Member

There is absolutely no reason why we can't win two out of three against these guys... if only we were playing them at Miller Park, and not at our personal Waterloo. Somewhat off topic, but the game hasn't started yet: Princeginterhallhelms04, how are the 'Hawks doing in the WIAC this year? Haven't really been following the Alma Mater in football much.

The straight-up records currently suggest 81.14 wins for the Crew.The Pythagorean Runs records suggest 81.14 wins for the Brewers as well. The head-to-head records based on location (Brewers home/Reds Away, Brewers Away/Pirates home) suggest 81.56 wins. This one suggests that the Brewers are more likely to take two of the next three against Cincy, but are split over who takes the extra game in Pittsburgh. It will probably all come down to that final game on Sunday at PNC.

I won't go into the Keltner list for Flood, but just hit on a few key things: His career, as a player, was essentially that of a Jose Cardenal, or a Gary Maddox. It was pointed out by John Brattain in The Hardball Times that he was, essentially, at the same level of performance at the time of "the trade" as Lou Brock. Lou, however, played four/five more seasons than Curt. And in those extra seasons, he got 3,000 hits and he broke a record no one thought would be broken (Cobb's career SB total). That, unfortunately, is a huge difference in the eyes of the Hall of Fame. And even though Curt did something that ended up drastically changing the game of baseball (if not pro sports as a whole), that isn't enough to put him in the Hall, IMNSHO.

This... was an ugly game. You sensed that it might be a long night when Cappy walked the leadoff batter. When they batted 'round, it seemed like that was it, game over, the big boys are flexing their muscles. And then... the Brewers did something they hadn't done before. They HIT with RUNNERS in SCORING POSITION! Capuano doubles to tie the game, then the Brewers actually ADVANCED THE RUNNERS in two separate innings, one to get it back to even, and then another to take a three-run lead. Wise comes in, and you KNEW who was coming in for the ninth. Is T-Bow now Gagne? I don't think he's gotten to that level yet, but dang, he's close. Outstanding catch by Billy Hall in the 9th. That was a stretch-it-out-and-go-for-it play, which we needed. By the way, I take back all the bad things I said about Carlos' defense. The way he backhanded the ball in LF kept the Cards from getting an extra base hit early in the game. Unexpected turn of events, but a good game. Some other observations from the cheap seats: Hey! No one told me about the cheerleaders. What's up with that? Good to see that things haven't changed out in the loge bleachers in left... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif The two-fisted slopper was alive and well and wearing a Cubs hat. I actually had someone mistake my Sounds cap (circa 1985) for a Cubs cap. Common mistake, as it's a blue cap with a red bill. However, the "N" on the front gives it away. I missed it with that apparent HBP mid-game... what exactly was the call there?

I'll be there with a neighbor's kid in tow. Look for a guy wearing a Nashville Sounds cap (circa 1985) out in the LF loge bleachers.

The sweep by the 'Stros essentially threw out the possibility of them winning 81. Even if we take 2 of three against the Cubs, I really don't see us winning more than one against the Cards - if that. We might do better than split against the Reds, but then we go to Pittsburgh - and the Pirates are red hot right now. I see six wins in the last 12.

However, I still don't think we're going to make it to .500.

BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN! BREWERS WIN!

"DORN! What's with this Ole crap?" Rickie is having a non-plussed night tonight.

Whoa. Bow does really well when he has a week off. LOL

Dunno... not listening to the game, actually. I put away the radios when the power came back on. Nice that they pulled away early... but GOD that just looked like a bad ninth for Victor.

I was asking that myself earlier - what is it with Ezequiel Astacio's face?

Nice inning, even if we left three guys on base. Don't blow it, Eveland, or you'll be wearing a pink tutu for the rest of the season - per Dougie.

RBI infield hit! ...and the beat goes on.

MMMMppph.... Intentionally walk Clark... to get to HARDY?

By the way: the game that Schroeder was talking about was August 9, 1988. Nieves started, and was pulled with one out in the ninth with the game tied. Clemens struck out 6, including Meyer twice. First pitch of the bottom of the ninth, Meyer hit the homer. Oh, also: Schroeder never faced Clemens in his career.

I think that one got out about half because of who threw it.

Get UP, Get UP, get OUTTA HERE... GONE! for Damien!

