don1481

I don't think this is a one year thing anymore. Chris Capuano has now been pretty much bad since, well, pre-All Star 2006. 2006 Post-All Star: 1-8 5.17 ERA .278 BAA 2007: 5-12 5.20 ERA .286 BAA I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile last year but... really, should the Brewers gamble on Capuano's return to his 1.5 good seasons (2005 and the first half of 2006)? He's been bad as much as he's been good. I'd say no at this point to entrusting Capuano in the rotation.

I'd say 3/48 would be more than acceptable to offer Sheets. With a team option for year 4 that automatically vests if he meets certain criteria.

Why this thread wasn't on Page 1 is beyond me.

I could see it, especially if the club happens to come across a candidate that the Brewers feel gives the Brewers the best chance to win. Why they don't just hire BF.Net to collectively run this franchise is beyond mehttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I agree 100%. Nothing short of the postseason should be acceptable when measuring the success of the 2008 Brewers. And if they fail at this goal, Yost needs to go.

Nothing says AWESOME like a pub crawl with your new coworkers! AWESOME! Tonight was awesome. That is all. Goodnight, Brewerfan.net.

Back early after a good night. This "new job" thing is totally cramping my style. Oh well.

Am I the only one to post on this thread anymore? This is depressing.

Why is this thread on the third page...? Isn't that bordering on criminal or something?

Rickey... you're never too old for this!

Wow I miss going out. Wow I really can't go out as late as I used to. I'm getting soft in my old age.

My parents just got a Wii... I don't think they paid over market value (I'm sure they got it in a store, actually). I'll see if I can find out where they got it...

Come on now, Brian... you know buzzwords are what our world's all about

With regards to Capuano, all one needed to do was look at his "sparkling" 1-8, 5.17 post-All Star splits from 2006 to realize that he wasn't exactly a bona fide #2. You could even look at his post-All star splits from 2005 to see that his second halves from the two seasons that put him as the Brewers' #2 weren't all that consistent and that he seemed to become less effective as the season progressed. And the trend also continued this season, as he posted an even worse second than a first half that started off promising but quickly nose-dived. With regards to Villanueva and Wise (I'm assuming those are the two you're referencing here), I'll concede that they had no way of knowing that Wise was going to drill someone in the face and have it totally affect Wise's ability to pitch. As far as Villanueva goes, it should have been fairly obvious to Melvin et al that CV had never pitched in large chunks from the bullpen and that it was risky to rely on someone like that so heavily (see also Papelbon, Jonathan in '06 with the shoulder problems arising from being used in a way he had never been used before). The best answer would have been to acquire another arm or two in the offseason so such ineffective pitchers like Aquino and Spurling never had to see Milwaukee's bullpen. As FTJ pointed out before, DM really never showed much of a sense of acquiring pitching while in Texas, which ultimately proved to be his downfall there. If you look at those TX teams, they were offensive monsters but their pitching could never keep them in the game (Chan Ho Park, anyone?). Which is starting to sound like the story here. This offseason is indeed make-or-break for DM; the pitching situation in particular has to be an a priori issue to be resolved. EDIT: Getting back to the topic of the thread here... I'm not so sure about that. Yes, I know that Kremblas has worked with all of the players but given Braun's inability to properly "read" baseballs hit towards him at third, it's imperative that the Brewers have someone around him that can work with him on being able to improve his defense to "passable" - and no, I don't mean "passable to the left fielder." If I'm DM I'm strongly considering Don Money as well as Kremblas here for that reason coupled with his success at AA. If Money gets the job it should be made very clear (without stating it publicly, of course) that if Ned can't produce wins Kremblas gets first whack at the manager job for the remainder of the season. I see no issue with promoting the AAA manager to manage the Brewers; I don't necessarily think that an interim person needs to be on the big-league coaching staff.

Was Randall Simon at all involved...? I'm honestly surprised that more things like this haven't happened to the Racing Sausages given all of the promotional events that they show up to...

