viaarete

Scoring runs does not depend on stolen bases. In fact, attempting steal bases often negates the possibility of scoring runs. Overall, the difference in runs-scored for a team that is base-stealing-happy vs. a team that is base-stealing-afraid is very nearly zero (all else being equal). The basic logic that (I assume) Macha is using is this: P1. If attempting to steal bases leads to more runs, then attempt to steal bases when opportunities present themselves.P2. If attempting to steal bases does not lead to more runs, then do not force the base-steal.P3. If attempting to steal bases leads to less runs, then do not steal bases.F4. Stealing bases does not lead to more runs.C5: Do not force the base-steal. Statistics show that F4 is true. Therefore, we derive the truth of Premise 2; Do not force the base-steal. If the opportunity presents itself, and the chances are likely that you'll steal a base, take it; if the chances are against you, don't; if the chances are even, don't. The number of times a runner is on base and the odds are likely that he will steal the next base, is rather small. I would guess that the number of times that a runner has a better-than-average chance of stealing a base are roughly equal to the number of times that Brewers base-runners have attempted to steal bases. There are not many pitcher-catcher combinations that provide statistical-advantage for base-stealers, nor are there many situations that provide a similar advantage; since base-stealing is generally an even-split bet. If the only times the Brewers are taking it is when they're in a better-split bet, it doesn't surprise or annoy me that they're attempting fewer stolen bases.

And the regression-to-his-mean continues for Bush

Thus begins day one of the long haul to the offseason; with no deadline-trades (which I'm strongly ambiguous about, strangely), and the season in relative tatters, it's probably time to start hoping for the off-season. Nonetheless, now that the non-waiver deadline is past, I can stop hoping against false-hope and just go back to rooting for strong, strong performances from every Brewer and a win every time, which is nice.

Wolf is not going to save this season, nor is Parra, nor Narveson, nor Bush, nor Capuano, nor Davis, nor any other starter the Brewers put on the mound to start a game. Without a quality rotation, any streak the crew ride is most probably a statistical aberration. We don't have the starting pitching to carry us into the playoffs, and hoping that any one pitcher's improvement can lead us there is akin to the mis-guided optimism that will lead Melvin to refuse good trade offers for Hart or Fielder. End fury against hopeless-optimism.

What percentage of baseball is fielding, again? ...Just sayin'. [sorry. had to put it out there.] If the guy gets on base regularly, then one can certainly sacrifice a significant amount of fielding ability. Casey has a "good" OPS. Good enough to be tempting to a significant number of teams. In fact, our own team included, there are a number of small-market teams that would be wise to field a poor 3B (defensively) who hits above-average. The question really is, "what's the price?" If Casey were willing to stay in MKE for a small salary (unlikely) then keeping him, despite the defense, is a good idea. But since he's unlikely to accept a relatively small base-salary, and his contract expires in the near-future, it's unrealistic to assume that he'll last beyond his contract... Unless, of course, he can be signed for beneath his value (which, again, is highly-improbable).

Selling the closer is a classic move used by small-salary teams to rake in prospects. With Braddock serving as a potential replacement, a much-depleted farm system, and Axford's incredible stats this year (especially the perfect 13/13 saves) a trade somewhere down the line seems very tempting. Closers, generally speaking, should not be hard to come by; getting three outs in high-leverage situations is not so rare a commodity as it often seems. Axford, right now, has the potential to be one of the best closers in the game. Is it worth more to Milwaukee to keep him on the staff as a closer for the remainder of his contract (the specs of which I don't have), or to try and get even higher value for his services through trades? Personally, I find myself almost squarely on the fence on this. I love Axford closing games for us, I think his stuff is very good for a young pitcher (he's 27), and the mustache is pretty incredible. On the flip side, I'm looking at our farm system and wondering where the next crop of bats is going to come from. The [hopeful] trades of Hart and Fielder are often talked about in terms of the young arms they can bring in; maybe trading Axford in the next year or two can bring the next generation of young position players with good hitting potential. Of course, there's always the potential that the trade leaves us unable to close out close games which, as we saw earlier this season, can be damning. So, yeah, squarely on the fence for me.

McGehee is definitely not in any long-term projections I have at this time. It's unrealistic for us to assume we will keep most Big Leaguers beyond their peak value; McGehee should be traded when he hits a max-value and a decent trade is offered. That may be next year, it may be the year after. But I don't expect he'll be on the time during his final-contract season. We have too many position players who can possibly equal his value, and need the prospect-haul he could potentially bring in.

Yo is starting already?! This seems way to early of a start since the oblique injury. Seeing as the season is done for anyway, wouldn't it be wiser to rest our only decent pitcher for another week? ...The medical staff on this team: It's just never going to earn my trust.

http://www.talkingchop.co...ox-and-venters-suspended Suspensions for Cox and Venters. Rage from a Braves fan. (edit: fixed link --1992)

I wonder how many times that has happened this season? Seems like a lot.I can only say, in defense of my comment, that The Book suggests that 2.4+ runs are predicted with bases loaded/no outs Edit: Grammer

Woah. and a bases-loaded, no-out inning ends in zero runs. that almost NEVER happens

I never, ever saw that double-play from Gomez coming [/blue]

Why can't I fall out of love with Parra?? I want so badly for him to become the #2 we've all heard about. Is it time to disillusion myself?

Oh well. It was fun while it lasted...

Ok... so Fielder, Hart, Game for Cliff Lee is pretty ridiculous (in fairness: I didn't have any inkling of what his contract situation was). But throw out some other crazy-good pitcher with a longer contract: what then? I think we have prospective bats to fill in the holes left by Fielder's and Hart's departures; plus with a fat 1B crop of FAs up ahead, it would be (at least potentially) feasible to bring in a big bat in the off-season. I'm just wondering how far into "all-in" we could or should go to land a second ace-type pitcher.