BOOM! 3-1.

BERT BLYLEVEN 22 Years, with five teams (Minnesota twice, Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, California). <span style="font-family:courier;"> W-L GP GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA --------------------------------------------------------------- 287-250 692 685 242 60 0 4969.1 4632 1830 430 1322 3701 3.31 </span> HOF Eligibility: Currently eligible; on 2006 ballot. HOF Voting Trends: Best year in voting was 2005 (211 of required 516 votes, 40.9%). Voting has increased every year since first eligible in 1999; biggest jump was in 2004 (went from 29.2% to 35.4%, with 34 additional votes). Trend suggests HOF selection by 2012-13 ? just before his eligibility runs out. All-Star Games: Two (1973, 1985). Awards: Twice received one or more votes in MVP balloting (4 votes in 1973, 32 in 1989); career 0.09 MVP award share. Three top-five finishes in Cy Young voting (1984-85, 89), with an additional top 10 finish in 1973 (7th). Best finish was in 1984 AL (3rd, 45 votes, 4 1st place votes, behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry); Career 0.45 CYA award shares. Black Ink: 16 (Times led league in various categories; average HOFer scores about 40). Gray Ink: 239 (Times among leaders in various categories; average HOFer scores about 185); total is 24th best among pitchers ? and same amount as Pete Rose. HOFS: 50.0 under the original method, 54.2 under the adjusted method; average HOFer scores 49.4. HOFCM: 120.5 (Likely HOFer scores above 100; certain HOFer scores 130 or more). Most Similar Pitcher: Don Sutton (914); a score of 950 or better indicates a large degree of similarity between two pitchers' career totals. HOF in top 10 most Similar Pitchers: Eight. It could be argued that every single one of the pitchers in Bert's top 10 should be in the Hall of Fame, since the only two non-members are Tommy John (889) and Jim Kaat (854). The others: Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, Tom Seaver, Early Wynn, Phil Niekro and Steve Carlton. Post-season: Five post-seasons series; teams are 4-1 (with two World Series titles); 5-1, 2.47 ERA in 6 starts (8 GP); 43 hits, 8 BB, 36 K in 47.1 IP; got a base hit and scored a run in game three of the Pirates' sweep of the Reds in the '79 NLCS. Two World Series (Pirates 1979 and Twins 1987); 2-1, 2.35 ERA in 3 starts (4 GP); 21 hits, 5 BB, 16 K in 23.0 IP. THE KELTNER LIST AND BRUCE SUTTER Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? Considering the fact that he never won the Cy Young, but he did get some votes for MVP at a couple of points during his career, he was probably considered one of the best ? but not the best. Was he the best player on his team? An incredibly loaded question. From 1970-76, when he was on the Twins, they had Rod Carew and Tony Oliva. From 1978-80, when he was with the Pirates, they had Dave Parker and Willie Stargell. From 1981-85, he was only once the standout best player on the Indians (in 1984); during his second run with the Twins, they had Kirby Puckett and Dan Gladden. From 1989 to the end of his career, Bert was a decent pitcher on a young Angels team. So the answer is essentially no. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? In 1984, when he was with Cleveland, he probably was the best pitcher in the AL ? but he didn't win the CYA because the Tribe stunk. This is the primary problem with Bert's numbers ? he was a good pitcher for some mediocre teams, and was only a member of a talented ensemble in the two years where his teams were outstanding. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? During the 1979 pennant run with the Pirates, Bert didn't exactly set the world on fire with his pitching: six starts, 1-1 with four no-decisions; he didn't complete a single game, pitching in 36.1 innings. His ERA was 3.96, with a 1.376 Ratio. He struck out 23 (seven coming in a 6.2 IP game against the Mets), but pitched no more than adequately during that time. The Pirates were 3-3 in those six games. In 1987, Bert pitched a lot better as the Twins were holding off the Royals. He went 2-2 in seven starts, with a 2.47 ERA and 1.134 Ratio in 54.2 innings; he threw a complete-game five-hitter in clinching a tie for the division title on Sept. 27. I'd say that he's had some good moments and bad in trying to get his team over the top. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime? He won 59 of his career 287 after turning 35, so the answer would be yes. