Thurston Fluff

A 200 innings Marcum is worth a qualifying offer. However, the 150 innings or less version you are likely to get isn't. The Brewers can't risk signing him for next year or long term so they might as well trade him for whatever they can get now. How are you arriving at him being likely to only give 150 innings? He had 195 in 2010 and 2000 in 2011. Granted he is an injury risk but so is every pitcher so why would he be more likely to have injuries next year than he was going into this season?

Same old Cardinals. Josh Harrison runs over Molina at the plate (totally clean by the way) and he gets plunked the next time up. Of course, warnings were issued right away so Pittsburgh can't hit anyone. They should only warn the side that hits someone. That way the team who actually is doing the dirty play doesn't always get a free shot. Especially when a team like the Cards do it on such a regular basis. I can't help but believe they rely on the warnings so they never have to face any retribution for their dirty play.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did offer him arbitration. The worst that could happen by doing so is they have a number 2 type pitcher for $13 million. They have taken chances on one year deals for large money before. If Doug is willing to take a $10 million one year flyer on Gagne why wouldn't he do $13 million for Marcum?

I just heard today on 1570 that the Brewers three, four and five hitters are second in all of baseball in run production. Behind only Texas. It's amazing how right so many experts were on what kind of season the Brewers would have yet be so wrong on the reason's why. Losing prince hasn't hurt one bit.

I think it's a "see what we got" year and sets us up to compete in 2014 and beyond. That's been my stance on the issue the entire time. Seeing what you have does not equal won't contend. It means we don't know. The part that is unknown is whether next year's pitching will be improved. Frankly it would be hard to not improve in the pen even if we kept all the same players. I would be hard pressed to think a rotation that will have some combination of three rookies, a starter who has never started a full season in the majors and a #5 starter coming back from shoulder surgery would be as good as what we had this season on paper. But paper didn't tell us Wolf would have been this brutal and Marcum would not have to spend time on the 60 day disabled list. I think the rotation will sort itself out. Mainly because we have options. Whether that pan out the way I think is far from certain but more options does reduce the odds of failure. It means we don't need every one of our pitchers to be what we hope they can be to succeed. I also think a better pen will mean the rotation will not need to be as good to compete. The only difference in me saying "WE WON'T COMPETE NEXT YEAR" and "I DON'T THINK WE'll COMPETE NEXT YEAR" is context. If you want to push context, go ahead. How can you say it's only context? Those are two very different statements. One is a definite statement and the other is a belief. I knew in 2004 we wouldn't compete the next season. Mainly because I knew what we had coming in. Fo rthe 2013 season I have no idea what level our pen or rotation will perform at. Huge difference. By definition unknowns are not able to be assessed so you cannot know they won't compete. Our rotation could end up being the next incarnation of the Oakland big three or they could be garbage. Unless you somehow know what they will do I don't know how you could declare they won't compete. Frankly I don't think Melvin knows either. I think he suspects they will be fine but he isn't sure if they will be good enough to compete right away.

A 3B showing poor range to his right is obviously going to up the number of doubles he gives up. He can play closer to the line to make sure his lack range doesn't turn into extra base hits. Outfielders really can't do that. I think there are more ways to compensate for lack of range on the infield than there are for outfielders. Long story short, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that range in the outfield is more valuable than in the infield. We'd have to look at it by position and even then, it might be hard to draw any firm conclusions. Doug Melvin said it. I'm simply repeating and adding I think there is some validity to it. I guess it's possible that he's just going on his gut feeling but he doesn't seem to be the type to do that. This is a guy who did a pretty comprehensive study on pitchers to reduce injury and increase the ability to develop our own. Seemingly with positive results. Thus I assume Melvin has done more than a cursory study of the subject. I could be wrong though.

I suspect that the Brewer told Wolf that they would be using his spot in the rotation to audition some younger guys. They may have given him the option of going into the bullpen or being released and choose to be released. Just guessing though, obviously. I would rather have Wolf in the pen that Hernandez, for sure. I thought he would have been sent to the pen as well. I think you may be correct he may have choosen to be left go. And to think, just a couple months ago people were making the argument that the Brewers would pick up Wolf's option. I was one of them. A couple months ago it made some amount of sense but that was always contingent on him returning to what he had always been. A solid #3 type of pitcher. I don't think anyone was saying that lately. I certainly wasn't.

It depends one which infield position you are talking about. SS and 2B you will want to have a lot of range as they need to cover more ground. I believe the order is SS, 2B, 3B, and then a distant last 1B as being positions you want range at. I can see not needing a guy with good range at 1B or 3B if you have guys with good range at 2B and SS. To me SS is the most important position in the infield where you need a player with a lot of range with 2B coming in a little bit behind SS. Obviously the more range the better. Then again that is the same for any trait in any position for any sport. I am not saying it isn't of value just that it's value may not be as big as one might think for infielders. If a player misses a play due to lack of range in the infield it is usually a single. The only way someone scores is if there is an extra base hit, (even then sometimes it takes more than one double), or if another two players get on base via a walk or single. Even then the walk has to be the second event and the single the third event. Essentially you will need more positive outcomes to score when the infield lets a ball go through than when an outfielder lets it go past them. While lack of range isn't good because it adds to pitch count and will eventually allow more runs than better range will it does not directly lead to more runs as often as a lack of range in the outfield will. Range is a good thing, however, "range factor" is a lousy stat. Good thing yes. How good varies with position.

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range. I honestly don't know if range factor is that big of a deal for the infield. Melvin has said in the past that it isn't nearly as important to him as it is for outfielders. His reasoning was that a ball hit past and infielder tend to be singles. While balls that get by outfielders tend to be extra base hits. I think that makes some amount of sense. I think it has some relevance I'm sure but it should not be treated with equal weight as it does for outfielders.

