Thurston Fluff

Roenicke specifically mentioned in a pre-game interview that he thought Herrera was more than a LOOGY because he has that junkball pitch (or something to that effect). Translated there are times I may have to use him against right handers if the situation dictates. I am going to say nice things about him to maintain his confidence in the event that may occur. The situation came up and he used him. Do you really think it would have helped the situation to have RRR say he can't get righties out then have to play him against righties? I thought Braddock (when he was here) and Hawkins are both clearly better than Loe. Both have shown they can get out righties and lefties. There was mention about Braddock being late and being tired a lot then he got sent down. That had to play into it somewhere. Hawkins in 39 and coming off shoulder surgery. Bringing him along slowly seems to me to be a smart idea.

I get that people think Esky swings a newspaper. Funny. I chalk this up to defending his player in public. RRR can't be this stupid to actually believe what he is saying here. If he is, then Melvin has made a horrible mistake. There are some managers who tel you like it is. Some are more diplomatic. I think it's plain to see which on RRR is. I think the SS who finishes the season isn't on the roster yet.

The one guy on the bench who would actually be much better than the starter has barely been used. I am also not sure how Kotsay playing over better players helps us. Basically most moves where DPR has actually had a chance to influence things he has consistently made bad decisions. If they help keep our best players playing at leak performance instead of nosediving later on I'd say a small drop now is better than a large one later. You really have to look at the season as a whole not who is better in any given game. I don't think we need to wait until August to say Roenicke has not used his bullpen well so far. To me the most important part is seeing if they hold up all season long. Lets see if the bullpen runs out of gas or not. I just don't see why there is a need to rush to judgement when all the moves haven't shown their full effect. Hell last season everyone was willing to give Macha a pass on the pen faltering when he was part of the reason it faltered. keep pulling your pitchers in the fifth or sixth when they get into a jam then don't be surprised your pen is tired by August.

Link Next time a player questions a call he should remember it could be worse. It could be ancient Rome.

While I agree that we could find a better bench player, the whole Yuni saga showcases how poor our system is when it comes to shortstops. When you trade your top two shortstops two years in a row it tends to shorten up the prospect list at the position.

I took this quote directly from a post by reillymeshane in another thread. I think grading based on how he looked at players is fine to a degree. Given I believe the above axiom to be true the only thing to be learned so far to the negative is if he would have pulled the plug on someone to soon. He did not. So a passing grade. We will learn in the next 1/3 of this season if he pulls the plug to late. Grade incomplete. Team chemistry seems fine but the August doldrums and an inevitable slump somewhere in between will test that again. Passing grade so far. Handling starters seems fine so far. I like that he lets them work out of jams in the 6th and 7th innings more than Macha did. You can't expect them to know how to work out of late inning jams unless you let them do so. It also saves on the bullpen. So a passing grade. Bullpen is one area I have no idea about. I honestly don't know if anyone does. It usually takes until August or so to find out if the pen was worn out or not. I don't care if one reliever gets overused early or not as much as I am about having enough good ones when August comes around. Grade incomplete. The bench I am probably in the minority but I like a well used bench early. I think it saves wear and tear on regulars for the all important stretch after July. I also think keeping bench players more involved early helps them stay in tune late. Those are simply my opinions based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I do think them philosophically sound concepts however. So, while I think his bench play tends to get the most downgrades here, I pass him on that now. With the belief that his bench play will change as the season wears on. If it does not then I reserve the right to take back that passing grade. In game strategy. I only mention this because some think it's important. I care so little about it that I pay little attention to it other than to realize it exists as important to some. I will not even attempt to grade it. After the season I will look back and feel more informed about how well he's done. Then, and only then, can I give a pass or fail. At this point all I can say is, so far no failing grades.

I think it was Cleveland's old GM, Mark Shipiro, who said the first 1/3 of the season is to see what kind of team you have. the next third is to make adjustments. That's a pretty fair way to go. I advocate patience based off that basic concept. At this point he's been given time to show what he has. I don't think playing him some is a bad idea pending what Wilson gives us. If there is a clear cut advantage in production then play Wilson. If not Yuni has a shot, however slim it is, to get hot enough to be an add on for a trade. The fact that is the best we can hope for isn't good.

So did Carlos Lee. Just another in a long line of all offense no defense FA signings.