1. How dare this thread be on Page 4. 2. I highly recommend, for those of you in Milwaukee, that you check out live music at Riverwest Common. It's a good time. Wait - I said "Riverwest" and "highly recommend" in the same sentence. Please tell me that I'm not turning into a hipster! AHH! (Sorry Toby http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Please tell me she doesn't look like Wendy... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Anyways, congrats, Russ!

First of all, I appreciate the compilation of this data; it makes analyzing for potential trends that much easier for all involved. I agree we're in the middle of the general population, but... when we compare the totals with those of the four playoff-bound teams, it presents a different picture. Of those four, the only one with more total appearances was Colorado. Note that Chicago AND Arizona were both significantly less than Milwaukee. Note also that of those four, only Philly had a higher ERA than Milwaukee's. In Innings Pitched, yes, the Brewers' pen ranked smack dab in the middle of this group. Am I running the risk of "small sample size" here? You betcha. However, if one wants to be part of that sample where n = 4, then it's prudent to look and see where the differences lie between the general population (n = 16) and the desired subset (n = 4). I do completely agree that the numbers indicate that the Brewers' bullpen wasn't as "deep" as others'; however, I disagree that Ned should not be held accountable for the bullpen issues. I've outlined several occasions early in the season where Ned would have been better off just keeping in the starter for an additional inning or two - because either the Brewers were way ahead or way behind - and in the rare situation where the Brewers did manage to rally, it ate up a lot of bullpen and put undue stress on what, yes, could be called a "fragile" pen. "Overuse" is dependent on the player himself - if said players don't have the ability to pitch a few games straight, then it's up to the manager to understand this limitation and minimize its exposure. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the resources available and working within the constraints provided therein is a fundamental principle of management, whether in the corporate world or in sports; that's why people are put in those roles. In the corporate world, if a team or group badly fails to meet goals - whether or not those goals are unrealistic is not always relevant - the manager is usually the person that is held accountable first. IMO the same applies here. In terms of bullpen assembly, Melvin failed to acquire enough "effective" arms to prevent situations like Ned having to run Aquino out in a close game. He should be held accountable for that; I have continued to agree with the implied point Jay Zahn and others have made throughout this discussion regarding this point. I think, in order to get into that subset where n = 4, the bullpen must be deeper than in 2007. The players should definitely be also held accountable; they're the ones that are being run out there and it's ultimately up to them to get the job done. Those that ultimately failed to do what was asked of them hopefully will not be anywhere near the Brewers' pen in 2008. Keep in mind that Ned's mismanagement of his bullpen is just a subset of the entire body of work that he's put together over the past few seasons.

Villanueva's was 3.94 at the end of the year. On September 30. My point with Wise was that he WAS being overworked until he drilled that batter in the face. As I said several posts ago, he had almost as many appearances in June ALONE as he did in August/September combined. As I showed, Ned did use his bullpen more frequently than most other teams did. If we want to count Linebrink and his 70+ games total or however you want to weight his partial season with the Brewers, Ned did run his relievers out by several games more, on average per reliever, than other teams. I then hypothesized that Ned's usage of the bullpen early on in the season - effectively closing off the 6-9th innings with 4 relievers in some cases... with a number of times each having to go in game in and game out... was the event that triggered the second-half collapse. If you look at 2/5 of the starting rotation - Vargas and Capuano - in April and May, their inability to go deep PLUS Ned's decisions to sometimes pull them when the Brewers were getting pounded and eat the bullpen rather than letting the starter "absorb" a couple of extra innings to get arms rested contributed to the excessive early-season wear and tear. I remember, when I ran my original estimates partway through the season, I had SEVERAL relievers listed at being on pace for over 80 games. Those arms just simply could not do that. How the Dodgers' arms haven't completely imploded yet is beyond me - I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those three at 80+ games this year develops arm trouble within the next season to season and a half. And just because other pitchers DID manage to go 80+ games does not mean that the pitchers that the Brewers had this year could as well. Different bodies, different responses to workloads. The fact that Villy specifically tailed off was not because he wasn't "good enough" but rather because Ned overused him at the beginning of the season. He was one of the pitchers that was on track for a ton of appearances during my original estimates, and prior to this season, he was always a starter. He was not used to pitching back-to-back days; it's a different way of going about things that affects pitchers psychologically and physically. Wise WAS quite effective until he hit that batter in the face. That sort of situation could make even the most hardened people suffer after-effects. Going into the July 25 game (when the beaning took place), Wise had a 2.70 ERA. Had Ned been able to hold out a few of those overworked arms in some of those earlier games, could that have been the difference? Maybe. Had Doug been able to acquire another good arm well in advance of the trading deadline, would that have helped? Probably. Both Doug and Ned should be held accountable for the collapse.

