Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Oxy

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,995

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Oxy

  1. Oxy
    As I said in my post earlier, I agree that it is a poor play with a guy on third and one out. Still, it isn't nearly as horrendous a play people here make it out to be. Even if the guy is dead-to-rights out at home he can just get caught in a run down and allow the batter to get to second base. Then there is a guy on second with 2 outs. Had the contact play NOT been on in that situation, there would be a guy on 3rd with 2 outs. The run expectancy difference between a player on 2nd and a player on 3rd with two outs is 0.043 runs, which means you only have to be successful 1/20 times in order for the play to be a successful strategy. Think about that. Now I realize that you won't ALWAYS get that guy to second base. However, the defense won't always execute either and everybody will be safe and a run will have scored. And this is just the numbers with only a guy at 3rd. With guys on first and third or second and third it skews even more heavily in favor of keeping the contact play on. Quite frankly, if fans could just get over the emotional trauma of "OH no! an out at the plate!!" They could see that it is a good play.
  2. Oxy
    Has anybody actually run the numbers on the contact play or does everybody here just automatically assume that it costs the team runs? I think that the emotional reaction of getting a guy thrown out at home just drives people nuts so much that they try to avoid it at all costs even if it is a decent play by the numbers. People do realize that if the contact play is NOT on, a routine out will almost always be made at first, right? The only time I think it's a horrible play is when there is only a guy on third and nobody out. How many times has the contact play been on in that situation? I can't remember any, but I haven't watched a lot of games this year. If there is one out and just a guy on third, I don't really like the play, but I don't think it is horrendous depending on the runner and where the ball was hit. When there are 2 guys on base, the contact play is always the right play. If it doesn't work, no big deal, you still have 2 runners on base. But if it DOES work, you have a run, and if you happened to force a throw home, you have a run, you STILL have 2 guys on base, and you also have another out to work with in the inning. I would guess that it only needs to work somewhere around 5% of the time in order for it to be worth it in that scenario. You just don't lose very much when it doesn't work.
  3. Oxy
    The backend of the bullpen has been absolutely atrocious this year, but the rest of the pen has performed adequately. Loe and Parra haven't been lock down by any means, but they still have good arms and they have performed well enough to at least bring them back to camp next Spring (on the cheap, anyway). I think that Axford will bounce back next year as well. He still has great stuff, and is a year removed from probably having the best season of any closer in the league. Thus a complete re-haul of the pen isn't really necessary, nor is trading for another arm. Perhaps try to sign Balfour or Mike Adams, but outside of those two guys, I'm not sure if spending dough on a reliever would be worth it. Heck, between Henderson, Pena, De Los Santos and even Rogers or Thornburg we could probably find a nice young setup guy as well.
  4. Oxy
    You are right in the classic definition of protection, where a guys overall numbers are supposedly going to decline without "protection." I would say that his rate stats won't be affected very much but his counting stats (runs and RBIs) would be. This is basically a moot point though with Braun this year, since Ramirez is putting up good numbers. Ryan IS protected. To use an extreme example of my point, just look at Barry Bonds' monster years from 2002-2004 (ignoring the chemical enhancements, of course). Despite setting records for OBP AND SLG, his runs and RBI totals were relatively pedestrian (still all-star caliber, just nothing close to record worthy). Teams refused to let him hit with guys on base, and that seemed to be an excellent strategy. His rate numbers were probably BETTER because of this lack of protection, but did he actually have a better year contributing to more wins for his ballclub than a year in which he had better protection, put up poorer rate stats, but scored more runs and drove in more runs?
  5. Oxy
    I'd say that team context is everything. A horrible team would probably benefit most from a Willie Mays, an average team would benefit most from Greg Maddux, and a very good to great team would benefit most from Mariano Rivera.
  6. Oxy
    But no one is asking if pitchers pitch to batters differently in different situations. The theory of protection says that an average elite batter will perform better when he has a good batter after him. If you say that isn't true in the aggregate, that theory fails. You are right in the way that I stated it. However, not all runs are created equal. So just because Braun has near equal raw rate statistics this year compared to last year doesn't mean that he has contributed to winning just as many ball games because of the situation of his successes. I'm not totally in tune with all of the new stats, but I would guess that runs created and WPA have something to do with this?
  7. Oxy
    What's interesting about player salaries these days is that it is mimicking the economy in general. There is a quickly shrinking "middle class" of player. Teams will pay gigantic salaries for the perennial all-stars and then play as many young cost controlled players as possible who will often be able to put up numbers similar to a guy making $7-$9 million bucks on the Free Agent market. I think this is a good strategy, but you have to make sure a guy will produce if you are going to pay him lots of dough, otherwise you end up signing Jayson Werth and Ryan Howard to horrible budget crushing deals. Signing Braun for long term may be one of the best small market contracts ever.