Maybe his need to throw his curve may be the culprit for the WHIP. Does anyone know if his WHIP is up when he can't throw the curve for strikes? I don't want to dump on Axford, it's just that his FB is a similar velocity but much straighter, and I would also say T-Bow's slider/slurve was nastier than Axford's curve. But obviously what the Axford/T-Bow comparison proves is that it doesn't ultimately matter how nasty your stuff is if you can't command & locate it. T-bow did have great stuff. He reminded me a little of Jaimie Wright in that they both had stuff that moved everywhere. Problem was, it was everywhere. Not to get all sentimental but now that all is said and done I still look back on T-Bow with affection. Axford's fastball is straight but it is fast. So was Ben McDonald's and he seemed to get along fine (When healthyhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/mad.gif.) But Both McDonald and Ax have a good change of pace curves. Perhaps when the hitter has to look for a lot of movement at one speed and no movement at a totally different speed the fastball's straightness is somewhat mitigated. Given the speed differential and this ability locate both pitches well enough to be getting on with I think the lack of action is somewhat mitigated. Whatever it is it seems to work.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought saying less than 50% of HR's can be classified as a good hit or poor pitch. They may not be easy to classify but that doesn't mean they aren't one or the other. AS far as Greinke goes it should mean something when the manager says he still doesn't have his best stuff. Even more when it's after a pretty good outing stats wise. His slider in particular seems to be something less than it has been. AS far as his outliers looking good they very well may and he could still be something other than bad luck. Pitchers with filthy stuff like Greinke can have good ks and such but still miss their spots more than usually do thus give up more runs. That isn't bad luck as much as it is being off more than they have in the past. It may be a sign that his stuff is still great but his location isn't as spot on as it needs to be.

Nothing translates directly to anything. We have little pieces of evidence that we can assemble in different ways to come up with theories. The data we have, the stronger our evidence is. With 50+ IP, we don't have much. Probably some combination of bad luck and bad performance but how much of each is impossible to know. I think a homerun translates to either a poor pitch or good hit. Unless the pitcher or hitter closes their eyes and throws/swings it seems to me there is a skill, or lack thereof, that should be attributed to it instead of luck. I guess it could be considered luck that the pitcher faced someone superior to him but that is kind of odd. I get your overall point though. That it is difficult to quantify small numbers in a meaningful way. That is more or less why I don't know if using them are useful to understand why Greinke isn't getting the results we want. I don't agree he is pitching well though. He's been ok but he hasn't been great. Since he is a great pitcher I don't know how he can be considered to be pitching to his level of ability simply because he has good stats in a couple areas. However, complex tools could cause some to overlook (or disregard) a simple answer. House prices can't increase 50%/year indefinitely, and getting behind in the count can cause you to groove fastballs. Maybe it's as simple as that or maybe not. Much clearer than I put it. Thanks. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. People predict epic recessions/the end of America all the time, and the bottom line is that they are largely unpredictable by any means. If this is your opinion of economics you have little understanding of the field. That is an extremely ignorant statement. If you're going to insult someone please at least understand what they are saying. If you wish to discuss this go to the political scene website. I will be happy to discuss my full ignorance with you.

Bottom line, I think all those 'ledge' people are expecting Cy Young worthy numbers. One big plus that I like from Greinke is his K/9 is still among league leaders. I think what we traded to get him is the reason we expected Cy Young type of numbers. The point you really either seem to be missing or glossing over is that it is very difficult, at best, to "expect" anything out of any pitcher for 50 random innings to begin a season. I really don't get why anytime stats don't seem to conform to production there is some reason for it other than the stats might not be filling out the complete picture. Fangraphs says Carlos Beltran was worth more than his salary during his time with the Mets. Does anyone not married to WAR really think that is true? Is there any way to evaluate it's accuracy or are we just supposed to accept them? Can someone please point to me to the success rates of these stats vs non stat methods? Funny thing is I argue for more stats in football and less in baseball. Maybe not less but at least put into context. Stats are wonderful tools that can be used to great effect. But when reality to the contrary is facing you straight in the face it should have some merit on it's own shouldn't it? If k rates are such great predictors then why does he have a good k rate while getting hammered in the same game? I know I know small sample, luck plays into it yada yada. Luck seems to play a large role in it doesn't it? Or that is the standard excuse when particular stats are held to be tell alls about a player when in reality they are mere components of him. Sometimes I think baseball stats are going the way of economics. My retired farmer/ship yard working father with nothing more than a highschool education and common sense saw the housing crash coming when MIT grads with all kinds of number crunching capabilities didn't. They are so complicated someone as astute as Rluz doesn't know what they are made up of yet we just sort of believe them. Why? Greinke has disappointed so far. He may be working his way back but lets not forget why that happened. Let's also hope to see the Greinke the Brewers traded for sooner than later. Otherwise we'll have to deal with more reasons why his numbers mean more than the fact he isn't really helping us win more games than Wolf or Narveson have. Sorry for the rant please hammer away at my ignorance at your leisure.

