but I think this team has potential to be pretty good. Then again, they also have the potential to be pretty bad. Regarding doug davis, he's 15-22 over the last 2 years, walked every human on earth, has pitched about 175 innings a campaign , and gives up 4 1/2 runs a game. He is a below average ML SP. Ditto for bush. Call Wolf middle of the road because, well, he is: another hair above/below .500 arm who gives up 4.25-4.5 a game. I shudder to think what a leap from LA to Miller Park will do his 35 yr-old arm and stat-line. That leaves: Gallardo/Narveson/Parra/Suppan in one form or another. I wish I could be as hopeful as a 1/5 chance of playoff this year, but this rotation is looking strikingly (or, not so strikingly as far as home plate's concerned, lol) similar to last year's: One bona fide stud (IMO). 1 wild card who could win or lose 15, and 3 others who we just expect/hope to (gulp) just finish with 12 or so losses. It will all come down to the bats pulling 20 or more rabbits out of a hat...again. And that's a lot to ask over 5 months. James

First, CC's .350 OB isnt't the problem...it's his lack of a suitable total of RBIs and RUNs when you reach base that often. Additionally, I specifically mentioned he (CC) was only a concern if other players went awry. But that's for another thread. Second, of course he (and everyone else) is reading tea leaves. Isn't that the point of this thread? You indicate that the Brewers themselves had him slotted for the 4th postion, and we have heard nothing thus far that indicates otherwise. Thus, a reasonable person would deduce that he is AT LEAST in-line ofr a spot in the rotation, be it 4th, 5th or otherwise. "bias" is inherent in dialogues such as these. Barring egregious personal interactions, vitually everyone would tell you that their "biases" are not biased at all, but, rather, steeped in reasoning that they feel is sound enough to create a certain inclination.

Counsell has spent a career making an out 65+% of the time he appears at the dish. That said, you either make more outs and drive guys in with power, or, make less outs and find a way to score more frequently. Nothing in his 14 yr career lends me to believe CC can be relied upon to do either. Again, you either score runs or drive them in. The stars do both. In this day and age of the game, every other player on the field MUST do one...even the backstop. That's why keeping Kendall around also bordered on insanity. Of course either (rbis/runs) is relative, but on a team like this one, there's more than ample opps to do either. I believe they finished 3rd or 4th in runs scored last year. Really, it has less to do with CC and more to do with this team. If he plays often, we obviously have problems. I've not terribly worried about it. James

^ It WAS primarily against lefty's. Counsell, IMO, makes the case for Macha favoring veteran players (even though I do not particularly feel he does). Counsell is part-time player who played WAY too much last year. In 130 games, he scored 60 runs and drove in less than 40, I believe- with nearly all of his AB's almost EXCLUSIVELY against RHP's. Find me another .285 hitter in the league with as many games who was LESS productive (RUNS+RBIS)? Offensively, the game is about RUNS and RBI's. Who knows what kind of production we'd have seen from Gamel OR Hall over that stretch with such exclusivity? I would be willing to bet either would have eclipsed a 100 run/rbi total. Yes, even Hall. I know I'm almost certainly in the minority here, but I think it's terrible news if he plays half as much this year. Expecting another season over .265 from a 14-yr career .250 hitter is like expecting Christmas in July. ^ Bit tongue in cheek here, guys. James

^ Well I'm certain his "demonstration" would be based largely upon comments made by Macha regarding Narveson and Suppan, which I won't spend the time or energy rehashing here. Almost certainly, one will be in the rotation, one will not. Since there hasn't been anything said definitively at this point, a person would be left to use his/her inclination based upon what HAS been said at this point- even if this revolves around dialogue strictly regarding individual performances. And I reason he's partially correct, regretfully. Although I do not think they'll plank him out 20 starts is he's as dreadful as expected, I almost certainly think they'll leash him out through May- so call it 7-8 starts. I for one simply haven't seen or hears anything that makes me think they won't give him these starts. James

I will say this however: some do raise a valid point when they point to DD's and Bush and question what we have in them as well. I personally have never been a fan of either and I can't say they'll do anything but perhaps marginally outperform Suppan, but, again, I feel confident that will indeed occur and if that's the case, it would be ignorant to move in the other direction. I wasn't around on these boards for the signing of Davis, but I'd like to think with some of the smarts around these parts there must've been a collective thud of heads colliding with walls? Seriously, even with the potential of this offense...are we doomed? James

