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.

I would love a single thread on the topic. Title it, and it's yours.

Nate82 had a really good comment in this thread that I'd like to pursue further: There aren't a whole lot of 1-for-1 trades with Prince available. Hell, there aren't any I can think of that would be remotely acceptable. I think if Melvin or Attanasio (whoever makes the calls, probably much more A than M) get serious about making this team a contender, they have to get "creative" (thanks nate) with their trading. Prince really, really should be traded this year. With a year-and-a-half left on his contract, he's at his best value. He's a year younger than he will be next year, and everyone (excepting, hopefully, our potential trade-partners) should foresee his numbers dwindling. Now is the time to trade him, but since there's no direct trade I can see happening, something crazy might need to happen. What kind of craziness can you conjure up? Maybe Fielder, Hart, Gamel for Cliff Lee? Maybe something crazier; maybe something less crazy - some combination needs to happen, I think, to land the value for our players that are currently playing at higher levels than they will for the rest of their career (see: Fielder, Hart, Bush, [probably] Gamel, Weeks, Loe, Braddock [maybe, maybe] Axford)

I'm all for supporting the idea of "sell now!" as it is definitely my mantra, but I guess I was more interested in what the opposing point-of-view might be based on. I know from talking with casual fans around town that there are many folks who refuse to discuss trading away the offensive powerhouses that are Fielder and *cough ahem* Hart. I don't know if there are any people who are of that mindset on this board, but if there are, those are the people I'd like to hear from.

Thus far, through the 5th, the Brewers have gone 8-6 in the long stretch of their must-win games, with a home-heavy schedule. They currently sit at 2-3 in July, and are fast-approaching irrelevance in the playoff race. At some point, it has to be the case that the Crew just aren't going to do anything this year. I think that time has come. If you disagree, what record do you think they need to maintain through the rest of the stretch that extends to about a week after the all-star break? I'd be willing to concede that a zero losses might make our playoff hopes a slightly-less dim possibility, but since that doesn't appear to be a legitimate possibility, it seems most intelligent to me that we start looking at trade offers immediately. If you still see some hope, where does it lie? How are we going to post a stellar record through the next three weeks?

I'm just going to add my voice to the grumbling over why Yo is not on the DL. *grumble grumble*

I think the argument against Bush can be boiled down to this: Depending on the numbers you look at, Bush seems to be a somewhat average option for a 4/5 pitcher. However, his career numbers, as well as more advanced stats (particularly FIP and xFIP) indicate that he's probably not as good as he has appeared, thus far. An almost completely opposite argument can be made for Davis: Davis has a miserable ERA and looks like an awful pitcher this year. However, his career numbers and advanced stats indicate that he should be playing at a much higher level. Ergo, the decision of who is the better pitcher depends on which stats you're looking at, as well as how strongly you prefer to rely on past-performance and the projections yielded from them. I think most people have the tendency to see a player's above- and below-average performances as anomalies which will eventually regress toward their career numbers. As I am of that ilk, I see Davis as a superior pitcher to Bush, and believe that the numbers will eventually bare this out.

Thanks, trwi7

If I remember correctly, a big part of Gamel's lack of playing time was that Counsell was on a major tear from the plate. Because he was hitting so well, and management felt we were still in the chase, he kept getting starts, and Gamel kept sitting on the bench. I'm not saying it was the right decision to keep putting an old veteran in the starting lineup when you've got a young talent like Gamel on the team, but I can definitely see why Macha would have done so. It really would fall on Melvin, at that point, to send him back to Nashville. That being said, I think that Macha's rep for sitting young players comes predominantly from the Gamel situation; aside from him, I can't recall any young players who spent too much time on the pine while with the club. Of course, all of this is predicated on my spotty memory of last year's lineups during Gamel's stint with the parent club.

"...but Gallardo and maybe Wolf are the only two who are clearly better than the rest...." I think it's a tough case to make for Wolf being 'clearly better than the rest.' Statistically speaking, over the course of his career, he projects to be the better pitcher, but I think this fails to take into account a few possibilities, none of which I'm at all certain about. 1. Wolf has over-performed for several years; he's not as good as his numbers might suggest. From what I've seen this year, this actually seems pretty feasible. 2. Wolf has been really, really unlucky. If you don't like luck, you could say, instead, that Wolf's stats thus far are an anomaly; he should have performed better, his stats will regress, and he will soon be posting the numbers that were projected for him. This seems about as probable, though perhaps more so, than the former.3. Wolf aged a lot in a very short time-span. This possibility would suggest that Wolf really was the pitcher we thought he was before he came to the Brewers, but some magic number ticked-off his good-pitching-clock and he's suddenly a lousy pitcher. This seems least likely, in my mind. Aside from Wolf's performance, the claim that Wolf is "clearly better" also negates the upside of a guy like Parra, who I mention specifically because I have a TON of optimism about his abilities. Furthermore, since this is a thread about who to replace, and not who the better pitcher is, I'm not sure Wolf should even be in the discussion. We've signed Wolf to big money for multiple years. We have to know if it was a good deal or not; we have to know the pitcher we got when we signed that deal. There's too much investment in his contract to have him pitching from the pen or in the minors at this point.

A little regression could go a long way for Wolf... Here's hopin'