sheethead
-
Posts
2,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sheethead
-
So when do we learn that Dave Bush has ligament damage and will need to undergo Tommy John surgery?
-
Unrealistic Expectations for improving our team
sheethead replied to BrewCityUnit's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Good thing those two clubs are handcuffed by an apathetic fanbase. -
Another good point that is brought up is the burden Toronto has to bear being in Canada, where the taxes are outrageous and the exchange rate hurts the players that live in the US. Still doesn't change my opinion of Ricciardi (Dunn, Meche, etc.), but it seems he has just as tough of a job as Melvin if not tougher.
-
I'm not sold on Hardy's misfortune.
-
Don't get me wrong, JJ's been pretty bad this year, but I'm really disappointed in the Brewers right now: for JJ, for Escobar, and for this team's future. This sums up my feelings as well. The FO really botched this one, badly.
-
Double face palm.
-
Or he can continue to decrease his trade value by performing like he has all year. If he picks up anywhere near where he left off in Nashville (sans a 2 run HR yesterday), I would say he will do more harm than good.
-
Still not sure what the Brewers need JJ Hardy for right now. I would think the Sounds need him more than the Brewers at this point in the season.
-
Blogger's take on worst contracts I am hoping this link has not been posted anywhere here yet (and please lock if discussed elsewhere), but I found this read very interesting. While I do not necessarily agree with everything he has to say, he brings up some really bad contracts. I had no idea how bad the Vernon Wells contract is. Suppan makes the list. Follow-up comments by another blogger: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/poz_is_wrong/ Yeah, I got hooked on contract valuation reading last night.
-
Everyone here acts like Hardy was hitting .170 with 2 homers and booting tons of balls in the field. He was through 60+ games in 2005. He should have been sent back down at that time. Then this would have been a non-issue. The Brewers set a precedent with Hardy early in his career (to take as long as you need to improve), and that precedent is no longer valid with better options available. Hardy is a streaky hitter, and if he doesn't get his patented two week binder of fire-hot hitting he looks bad. He only had one of those streaks this year, and thus looked really bad the rest of the year when looking at his statistical production. Was it handled poorly? I think so only because they should have left him in Nashville until the Sounds season is over. He is not needed in Milwaukee right now, and with a .279 OBP in AAA has certainly not earned his way back up.
-
It was a metaphor.
-
I prefer to multiply it by ? and call it HIPS.
-
Above replacement level is not the same as above average. A team of average players would be a .500 team, a team of replacement players would be a .300 team That's right, my bad.
-
So pitchers are evaluated solely on ERA with this metric? Pitcher X goes 200 IP w/ 3.00 ERA vs. Pitcher Y goes 175 IP w/ 5.00 ERA = 3.06 wins. How did that win calculation go down? Its not weighted, again, assuming each pitcher threw in the same amount of games.
-
I've never put a lot of stock in the WAR calculations. Pujols is only 6.8 WAR and is the best player in the game. Jason Kendall is 1.0 WAR, how he is even positive is amazing. So Fangraphs has determined that Jason Kendall is above replacement level, which I take to mean above average by definition of replacement level. I might need another website to tell me who's decent and who's not.
-
I am glad you posted this, because its another flaw I see in the calculation. The part I highlighted just cannot be true, and I am surprised people even cite this metric after reading something like this.
-
It appears as though they are treating dollars as being equal in all markets for all teams, and then taking the mean. This could explain the extremely high $ values placed on players when compared to what they actually fetch on the open market. There are only so many huge market teams to go around, and the rest of the players are left to fight for mid to small market $$. Depending on the net income figures (not available and private for every MLB club), dollars are cheaper for some teams compared to others. Texiera, Sabathia, A-Rod type contracts are only affordable for certain teams, and the dollars spent on those players is not representative of the dollars spent for a win overall in free agency. This is where I see one flaw in the WAR $ computation. It should be weighted, but by not knowing each teams cost of cash through their finacial statements it is impossible to decipher. But... we still need a metric! I still find it interesting that Hardy's abysmal 2009 production would shoot his WAR $$ anywhere near his actual salary, much less 1/3 more than what he is making. But like others have said, it must be his plus defense driving up the value. The other flaw I see in WAR is how his defense has been quantified by Fangraphs. He is not compared to an actual average player, but instead an ideally average player. He could be +5 and another player +2. Or is he +3 and the other player Even? The starting point is subjective and ideal, not actual and measured by everyone else.
-
"After all, we went two months without [Dave] Bush and [Jeff] Suppan in there, and we put extra duty on the other guys as a result of that. Pitching is the most valuable thing. If we win the next 10 games and we're there, we'll see." Wouldn't that be something... 6 games or less out heading to ARI. Dare to dream?
-
Average is got the exact same way This I can agree with, but it is not made up of the average of the players that are being compared to it. It is a pre-determined average, fictional characters. Which is why it is a valuable tool to compare certain players, but not the whole lot of players as the whole lot is not represented. The benchmark is not set by ALL players. It is set by a ideally average player.
-
If I say I'm 2" above average in height and my brother is 12" above average in height you are saying there is no way to tell whose taller because its all versus some imaginary average height person. Not apples to apples... If your brother has a better chance of reaching a ball due to his height, wouldn't it make sense to compare his value to you, rather than to the same average player that you are being compared to even though you can't reach the same ball? You say Hardy is favorably valued defensively (maybe another said due to his range)... Hardy is a top defensive shortstop, with only Jack Wilson (likely the greatest defender of his cohort) being significantly better. If you are saying what I think you are saying, JJ Hardy is the best defensive SS in baseball and Jack Wilson is #2. If that is what this metric tells me, I might start to question that metric.
-
benchmarked against a fictional replacement player Is this untrue? I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it. BP developed WARP, which is benchmarked against a fictional player. And now Fangraphs has conceived their version, which is also benchmarked against a fictional player. I believe fans of the metric call it an average player, or replacement level. My point is the players are not benchmarked against each other, but rather against an ideal of what an average player is.
-
Couldn't have said it better Crew07. What really wears on me is the elitism surrounding some of the posts that cite unproven metrics as fact and the main driver in their argument. Sure it can help support an opinion, but I don't get how some can cite a metric that is benchmarked against a fictional replacement player as an absolute fact when it clearly is not. Disillusioned elitism imo.
-
The metric looks at individual players and individual plays and does not compare those plays to other players and their ability to make the same play. How then can that metric possibly be used to compare that individual player to other players at the same position? The metric jumps for each given player, and therefore I believe cannot be used to compare player X to player Y since that given metric does not do so when it is conceived. Too many variable are placed in the "all else being equal" bucket. Helpful metric? Sure. Ideal to compare player X to player Y? I don't think so.
-
To be condescending and borderline arrogant, and back it up with a contrived metric on evaluating players is outrageous. I expected more I guess. I'm out of this one, and probably any other argument that is backed up using a fantasy metric.
-
Well we play on Earth not your baseball planet and on Earth Hardy is a plus defender at shortstop while Ramirez is distinctly average. And Hardy is good because he has good range. That evaluation is developed in the WAR baseball planet, not in an Earthly reality. Hardy should have frustrated even the average fan countless times this year on plays that a "plus" defender would make, but Hardy could not.