Oxy

When I said I didn't like the contract, I was speaking more from the perspective of ownership who offered it. The veteran union guys have all "made it." That doesn't mean that what they think is what is best for Singleton--it likely means that what they think is what is best for themselves. I don't see Matt LaPorta or Mat Gamel tweeting about what a dumb contract this was for Singleton. Mulder and Norris making their opinions publicly known through Twitter without being asked first says a lot more about the value of their opinions than anything.

Most guys either sign a big contract and then feel some pressure to live up to that contract (Longoria, Tulowitzki, Braun), or they DON'T sign a contract and go year-to-year, putting pressure on themselves to perform each year in order to cash in big on their first FA contract (Fielder--Segura?). This one is in-between. I don't think I like it. It would be great if Singleton was working at a desk at an insurance company or something. I guess it depends a bit on his make-up/drive.

If only they had the foresight to use a nickname that starts with "m." Biloxi Moxie? Biloxi Millers? Seriously, if it's all about merchandising they really should have done this. Just change up the color scheme. EDIT: the "Mullets" doesn't count.

Who is this guy and why is he dominating?

Is David Price going to be available? If we are thinking that we might want to actually compete IN the postseason rather than just compete to GET to the post-season, he would be the perfect guy to pick up for the next 1.5 years in a Greinke like move.

Looks like BP tonight. Perhaps Wang pops up tonight?

This is, for me, the one & only determinant as to whether or not a 'contact play' worked. I HATE the 'contact play'. It's bad strategy. Trust a professional baseball player to use his instincts and judgment, & read the ball off the bat to determine whether or not he tries to score on a groundball in the infield. Imo the 'contact play' is the equivalent of telling a runner on 3B to attempt to tag up & score on any flyball, no matter how deep or shallow it is, and without considering if the OF throwing the ball has an arm like Khris Davis or like Carlos Gomez. The problem is that part of the contact play is getting a very, very big secondary lead off of 3rd base (since you are going no matter what when the ball is on the ground). Which means that you will be able to score on ground balls that you wouldn't normally score on if you left it up to the runner. The contact play is NOTHING like going on all fly balls. You actually lose both an out AND a baserunner (on 3rd even!) when you get thrown out at home on a sacrifice. You lose NEITHER an out NOR a baserunner when you get thrown out at the plate on the contact play. You exchange positions on the basepaths when it "doesn't work." That's it. Same number of outs, same number of baserunners. It makes it worth the risk to get that one run.