A little Wisconsin humor.

Betancourt has been about as bad as the worst expectations. I don't think anyone can honestly say, at this point, that the concern over him prior to the season was just sensationalism. I'm a pretty patient guy. It takes months to show real capabilities in baseball not weeks. Even I think he has had enough time to show he is capable. I thought he should be given a shot since I believe he was forced on us but that time has come and gone.

Good teams can win in spite of subpar management. Take the late '90s Yankees. According to this mantra I can say anything and regardless of the evidence I cannot possibly be wrong. You guys must think this is the best team ever to put on a uniform if it can be this good without someone competent to direct them. Doesn't team performance ever come into the conversation? Comments like they are winning in spite of him seem to derive from someone who made up their mind what it takes to be good, then decided in less than half a season RRR doesn't have it. It couldn't possibly be because he doesn't suck. It can't possibly be because the three months of watching him might not have been enough time to judge him. It can't be because the things you thought were important are not really all that important. You are right about his competence and thus the team's success has to go elsewhere. Obviously you must think Melvin is a genius then. After all he put together a top level team despite incompetent managing. Beats me how he can be that good at assembling a scouting staff and minor league player development staff but somehow just can't figure out that one position. Apparently that is the case since this manager stuff has gone through Melvin's entire tenure here. I understand why some don't like him. He isn't a sabre guy. If you believe the only way to succeed is through numbers then I guess I get it. What I don't get is why anyone thinks that is the only way to succeed?

Putting Nieves out there when there are better options in AAA immediately comes to mind. Define better options. Last season one of those options was so terrible he got beat out by a guy who was in AA who was not ready for the majors. He was a bad defender and not anywhere near good enough to be a mentor to a still very young catcher. Sometimes one has to look beyond the numbers to see the reasoning. Catching is always one of those spots more so with the current situation. Reading this thread I would think this team is floundering 5 games below .500. We are in first place after sweeping the team ahead of us and have the best record in baseball for about a month now. Just don't understand why it is so hard to believe either A- the manager really doesn't matter or, B- the manager must be pretty good. I think it's time to bow out now and just enjoy what RRR/Melvin are doing. This manager bashing has gone on for three separate managers for about a decade now. Both in winning seasons and losing ones. When nobody seems to be good enough maybe it's time to look at who the judges are not who the manager is.

He should be putting the team in the best position to win and I don't think he always does that. I don't know what this means anymore. Is giving a player a chance to work out of a slump putting them in a position to win? Is allowing a young player to bat against same handed pitchers putting them in a position to win? If not does that player ever learn to be anything other than a platoon player? Does putting a player in position to learn, even if they fail at first, automatically mean they are not being put in a position to win? To me the term is more a catch phrase than anything real. I get there are times being put in a position to win is real. For instance putting in a 35 year old loogy to face three straight righties is not putting a player in a position to win. Other than players being put in positions they were never meant to be in it really is on the player to show he is good enough to be here. If a player can only succeed if he is perfectly positioned then maybe he just isn't good enough to help a team win. The only way to find that out is to play them in the position the TEAM needs him to succeed in and see if he can. If not then maybe get another player who can fill that role. If there are none then maybe the team just isn't good enough to win. RRR has shown he will give players the chance to succeed. I think that is important over the long haul. Considering his past, Gomez had a good amount of time in center. In that time he failed to show he was good enough and is now in a platoon. It appears Yuni B. is going there as well. McGehee gets a longer leash because he has a better record of success. I personally think he handled their playing time pretty well. He found that balance where players can only blame themselves for their failures while not harming the team's chances of success. If someone feels the need to, the best way to determine if RRR is putting his players in a position to win seems obvious. Their record. If we are winning he must be putting them in a position to win. More likely we just have enough good players that there is no need for perfect placement by the manager. I really do not believe there is any manager out there who can put lousy players in a position to succeed that somehow makes them anything other than lousy players. I also don't think mangers can possibly put good players in a position they can't succeed in. If you are good enough you will succeed. If not you won't. Doesn't matter who puts you there.