Shouse Cordero Villy (you left him out - I know, he was in the rotation in Sept but for much of the year, in over 20IP, he was effective) Linebrink Wise (until the last 2 outings he was under 4) That's 5.http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

And we've also coughed up 5, 6-plus run leads as well. Those are the statistical outliers, the games that eat up far too much effort to win. I'm not saying the players that are playing should not play hard; I am saying, however, that if one's trying to minimize the overall stress on a bullpen and not contribute to them being run down over the course of the season, then maybe "going for broke" in an April/May game and throwing close to a half dozen pitchers at the game to try and "hold it together" might not be the best use of resources. Especially if the following day the starter "only" goes 6 and the Brewers need to protect a 3-2 lead and lo and behold... the arms in the pen are still too run down from the previous game. Speaking of come-from-behind wins... I remember a few times this year that the Brewers came from behind - even significantly behind - and people were wondering "would this be a turning point?" Nope... each time it seemed like they lost the following game. EDIT: While we're on this topic of "questionable decisionmaking regarding the bullpen," The Prince of Darkness posted a new blog today, entitled "When in Doubt, Blame the Manager." Some highlights: As I've said before during games, if Ned makes a boneheaded move and it works out, he still made a boneheaded move in my mind. If he puts in, say, Cordero to close a 3-2 game and CoCo blows the save, then Ned did the right move and it's Cordero that didn't get it done. I fundamentally disagree, as usual, with The Prince of Darkness.

This reminds me of someone's signature on this site: "A couple of slammers and we're right back in this thing!"http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/smile.gif 4 runs, depending on 1. who the opposing pitcher is, 2. the stadium the game's being played in (factoring in weather conditions), and 3. what inning the game is in, can all make 4 runs to be a pretty big deficit. 4 runs in the 9th against Mariano Rivera is far different than 4 runs versus Gary Glover or whatever Designated Rotation Stooge is out there in, say, the first inning. In the case where the offense is getting mowed down (like the cases that I cited), that 4 run deficit is far harder to overcome.

If you're managing late in the season and/or the playoffs, yes, I agree completely. However, sometimes it was painfully obvious that the odds were way against the Brewers and it would take far more effort - not just in terms of pinch hitting, but also in number of pitchers eaten up - to win the game than it would really be worth. Especially since the following game the pen could very well be exhausted and the starter would be under even more pressure to go deep into that game. As we've beaten to death here a number of times, a lot of those "blown 95% win probability" games were because of poor decisions made by Ned. Such as letting Aquino ever see a pitching mound. Or keeping in Turnbow in spite of him walking several batters and giving up a base hit or two without getting an out. We've beaten those decisions to death in this thread and in the IGTs as well - Ned has made far too many questionable in-game decisions to stay around.

And honestly, that's why the Brewers ran into a lot of the problems that they did: Being down 4-5 runs in the 5th/6th inning, as Russ or the people who use Win Probability will tell you, means that you have a very small chance of winning. And realistically, you're better off not throwing all your resources possible into winning a game like that and saving your pitchers for the following games. Ned ran the early part of the season as though it was a sprint, rather than a marathon. While we'd all love to see the Brewers go 162-0, realistically sometimes you just have to know when to start preparing for the next game. Yes - 98 pitches after 6 is a lot, I will agree with that. However, when you've got a huge lead like the Brewers did at that point (plus playing AT Minnesota, where they didn't have to PH Vargas) meant that the Brewers could have tried to get another inning out of Claudio.