I am absolutely with you on the last paragraph. We are a less talented team than probably 6 or 7 teams in the NL. So we're going to have to do things better and we're going to have to have some players play beyond expectations. But I just totally, totally disagree with the bolded part. First, Garza is NOT our worst starting pitcher. That honor belongs to Marco Estrada. Estrada has a 5.43 FIP, Garza has a 3.86. Garza is not pitching as well as he could, but he's historically been a very good pitcher. Estrada has a .240 BABIP, Garza a .297. And of course Estrada leads the team in HR's. But this argument that he didn't take Garza out because he has these set roles in the BP have been dis-proven time and time again(including tonight). Your veteran pitcher who's pitched in big games and has been a very good pitcher throughout his career was still throwing well. Segura had a costly error and I agree, you still have to get out of the mess. Garza didn't. That's on him. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to how managers just cannot win. You trust your proven starter and he gives up the lead, you're an idiot for taking him out. You consistently yank them early and you're stressing the BP. I had no problem giving Garza one more hitter, especially when it was the #8 hitter in the lineup. And Roenicke has used his relievers in so many different situations this year and been very unconventional(relative to the most managers) that I don't see how you could even begin to argue that his thought process had anything to do with not bringing Smith in because he's the 8th inning guy and it was only the 7th inning. Smith has 11 appearances in the 7th inning this year and 16 in the 8th. So he's used him whenever he's needed him. This team has the least established "8th inning guy," or "7th inning guy," or literally any Brewers team I've seen in the last 15 years. The ONLY difference is some of those teams had pens so bad that nobody could keep their job as the SU man. Roenicke has said he has several guys he's confident going to in SU situations. Henderson when healthy, Smith, Thornburg, and Kintlzer, and we're going to need all 4 by the end of the year. Henderson coming back healthy would be a big boost, hopefully by the end of June. For the record, I'm not "whitewashing," anything. I simply find it absurd that RR is costing us a shot at the playoffs and I think there is a lot of knee jerk type reactions to relatively routine He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells? This one...I don't even know what to do with. When did he "fetishize," Falu? I'm just going to assume you're using "fetish," in this instance to mean have an irrational or over the top commitment to a player as opposed to other definitions. Falu has TWO plate appearances and literally BOTH times he was the LAST guy to get an at bat. So I would argue there is absolutely zero evidence that he has some strong commitment to Falu. Could you show me where he was signing the praises of Falu? Who incidentally has historically been a pretty good hitter for average. One double play is so irrelevant in the large scheme, ESPECIALLY given the fact that his only other choice would have been to bring in a pitcher, I don't know what it has to do with anything. The point about Falu is pretty simple. RR said he valued Falu offensively because he can make contact. Nothing else; just that he can make contact. I think that's fairly obviously a stupid reason to value a hitter. I'm not going to try to out-snark you here, because I know when I'm beaten, but I think my point is fairly simple. If you think I'm wrong, and you feel like explaining why it makes sense to promote and rely on a hitter who can do nothing other than not strike out, that's fine. You say that my complaint about the Garza decision is invalid because I'd complain just as much if RR brought in a reliever there and he failed. Actually, I wouldn't. You made that up, pulled it out of your butt, and pinned it on me. I really, truly, desperately wanted RR to pull Garza at that point. You don't just get to assert whatever the hell you feel like asserting, posit that some people think your assertion is too hot while other people think it's too cold, and conclude based on that variety of imagined objections that you're obviously right, let alone that a particular person with a distinct objection to your view is obviously wrong. That's exactly the kind of whitewash I was talking about. For a pinch hitter, "making contact" is a big deal. You can selectively choose when he gets to hit...e.g. when there is a guy on 3rd with 0/1 out.

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working." A double play IS in instance of that, I admit. But I still put that on Herrera in this instance. I'll keep preaching it for as long as it takes, but an out at the plate is only bad if the out would not have otherwise occurred. Getting a run is a big deal, while exchanging runners between the bases is not. Particularly if you have a good pitching staff/bullpen.

I'm not quite following you. Is there another time the Brewers have been doubled off due to the contact play? Perhaps there is, but I don't remember it. Also, of course Roenicke is covering for Herrera here, as the contact play should imply going as soon as it is obvious that the ball will hit the ground off of the bat.

Really? Old? Ramirez, Overbay, Lohse and....??? We are a bit thin on the offensive side, but I'm not sure how you could say that we are old. Even our bullpen is young, which is kind of amazing. Braun is a little injury prone I guess, but that is different than old (even if it has the same affect). We have a bunch of other guys who are in their prime or nearing the end of their prime, but that certainly isn't old. Those might be concerns for the direction of the franchise, but they aren't concerns for "this year."

It's also a good idea with just a guy on first Ghost runners are VERY difficult to tag.

I went through it once last year I believe using run expectancy charts, and I remember it being something around 15. There are way too many variables and situations for the number to actually be accurate anyway. I do agree that it is dumb with a guy on 3rd and 0 outs, but I don't think Roenicke has it on in that situation. Guy on 3rd and 1 out it's only half dumb, if I recall. 2 guys on and it should always be on, no matter if it's 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

Could you walk through this logic? I'm not trying to argue or call you out, I just need help understanding how one score is equal to fifteen outs on the basepaths. What am I not adding to the calculation? You don't actually "lose" an out when the contact play on. You merely exchange positions on the basepaths--the out is at home instead of at 1st base. When guys are on 2nd and 3rd with the contact play on, if they throw him out at the plate you now have guys on 1st and 3rd. If you DON'T have the contact play on, he throws the batter out at first and you have guys on.... 2nd and 3rd rather than 1st and 3rd. People get all riled up because it seems bad to get thrown out at home. Still, the risk is worth it, as even 1 run is a big deal as opposed to a guy on first rather than 2nd base.

I'm just going to point out that the 5th run we scored (in the 6th) was 100% due to the contact play being on. This means that we have another 15 times or so that it DOESN'T work before the stats actually start to even out. In other words, the contact play is a good thing. It rarely has to work in order for the numbers to work out.