^ +1. It is difficult to imagine what else needs to occur other than the last 3 seasons and this ST to prove this. 29-34 with a FIVE ERA , 73 bombs, and a WHIP approaching 1.6?! What more needs to be on the table before folks realize that there's nearly nothing but upside to moving on? This isn't months, this is 3 YEARS, folks. I hate to continue to beat this down, but it's hard when you know this team needs to have all of it's I's dotted and T's crossed to make a run. James

Two items: first, I'd bet a large sum that Suppan WILL be in the rotation in 2 weeks, like it or not. And two, since I was unable to jump back on yesterday evening, one more word about QS's. I have no problem with the aim of the stat, just the parameters of it. I simply do not believe giving up 3 runs in 6 innings is a "quality start". It's as simple as that. Since the use of whole numbers with such a stat is nearly unavoidable, I realize there's no easy fix. I'd "like" to see something like 3 ernies over 7, but I realize starting pitchers going 7 innings these days is beyond infrequent...even for the better ones. Just a reality of how the game works these days. What I think may happen is: that as the game continues to "juice down", and production comes back down to earth, the stat may/will be tweaked (fittingly). Runs per game (per team) have already declined over 1/2 run in the last 8 or so years: 2009 4.523 2008 4.651 2007 4.797 2006 4.858 2005 4.592 2004 4.814 2003 4.728 2002 4.618 2001 4.775 2000 5.140 1999 5.085 If this continues to near 4 1/4 per game, it will be all but obvious that allowing 3 earned runs in 6 innings will give your team less than a 50/50 chance of winning the game. Again, I realize this is the minimum, just sayin'. Done with the QS. I'd personally love to see this in 2 weeks: 1. Gallardo 2. Wolf 3. Davis 4. Bush 5. Narveson James

Ok, first to kramjno: obviously I am not making a direct comparison between pitching and team wins. One doesn't validate or invalidate the other necessarily. The point is that while "team" wins can very much give a decent (or even a good) indication of a teams worth, they are nowhere near as indicative when it comes to a single pitcher for a myriad of reasons. Two, I will indeed track down that rather obscure stat. To be honest, I read it on espn...it was quoted by another talking head who contested the validity of the "quality" of the"quality start". Here's to hoping I unearth entire article, as I'd rather not regurgitate it in my own words. Last, thanks, but no thesaurus needed just yet- I do quite a bit of his stuff. I'm on my iPhone ATM, so it makes for cumbersome searching and quoting. But, my "reference" would of course be this thread fo feeling a few think Suppan has any business at all throwing a baseball for this team in any capacity. This is plowing the thread way OT anyway, so sorry for the quality start right turn. James James

^ Just let Braden Looper and Ben Sheets know. Causation with the above is impossible to prove. Far too many interdependent and independent variables working with and against one another. 09' example: de la rosa 16 wins 4.38 ERA Lincecum: 15 wins 2.48 ERA James

Not when the player being compared to him wins 7 games (who did that last year?). NOTHING indicates a considerable change in output. Really, you could argue the converse better, thus far. The power of relativity. James

good luck finding a thesaurus that finds "average" and "quality" synonymous. Last time I checked, slightly more than half of "quality starts" were either losses or ND's for the pitcher. Odd how such "quality" would yield sub .500 results? Jeff Suppan: 4.68 ERA 135-136 (with 4 of those seasons on an offensive juggernaut to boot). James

You just made my point in regards to QS's. 4.50 is "average" (actually worse in the NL), and NOT indicative of quality. This becomes especially more valid when you consider how "better" pitchers ERA's are hurt as they go a bit further than 5-6 innings in games. Not sure where or how you extrapolated a 2 run difference in ERA over a season for 4 wins. It simply could equate to a handful of slightly better starts...lets call it 10 runs over 5 starts/30 innings. Still significant, but not to the tune of 3 and 5 ERA. Leave everything else static and there you go. I actually believe it would actually be MORE beneficial to erase Suppan in this particular case, due to his tendency to come up with pitching lines that defy belief. Last, I read this entire thread, and I can say with 100% confidence that EVERYone here is NOT entirely united on the Suppan front. Even if that IS the case, that still has absolutely zero bearing on what this team will do anyway, and, at this point, I'm more confident than not that Sup will see a spot in the rotation. Then, just chalk this up as venting. James