But by limiting to 6 or 7 I'm also eliminating any "turnstile" relievers that other teams had too. Let's be honest - Wise would have probably been on pace to be "overworked" had he not become ineffective following that beaning. He only had 13 appearances in August/September combined; he had 11 in June alone. Villanueva would have also been on pace to be "overworked" had he not been 1. sent down for a couple of weeks and 2. became a starter during September. So really... you have 5 arms that took a lot of pounding. Yes, but he wasn't the problem in April/May. You can firmly point to Capuano, Vargas, and to a lesser extent, Dave Bush for the starters that didn't go deep enough consistently enough. Yes - I could have added Linebrink and his 71 total appearances (27 with the Brewers) to the mix. But see... as you probably noticed when I was dealing with relievers that got traded that had a lot of appearances total, I wasn't sure how to weight their appearances into the mix. Actually... 4, if you count Linebrink as the one that came in July. And prior to Wise's last two outings of 2007, he was in that category as well. So that's 5. You'd hope that to be the case. Of those pitchers in MLB with over 70 appearances (46 in all), 38 have an ERA of under 4. If you drop that to 65 appearances (73 in all), 56 fit that bill. Which averages out to being almost 2 pitchers per team. Of course, better teams with better bullpens will have more of these. And that's precisely one of the reasons why I think Ned mismanaged the rotation AND the pen. Outside of Vargas' 8IP in that blowout loss, I don't really see a case where Ned just left a guy in to eat innings when the game was far beyond reach. Going back to Capuano, let's look at his first two months of the season: Capuano in April/May: 5IP - 96 pitches 5.1IP - 93 pitches 5.2IP - 94 pitches 6IP - 109 pitches 6IP - 81 pitches (skip 5/2 because he got hurt - yes, this did make the pen work more that day) 8IP - 98 pitches 4IP - 65 pitches in a 9-1 loss. Brewers were getting mowed down and were down 4-0 when Capuano was pulled. Maybe Ned should have let Capuano bat and just kept him in 1-2 more IP. 5.1IP - 89 pitches in a 8-1 loss. Pulled when the Brewers were down 5-1 and getting mowed down. See previous observation. 4IP - 84 pitches in a 5-1 loss. Brewers were down 4-0 and getting mowed down yet again. See - once again - previous observation. 7IP - 96 pitches. No complaints about this start, but by then, the fast start was over... That's three straight starts where Ned had to burn through the 'pen far sooner than he had to. Unacceptable, IMO. And now let's look at this year's Wayne Franklin, Claudio Vargas, over the same time span: 5IP - 91 pitches in a 3-2 win 6IP - 106 pitches 4IP - 69 pitches in a come from behind win. Yes, in this case Ned got it right. 5IP - 99 pitches 6IP - 98 pitches in a 10-0 win. Brewers were up 7-0 when he was pulled. 98 pitches or not, why not try to get another inning out of Vargas? 6IP - 94 pitches 6IP - 90 pitches 4IP - 90 pitches in a come from behind that the Brewers were down 5-2 when he was pulled. While they did win, Ned did use 4 pitchers out of the pen. Should Ned have played for the long haul and just kept Vargas in for another inning? Maybe. Maybe not. 5.1IP - 101 pitches in a loss. Brewers were down 4-2 when he was pulled. 6IP - 106 pitches. So that's 4 instances between Cappy (3) and Vargas (1) in April/May where Ned should have let the starter stay in at least 1 inning longer to keep the pen fresh. Plus another that, even though they did come from behind to win, the Brewers might have actually been better off letting the starter eat another inning because of the deficit they were facing. That plus the obvious trend of Capuano and Vargas just not going deep into games (6.1, 6.2, 7+ IP, for example) all that often (just 2 by Capuano of 7 or more and zero by Vargas). What conclusions do we draw from the issues that I've been outlining...?