Joe Block must be reading my posts. He actually had a pulse on those back-to-back jobbers. I'd rather an announcer get excited and be wrong about it (at least on the radio--TV is totally different when the viewer can see the hits for themselves). The producers must be getting in his ear about it.

Let's find out. Last season May was doomed due to an entire month of awful pitching. So now we have Pitching and we don't have the offense? Pitching wins championships no? So we should be better off regardless how poor we remain offensively....Right? Is there any empirical evidence that teams that are slanted more towards pitching than hitting are more likely to win? Let's say team A scores 100 more runs than they allow, while scoring 750, and allowing 650, and team B scores 100 more runs than they allow, while scoring 675, and allowing 575. Is there ANY evidence that says team B is 'more' championship worthy?? I don't know about "empirically," but logically, if you take your example to the extreme--say a team scores 200 runs, yet only gives up 20 runs the entire season, they are going to have an unbelievably good record--probably somewhere close to 145-17. Yet a team that scores 1000 runs and gives up 820 runs will have a far more difficult time reaching 145 wins....

Joe Block-- "and there's a soft fly ball to right....back goes Schafer....over his and and over the wall...."

Isn't Gomez batting like .500 when swinging at the first pitch? You are right of course that he doesn't HAVE to swing at it, but I'd probably at least wait till the average drops below .400 before counseling for him to change anything. Heck, the argument could be made that he SHOULD swing at every first pitch UNTIL his average falls below .400.

I love it. Outstanding article, and Melvin says all the right things. I've been trying to figure out when the K/BB thing would over-correct itself, as has Melvin, apparently. This quote is great: Before a game, the typical hitting coach gathers his hitters in a room and is telling them to "get a good pitch to hit." Meanwhile, the typical pitching coach for the same team is in another room at the same time telling his pitchers, "Get ahead. Throw first-pitch strikes."

The number of "Wang" posts that do not involve puns in this thread is truly astonishing.

Only if you are SURE that your players are not androids.

To actually have a relevant statistical study of this, one would need to directly study the situation of a guy on 2nd with 0 outs, then split the results by "attempted sac bunt" vs. "swing away" from that point on. I presume that the 63.7% of the time a team scores at least one run with a guy on 2nd and 0 outs INCLUDES times when a team uses a sac bunt to get him to third. From THAT point on, they score 67.4% of the time. The numbers get muddied. Matchups change everything anyway. You should know who is a good bunter and who is a bad bunter (although RR might not care as evidenced by Overbay's attempted bunts the other day).

I'd disagree with this. I think the FA signings (and trading prospects) is directly what has kept the Brewers competitive year in and year out since 2008 or so--which is a pretty significant amount of time. Obviously, last year was a lost year due to injuries and suspensions, but that will happen occasionally. This team isn't a .666 ballclub, no, but with a little luck it might be a .575 ballclub, which is certainly good enough.

They aren't using FAs to "build" a team though a la the 2000s era Yankees. They have plugged holes here and there with mid-level FAs in order to remain an above average team that can reasonably threaten to make the playoffs. The budget HAS allowed for this strategy. We can afford to sign a good FA nearly every year so long as those contracts are only 3-4 years long. What else are you going to do with the money? Tell the fanbase that you've invested tens of millions of dollars in a a few Latin American scouting and development camps that are going to pay off in 2025 while the team wins 71 games in 2014? Sorry, but I'll take Ramirez, Lohse, Garza and meaningful games in August and September. Meanwhile the CORE of the team is All-star caliber young players at C, SS, and CF--the 3 most important "positions" on the field. Two of those were directly a result of Melvin trades--sometimes even getting rid of prospects! Somewhat amazingly, Lucroy was probably the least heralded MLB prospect coming through our system post-Ryan Braun, and yet he is pretty easily the best player of the bunch. Maybe Melvin was just lucky, but if he can keep trading away the Matt LaPorta's and Brett Lawrie's of the world in order to end up with Jean Segura's and hold onto Lucroy's, go ahead and do it. In my mind, he's earned the leash. If only he would have traded Mat Gamel too! Maybe then we'd have a World Series ring :P.