  8. Oxy
    Wow, there are a lot of arms on the market, and yet Greinke and perhaps Peavy are really the only impact guys. Everybody else seems to have the distinct possibility of being absolutely horrible. We have 5-7 young arms on the farm that can be horrible for us for a lot cheaper--plus there is the possibility that we find another Fiers or two in that group and then we'll really have something special. Thus, I'm kind of moving toward the sign Greinke camp. Greinke, Gallardo, Braun, Lucroy and Segura seems like a good 5 to lead us into the 2020s. Trade Ramirez, Hart, and Weeks for the best prospects you can get--similar to how Toronto traded Marcum straight up for Brett Lawrie.
  9. Oxy
    That is encouraging news on Marcum--although weren't there conflicting reports about a previous bullpen session, with RR claiming it went "really good" and McCalvy claiming it went bad? Still, just the fact that he is still throwing BPs leaves hope that he can recover fully without having surgery, in which case I'd love to bring him back on the cheap next year.
  10. Oxy
    Who is Fausto Carmona?
  11. Oxy
    Does George really have that much more value than the best unsigned free agent catcher out there? (If the best unsigned FA catcher is Wil Nieves I'll accept that he does!)
  12. Oxy
    Exactly. Although if a GM plans to keep his job and actually negotiate future trades it probably behooves him to just keep his mouth shut about what other GMs have specifically said/offered. Heck, it's pretty much just a good principle to live by in everyday life. Don't spread rumors, and don't believe hearsay/rumors. Life is better that way for everybody. It's one thing to say "I've got other offers out on the table that are better than what you are currently offering--thus you need to up the ante" And it's another to say "The Angels just offered x, y, and z, so we'll need to get Perez and Olt from you to make a deal work" I would guess that Doug told him the former, and specified which players in the Rangers organization they like. Then again, I'm just some idiot on the internet and I hate negotiating (at least if I'm on the selling end), So I pretty much know nothing.
  13. Oxy
    There's a game tonight?
  14. Oxy
    This offseason will determine if this is the "end of an era" or not. The offense basically weathered Prince's departure without too much trouble this year, but as has been analyzed ad nauseum, the bullpen pretty much ruined whatever chances the Brewers had. Next year, the offense looks to be the same or better if Weeks can bounce back and Aramis can keep producing. Also, there are a slew of young arms to come up and help the rotation and/or the bullpen. If Marcum can get healthy and we can re-sign him on the cheap, things will be looking pretty good next year. Obviously, if we make a run a Greinke things will look that much better, but this is still a decent team. If Fiers or one of the other youngsters step up, this is a better than decent team. Sign or trade for one veteran bullpen arm and see what happens.
  15. Oxy
    Bingo. I'd probably rather have Escobar, Odorizzi, Jeffress and Cain, but we got a division title and 40 some starts for Greinke as well. The Angels are getting somewhere around 10 starts and they might not even make the playoffs. DM has done well. To those in the know, Segura and Escobar seem like similar players, no?
  16. Oxy
    1) Segura was on the BA midseason top 50, so he is a top 50 prospect. 2) They're getting Greinke for like 10 starts... So?? You have an asset...isn't it your responsibility to get maximum value for that asset?? Otherwise why give up the asset?? You never know what could happen. Sickels has him at #78 in his most recent update. Was #66. And who says Zach won't sign an extension with Anaheim?? I would have asked for Trout or told them to get bent. I will take the one pick at the end of the year. Why settle for anything less then what you REALLY should get?? I'm guessing you aren't married?
  17. Oxy
    Well, we used to be able to count on the Cubs to buy their way INTO problems rather than out of problems, but I somehow doubt that Epstein will continue that tradition.