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No, because his name is not Barry Lamar Bonds. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? We've already established that he's comparable to eight other HOF pitchers, and the other two that aren't in the Hall have good enough numbers to be legit HOF candidates. The problem, however, is that all of his comps have "something else" that set them apart from other pitchers ? one big season, or one stellar performance in the post-season. Bert doesn't have that. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? Considering that he meets exactly half of the standards for a pitcher, according to the basic method, you'd have to say definitely yes. He's wedged in between some 19th Century pitchers, just below Phil Niekro in the adjusted totals. His numbers don't hurt his HOF argument, when considered overall. Is there any evidence to suggest that he was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? Bert played in some basically pitching-neutral parks in his career; though his second tour with the Twins was in the Metrodome, the Park Factor during his tenure wasn't that great (104). You might argue that his 17-5 record in 1989 was mostly due to his playing at a pitching-friendly Anaheim Stadium; in fact, he was 8-1 with a 2.64 ERA (1.064 Ratio) at home that year. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in? Among eligible pitchers, he's the best candidate, hands down. Jim Rice might have a slight edge overall among eligible players, but Bert's the best pitcher. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? He was actually nominated twice, but didn't win, in 1973 and 1989. He had those handful of top 10 Cy Young voting finishes, but never won one. He probably should have won the 1984 AL CYA, if only he didn't pitch in Cleveland. How many All-Star type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame? He only pitched in two All-Star games, and that was mostly because of how pitchers are selected. This is an insight into why it's taking so long for him to get selected to the HOF: there were so many other good pitchers that played during his career; he was always among the best, but not THE best. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Two pennants in 22 seasons? That's not a huge number, but there's a lot of people that are in the HOF who have fewer World Series rings than he does. What impact did he have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? This is always a difficult question to ask, because it's not clear for a lot of people. I think he realized after his three-year term with the Pirates that the AL (and the DH was for him, since his career BA was .131 with no homers and 25 RBI. He was part of a trend in 1992 of having 40+ year old pitchers in the AL. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? Bert has been the Twins' color analyst on Fox Sports Net North for the last nine years. According to his website (bertblyleven.com), he's done a lot for several charitable organizations, such as Parkinson's Association, Juvenile Diabetes, Leukemia Association, Children's Hospital and the Ronald McDonald House. No objections to that. Oh, and he's a pretty mean cow-milker, too ? just ask Bill Schroeder. And now, the big question: Is he a likely Hall of Famer? (Deep breath) Bert is a good pitcher who, if he pitched in any other era, at any other time, probably would be in the Hall of Fame by now. If he had won 20 games more than once in his career, or had won a Cy Young award at some point, we wouldn't be discussing his selection right now. If he had played for one team for an extended period of time, he also might have caught more of an opportunity to win more games ? and reach the magic 300-win plateau. There's that other little thing: only eight pitchers have struck out more batters than Walter Johnson. Five are in the hall, and two are active (Clemens and Randy Johnson). You look at his numbers, you see the pitchers whose company he is keeping, and you can't help but think that he's a Hall of Famer. There's just one problem: not everyone can see the forest for all of the trees. Take him out of his time frame, put him in today's MLB, and Gammons would be singing his praises. He'd be your Maddux, your Glavine. Put him where he breaks into the majors in 1960, and he's your Gaylord Perry, or (at worst) Jim Kaat. He should be a Hall of Famer. Whether or not the BBWAA will realize that before he drops off the ballot in 2013 is another story.