On the point of Gamel vs. Ishikawa, Gamel's out of options, so unless he's traded or not fully recovered from his injury, I'd think he & his much higher ceiling have a far greater chance of being on this team next year than Ishikawa. Higher ceiling is also why he may be the best trade option we have. His ceiling, cost and control are all things that may get us a nice established veteran reliever and maybe another pieces to boot. Ishikawa is not worth much that way but is worth quite a bit if he can succeed in this role as well as he has so far. Either way they choose to go it is far from certain he has no future here. Ransom isn't that bad, but I agree since he won't be around next year and the crew are out of it this year I agree that the SS spot (or INF utility spot) should be filled by Bianchi or some other young farm talent. Why do you say Ransom has no future here? A guy who is happy to be a bench player, who can play all the infield positions well, is cheap and gives you anything offensively is not all that common. To have one has value.

Ishikawa has an OPS around 750. What's to complain about with two bench guys who can give us something off the bench? Especially when the two people being advocated to fill their positions didn't exactly wow anyone in the limited time they had as bench players. I'm also not sure why it is such a forgone conclusion Ransom or Ishikawa won't be part of the future here. Both are cheap, are happy with being a bench player and seem to do fairly well in that role so far. Why wouldn't they be in our future plans in some way?

What on that chart shows how hard they are hit compared to past seasons?

Basically, he's hitting so much better this season because more balls are sneaking through the infield. Unless someone can prove higher testosterone causes more balls to sneak through the infield, I'm more likely to believe this season is a lucky fluke more than the result of being on something. Why did you suggest he just had more balls sneak through? Seems to me BAPIP isn't a measure of balls that sneak through as much as a measure of balls that get through. One would think balls being hit harder would have a higher rate of doing that. I think it reasonable that someone juicing would hit balls harder and increase BAPIP than when they weren't. Overall I'm not sure why you would believe his career season is luck when that career season happens the same season he was taking enhancements. That it is a coincidence that stretches credibility.

the hotter the coffee is, the more its smell wafts through the store. it's why McDonalds keeps it that hot and was a big reason why the lady won the lawsuit when she spilled coffee in her lap and burned herself. Coffee it is best served at 155°F to 175°F. That lawsuit was pretty ridiculous, but the temperature of McDonald's coffee had to be taken into question. At that time, McDonald's did serve their coffee at 195° to 205°F. That is significantly higher than the suggested temperature and probably the reason they lost. Their coffee was too hot and did scald their customer when she spilled it. One of the main reasons to adhere to the appropriate temperature is because if your coffee is served at too high a temperature many of the essential oils can evaporate. Too low and you lose aroma. Since smell is so connected to taste both will cause the flavor quality to be lost. The essential oils of the coffee beans are responsible for the flavor and aroma of your cup of Joe, so when they are compromised, your coffee will no longer have the deep and complex taste that it once did. It is advised to drink your coffee at 175°F to trust that it will be the best quality and flavor possible. It is also why you tend to get a better cup of coffee if you use a french press instead of a coffee maker. The filter in the coffee maker takes out some of the oils. For the absolute best coffee roast your own, wait 24 hours and use it within two weeks of roasting it then french press it. Don't freeze it, keep it dry in an airtight container out of sunlight and only grind it when your ready to use it and only as much as you are going to use. Sorry for the distraction. Some say I have a passion for coffee. I think it more an obsession.

Looking for the fastest moving/shortest line is an American pastime. It is second only to baseball and slightly ahead of finding the closest parking space.

When you asked him to play, did he think you were talking about a video game? Funny but no. Mostly because I always joke with him about getting a new reality based game like going outside and throwing a football around or something.

I think a lot of his value is based on how much one thinks defense is worth. I used to think a lot more than I do today. An elite CF is a spot it has more value but still I'd rather have a mediocre defender with good offense than a great defender with mediocre offense. He's got value even if he sucks on offense and I think a bench player these days makes a couple million so a young guy who might be more could be worst up to four or five million. I'd sign that with the idea that was a spot I'm covered but also one I would like to upgrade if possible.

Guess Melvin and Ron knew what they were doing when they kept Ishikawa over him.

I thought that was funny. I thought that was even funnier. Well done to both.

My 16 year old nephew from Austin TX was up visiting us last week. I thought it would be fun to play so wiffle ball and discovered he had never played? What is the world coming to?

Hard have just one but the Bass-o-matic with Dan Aykroyd was hilarious. The one with Farley auditioning to be a Chip and Dale dancer was right up there as well.

I think the better question would be is a guy like Estrada more valuable to a team as a fifth starter or as a major contributor in the bullpen?

Uecker is great with kids in that setting. He's so light hearted to begin with I think it helps the kid feel at ease. He'd have been great for that old TV show "Kids Say the Darndest Things." The kid today was pretty sharp. He knew how many errors the Astros had and had some pretty good responses to Uecker's teasing.

This is why GM's can't afford to over react with proven talent. It was a distinct possibility that Weeks could have continued to struggle for the rest of the year. The odds said that it wasn't going to happen, though. The reality is, more often than not, players bounce back. Even his overall line is starting to look reasonable: So true. I'd argue it's why GM's shouldn't overreact to any player they think has the ability to be an every day player proven or not. Some players just go through longer dry spells. Weeks is one of those guys. Another guy who seems to fit that profile is Cliff Lee.

The coolest 13 year old kid just came in to our shop. He was polite and nicely dressed and wanted nothing other than to wish us a happy 29th anniversary. Very impressive young man. I told him he could work for us when he turned 14. His comment was "Really? Can I get an application?" Got to love today's youth.