  18. Oxy
    I'd rather give up Greinke+whoever in order to land one top 10 prospect than trade Greinke for a slew of mediocre guys. Currently, we are drawing well enough to have a $90-$110M budget each year. That may not be the case if we stink for a year or two. Right now we can afford to fill-in the roster with replacement level FAs and perhaps a couple decent starters, but we cannot afford to sign impact, all-star caliber FAs, thus we need to trade for young players/prospects who have the highest ceilings possible. In my dream scenario, Greinke absolutely loves it here in Milwaukee and loves the management team (they did let him sit in for the draft and Melvin just said he was "like a son to him."). Greinke is a passionate guy who loves to win more than anything. Thus, Greinke and Melvin already have an extension in place for Zack, but instead of announcing it Zack told DM-- "hey, if we are out of it come July 15th, why don't you trade me away for some stud prospect that we'll have next year, and I'll re-sign with you in the off-season (on the already agreed upon extension)." Zack wins, as he gets to play for a winner this year AND helps his future team out by bringing in a prospect as well. Everybody is happy. Yes, I love to think of silly conspiracy theories in my spare time. It still would make sense though, and would be totally awesome. All the other comments in the media are just a smoke screen so the team that trades for Zack is under the allusion that they can re-sign him.
  19. Oxy
    I don't think anybody is claiming it as "proof," it's just evidence to suggest that a player can be extremely successful without overwhelming stuff. It also explains the lack of hype coming up through the minors and his low draft position. Outstanding control, deception, and other unquantifiable aspects of pitching are near impossible to scout for, yet can still result in an ace-level pitcher. Statistically, everything points to Fiers being a successful MLB pitcher, if not an "ace." That's fine with me. I'll take a 3.5-3.75 ERA any day of the week from my #3-#4 starter. The Crew has been due for a LONG time to have a pitcher seemingly come out of nowhere like that.
  20. Oxy
    I'm from out of town and don't go to games all that often. At least now I'll be able to get excellent seats on the cheap in September.
  21. Oxy
    Team's trade for guys with expiring contracts now who they know they won't be able to resign and do not abuse them, so I don't know why they would in this instance. Also, players have to agree to it if they want to get paid, unless it is written into their contract otherwise. Plus, there are plenty of guys out there who would like to play for a winner with a chance to get to the playoffs every year. And ideally, this wouldn't happen EVERY year. It would only happen to guys on teams that are out of it. There are only a handful of players on teams that are out of it that would be worth trading for, so I don't think it would be as ridiculous as merely an extended all-star game.
  22. Oxy
    It's a "trade" for a reason. You will be able to give up less in order to get a guy for 2 months plus the playoffs rather than 1.5 or 2.5 years. It's essentially the same as trading for a guy with an expiring contract except for the fact that you don't get the draft picks after he goes someplace else. 2 months of Ryan Braun or Yo Gallardo has to have some value for a team chasing the playoffs, and I would guess they would be willing to give up a decent prospect or two in order to "go for it" this year. If the Brewers are going to be sellers, Braun and Gallardo have almost NO value to the Brewers THIS year, so why not get something for their services the last couple of months? The only value they have is to draw people at the gates, but I think people would be forgiving though if they new the move was only temporary and they got future MLBers in the trade as well.
  23. Oxy
    I'd be comfortable with a rotation of Greinke, Gallardo, Narveson, Estrada, and Fiers, with Peralta, Rogers, and Nelson as your "extra" starters. It wouldn't make the Brewers favorites, but we would still be contenders. If they slightly overachieve for the first half, then you become buyers next summer to make a playoff push, and if they underachieve you sell everybody off. I'd be fine with trading Greinke right now as well, but I really think that everybody around here is going to be very disappointed at the return. You only get one compensation pick for losing a class A free agent now, right? That really knocks his trade value down.
  24. Oxy
    Why is it that only players whose contracts are soon expiring are the only ones talked about as being trading chips? I understand that teams are unwilling to trade away cornerstones of their franchise who will be under contract for a few years, but why can't they just rent them out for the rest of the summer and then return them to their home club the next spring? I see how this overt mercenary system would be philosophically unfavorable by toying with players' loyalties, but I could also see how Felix Hernandez would rather pitch the rest of this year for a contender before going back to Seattle next year. Let's say the Crew decides to be sellers. so they trade away Braun, Gallardo, Hart, Weeks, Lucroy, Ramirez, and Axford, ALL with the agreement that they will be returned to the Brewers next spring. The minors would be STOCKED with what those guys could bring in a trade. Plus, whatever loyalty issues the players have about being rented out would be mitigated by knowing that their future with the Brewers would be a lot brighter since the farm system will be loaded with talent that they brought in the trade. I am guessing there is something in the collective bargaining agreement that somehow prohibits this, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how unless a specific player has it written into his contract.
  25. Oxy
    I think it is more situational. It was time to take Thornburg out, and it happened to be in the middle of an inning and Axford was the guy who came into the game. It didn't have anything to do with Axford, it had to do with Thornburg. KRod has a history of working out of trouble, so RR always let's him finish out the eighth, thus Axford never really had a shot to come in before the ninth.
×
×
  • Create New...