Sample size, sample size, sample size.... (Oh, by the way: "Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey.)

That prediction came about after Saturday's game vs. the Pads, and was based on both home/road records, overall records and run scoring.

The thing to remember about statistics is that they are only describing something. People who don't realize what they are describing, or only look at one particular point, won't see the whole picture. I can tell you that I'm 5'4, 250 lbs, bat and throw right handed - but that won't do any good if you're trying to determine if I drive a Ford or a Chevy. (Actually, I drive a Chrysler, but that's beside the point). Here's the facts: 1. The Brewers are scoring more runs than they are allowing. Through Tuesday, this total was 615 scored vs. 597 allowed. A team that does that should, with the Lord willing and the creek don't rise, have a winning record. They don't. That suggests a problem, where they aren't consistently scoring runs at some point. The Expected Wins formula suggests that the difference is about three and a half games so far. 2. In games where the margin of difference at the end of the game was two runs or less - "close games" accoring to the Hardball Times' stat people - the Crew is 32-38. Do the math from that: they are four games over .500 when there's a three-run lead by either the Brewers or their opponents; but are six games under 500 when the score is closer than that. That indicates that they have difficulty in scoring runs in close games. Combine that with the previous observation, and you see a reason why expected wins don't match real wins. 3. The Brewers are second in the NL only to the Phillies is Pitches per plate appearance (3.82) and Line Drive Percentage (.212 - the percentage of batted balls that are liners, according to Baseball Info Solutions). That indicates that the Brewers do try their best to work the count, and are hitting the ball hard. However, we've already determined that the Brewers aren't consistently scoring runs, and they are having trouble winning close games. Add to this the line drives and the PPA totals, and you're seeing a team that is waiting, waiting, waiting for the perfect pitch, and then hitting it hard - but apparently not hard enough, as runners are not scoring at a consistent rate. 4. The Brewers do have the WORST batting average with Runners In Scoring Position of any team... in Major League Baseball (.239). That indicates to us right away that those line drives are going right into opponent gloves. The fact that the Brewers have managed to score 40.1% of the runners who were in scoring position so far this season seems to counteract that, however. That total is below the league average, but it isn't the worst in the NL (Arizona is the worst at .381, and the Nats and 'Stros are at .384). 62.0% of all of the Brewers runs have been scored by runners who were in scoring position - also tenth overall (the Reds have the worst total with a 56.9% rate). [by the way: the Brewers are tied for the fewest runs allowed per opponent RISP in the NL, with only 37.3% scoring (367 RA, 984 ORISP); they are tied with the Nats (368, 987).] So we've determined that there is inconsistency in run scoring (in relation to the team's record), problems winning close games, a high number of pitches per PA, a high percentage of line drives, a bad batting average and slightly below average number of runs scored with RISP. Consider this fictional piece of PBP, and see if this doesn't match up with this perception: Brewers are down 2-1 in the eighth. Jenkins doubles off the wall on the first pitch. 3TO strikes out, though it takes 6 pitches to do it. Hall hit a screaming liner to second - but Jenkins got back to the bag safely. Miller draws a walk on an eight-pitch PA. J.J. pinch hits for the pitcher, and works the count full, hitting foul ball after foul ball off the pitcher. Opposing pitcher has 24 pitches on the inning, and everyone sees he's struggling. Pitch 25 on the inning is a breaking ball that Hardy slaps to the right side of the infield -and the first baseman snags it. Brewers don't score, and they go down quietly in the ninth for a 2-1 loss. It's an inning that makes you shake your head, and yet it describes pretty well what we're seeing in the statistics. Ned might say something about how hard Hardy worked to get the pitch he wanted, but that he just couldn't get it to fall in. By saying that, Yost is essentially saying that it's just pure luck that's causing the Brewers to not drive in runners. He does have a point, but I think it's more of a combination of things: batters who are trying to be too patient, who are trying too hard to get the "right" pitch, trying too much to do everything right. I pointed out in an earlier post that the numbers regarding Expected Wins would suggest that the Crew is due for a rebound in 2006; perhaps that will come about when the younger players (Rickie, Prince, J.J.) get more comfortable and realize they don't have to be perfectionists to get runners in. Once that happens... look out.

Oh, and my $0.02: The Brewers are one of five teams that, according to the Pythaogrean theorem, are about three games or worse than what would be suggested by their run scoring and allowed totals. Back from last week (which was when I last had time to download some stats), the Brewers had scored 581 runs while allowing 573 over 132 games. That suggests a winning percentage of .507, which was .022 more than they actually won - or about 2.92 fewer wins than you'd expect with their run totals. The other four teams with less wins than expected are the Mets at 6.06 wins, the Jays and Mariners at 5.9, and the A's at 3.46. Usually, when a team undershoots (or overshoots) their Expected Win total, it's a sign that there is inconsistency in their run scoring. And, in an observation that's about as old as the Brewers' last pennant, if a team wins drastically more than they are expected one year, they're almost certain to drop the next. The reverse is also true - if a team loses more than expected one year, they're likely to increase the following year. I'm getting more and more optimistic about 2006 in Brew town.

I'll have to agree with pogokat on that one.