Oxy

I don't mind the new rule, but there is no need to slide into home as once you touch the plate you are no longer in play to get tagged out. You only slide into 2nd and 3rd to slow down quickly and avoid overrunning the bag to get tagged out. A weirder rule is why you get to overrun first base.

Thank you to RoCo and FTC for their recent posts.

Perhaps. Instead they got 2 all-star bats and an all-star closer. They needed hitting more than pitching--at least to make the playoffs. I don't think they would have gotten an ace with that package though. If they wanted Gausmann or Happ, sure...but those guys aren't a whole lot better than who they have now, if at all.

Thank you! I knew it was something like this. My main confusion was with the 4.027 years which I read as an actual decimal rather than 27 days.

This narrative just isn't true, but it's repeated here all the time. The Sabathia and Greinke deals have been discussed ad nauseum, with both deals looking fine in hindsight (Considering the return we got for Greinke when we flipped him) The only other time the Brewers traded away a prospect of note was the Brett Lawrie for Shaun Marcum deal which was pretty much another wash. Since then they haven't even really had any blue-chip prospects to trade except for Arcia, and time will tell whether we should have traded him. We held onto Wily Peralta, and perhaps we SHOULD have traded him. They made a number of FA signings for middling starting pitching, but I'm not sure those resources could have been spent any better as we have always needed more pitching and Suppan, Wolf, Lohse, Garza etc. were the best we could get at that time. Aramis Ramirez was another veteran signing, and he was outstanding as a Brewer. Everybody wanted to blow it up after the 2012 season, but we didn't. Instead we had a huge division lead in August of 2014 and fell apart. That was a near playoff miss but has somehow been turned into a "See! We should have sold off after 2012!" After that, we sold off Gomez and then Lucroy for very good returns with only one real down year in 2016. One bad year out of 12 isn't too bad, although more playoff success would have been nice. We could have traded Prince Fielder, but we won 96 games in 2011 and had a real shot to win the World Series. For a franchise with an empty trophy case you just can't trade away your best player in a season like that. Otherwise, I'm not actually sure what Melvin was supposed to do other than draft better, and drafting is about 0% of the GMs job.

I asked this in a couple other threads, but it is more appropriate here. What are the rules regarding option years, service time and FA eligibility, and how does the Jonathan Schoop situation fit into those rules?

Ortiz AND Carmona would be an overpay if Schoop was a pure two month rental, but he will be a very valuable part of the team next year. Cots says that Schoop had 4.027 years of service time to begin the year. Does that mean if we option him down for a week we'll gain another year of control? At the end of next year he would then have fewer than 6 years of ML service time. Does he have options left? After he gains a certain amount of service time does he have the right to refuse to be optioned down even if he has option years remaining? I'm hoping somebody here can explain this situation better.

Yeah, I never understood the binary thinking of past GMs where you either folded or went all-in. We acquired two (EDIT: THREE!!) All-Star players and gave up (currently) mostly AAAA type players. Sure, they could develop into Major Leaguers, but other than Villar none of them were a lock to even make a meaningful contribution at the MLB level. And there aren't many people shedding tears over losing Villar.

I would guess that he has been getting many offers from larger markets and has negotiated his way to more time off. I like him and LePay, so it's fine by me.

I think this was a case of "What can we get for Phillips and Lopez?" rather than "let's go get Mike Moustakas." We are a marginally better team with Moose, and we gave up guys that needed to be traded. I don't think it is a whole lot more complicated than that.

I don't know. I'd say that a bad 5 year 50M deal is about 5 times worse than a bad 1 year $10M contract. I wouldn't want to make a habit out of bad value deals, but if there is budget room and the player improves the team I don't see why the occasional overspend on a bad one year contract should make any difference to a fan.

I highly doubt the Brewers pick up the $11M option. That's way too steep to commit to at the beginning of the FA cycle. At the same time, if next April rolls around and we have a thin bullpen and lots of budget space it wouldn't be a crippling contract by any means. It doesn't look like we'll have room in the budget though--and we have to decide in November, not April.

Why would you want to eliminate bias/popularity?

This is an interesting analysis. The possible playoff contributions really do throw all the WAR and $ values out of whack though. Still, I like the measured approach--at trust that Stearns will do the right thing.

Or else you could say that this team has been ravaged by injuries in the first half, and only Aguilar and Hader have played over their heads. Shaw, Braun, Santana and Arcia have under-performed. Nothing really points to the record being unsustainable.

WIN WINW IN WI NW IN WI NW INW

Peanuts? A Bag of balls? Such a strange game.

I think it would. To make the transition a little easier, one could start with the rule that every reliever either has to start an inning, finish an inning, or make 30 pitches. While this wouldn't be as ideal as my first suggestion, it would at least eliminate the worst possible time wasting scenario where a reliever enters the game mid-inning (wasting 5+ minutes), gets one out, and then gets relieved for AGAIN (wasting another 5+minutes). Most of the time, not even beer is sold during this interlude, since it usually happens after last call.

It would change the spirit and mechanics of the game too much. Do you eliminate the rule on a 3 ball count? As then a baserunner gets the steal for free, since the pitcher can't even step off or it's a walk. It wouldn't work. Then, since it wouldn't work on a 3 ball count, would it work on a 2 ball count? Step off to throw over (which picks a guy off about 1% of the time (notsureonthat)), and it's immediately a 3 ball count, which means the guy gets the steal/walk? I guess it would make speed a FAR more important part of the game, which would be interesting in today's power obsessed times. I'd try to think of a less radical change though. Perhaps every 3rd step off/pick-off attempt is a ball rather than EVERY step off/pick-off attempt?

The greatest flaw in advanced pitching stats is not accounting for situation. Pitchers have entirely different approaches to a batter depending on the number of outs, the guys on base, the quality of the batter and the quality of the batter(s) on deck and in-the-hole. I'm sure that smart front offices like the Brewers' are well on top of this kind of thing, but I'm not sure that Fangraphs is. (I'm not sure that Fangraphs isn't, either).

Billy Martin died 3 or 4 times as a Yankee manager.

My guess is because ghosts aren't real. Is that an objective guess or a subjective guess?

And I have no doubt that Braun will say and do whatever is necessary in order to keep the Brewers winning. If that means being more of a pinch hitter and allowing Thames and Aguilar to do their thing, I think he'd be okay with being the best, most expensive pinch hitter in the league if it means more Ws for the Brewers. I'll guess that he'll be needed for more than just that role this season though.

So a guy comes into a 3-3 game, doesn't have it, gives up 4 straight hits, and you have to leave him get shelled till he gets 3 outs???? That's not baseball and I'd have zero interest in watching it. How often does that happen? A utility infielder got 3 outs last night. Did he "Have it?" The benefits far far outweigh the negatives. If you think it would be that bad, put a 25 or 30 pitch limit on a guy, then allow him to be relieved. And your "zero interest" comment is outlandish. After watching the 100th+ pitching change to make LOOGYs relevant, my interest wanes far more than watching a guy get knocked around a couple times a year.

I'm a little worried myself. Baseball needs to evolve. Really really focus on shortening games. Attendance is down 5-6%, I read this is first year there will be more strikeouts than hits. Not good. Ball in play is good for attention spans of people these days. Eliminating specialty pitchers would be great. I'll say it for the 8th+ time--No mid-inning relieving of a relief pitcher. Slows down the game and subdues offense. Pick up the action and pick of the offense and make the game more traditional and make a guy get 3 outs.