That team has been just riddled with injuries over the past 10 years or so too. Every good player they have seems to get hurt. That shouldn't come as a surprise given he went out and got some guys with a history if injuries. Weren't they supposed to be the next wave of undervalued guys or something of the sort? All in all he's working with a shoestring budget so it is more difficult than some jobs. I tend to think anyone who has shown they can build a good team once can do so again. That said I don't know if he's adapted to the changing times as much as he should. The Rays, Twins models seems to be more effective for small budget clubs than the A's at this point.

I heard some of Roenicke's comments after the game last night. Tom Haudricourt asked him why he left Loe in to give up five runs. Roenicke's response started with, "What do you mean?" He then went on to talk about only having a few pitchers available, but then he was very effusive about how he thinks Loe is a great pitcher, etc. I think he is enamored with Loe and thinks he's an elite setup man. He also mentioned if they did pull him earlier they would have to use yet another pitcher in there and that taxes the pen more. He mentioned something about how few pitchers they would have ah in the event of extra innings. I also think it matters in the long run. I agree Loe really has been overused so far. I hope that changes sooner than later. I would like to see him use two guys in that setup role.

Again, if you're calling him average, half to 3/4 of MLB first baseman are average. That's a weird bell curve. Isn't half the average point?

I'm not sure great he was with the bullpen. He overused it. While some of that was his starting staff I felt he pulled his starters early quite often. Yes sometimes they were in the sixth and starting to struggle but sometimes you have to let them work their way out of it. Both so they learn to do it and to save the pen. I really have no idea of how to determine how much was his fault and how much was the hand he was dealt but he didn't really get as much out of some of his starters as I thought he should. Thus making it harder on the pen than it had to be.

Gibson would have met him halfway between third base and home plate.

Wonder if he was born with a mustache or if that takes a few weeks to grow.

He seems like a tool but baseball has a way of humbling people. A few years ago the Mariners had a guy who was supposed to be the next Randy Johnson. He was such a jerk when he got sent down the team put a sarcastic note in his locker telling him how great they thought he was. If your own teammates are mocking your demotion it isn't good. Anyway the fact that I can't even remember his name now shows all you need to know about the humbling effects of baseball.

I don't know what ZiPS does exactly but most projection systems use 3-5 years of production, weighting the most recent production more. I did some looking up of Zips and got the basics but really never figured out the specifics. Knowing that you don't either makes me feel much better.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Silly question but is there anywhere to see it's rate of success in it's predictions? Not overall but more for guys in their first two seasons. I get a Mark Kotsay, Yuni B type prediction based off such a large number. Patterns emerge as the numbers go up thus the predictive value goes up. Just not so sure it works that way for lesser ab's. Doesn't really matter I guess they are what we have to work with. Just like to use the best ones so I ask questions. This really comes down to when to pull the plug on someone. Three things that I think need to be answered before deciding is how likely the player is to bounce back, how good is the replacement likely to be and how does it play with other players? Trying to know what someone is likely to do moving forward is something that relies on knowing the player. Metrics will tell you something but knowing the player's makeup is more important IMHO. But they are what we have objectively. He appears to be about average going forward but down from previous years. I figure he'll fall somewhere between the two going froward. All in all the league average would look good right now and he appears to be relatively likely to be that. Defensively he's been bad. He was never good but better than this. I really have no idea of how to figure out the likelihood of him rebounding defensively to his norm. So not gonna touch it. The real question is would Green be more likely to be better than league average? At this point the odds of him being better today are debatable at best. He could be league average or better over the next couple seasons and beyond. Today odds are less so. Mostly judging that by some of the other guys that came up a little early nothing more than that. That leaves us with how it plays in the clubhouse. I think this is overall pretty minor in any particular instance. It should never be a reason to do something that doesn't help the team get better. That said it does matter in the big picture how you operate. At this point I think cutting the cord would be early. There really should be an obvious gain to be had. A month or two from now lets talk again.