Thurston Fluff

Just an opinion but it seems like they don't feel either of them are working hard enough on their rehab. Estrada isn't a surprise since getting healthy means going back to the minors and he's only a fringe major leaguer to begin with. Gerut is doing himself no service if he is dogging it. He's a relatively established big league player in a contract year. if he's playing he may get a contract somewhere if not he's likely a minor league contact with an invite to camp if even that. Getting a reputation of dogging it only hurts his shot at a gig next season.

Backupcatchers - for someone who postson this board as much as you, you sure seem quick to throw out opinions as facts without doing any research at all... do you just not like Gamel? It is not out of the ordinary to state opinions on this site is it? What research should have been done? UZR is virtually useless in such small samples as is pretty much any defensive metric. It seems to be pretty conventional wisdom and nothing out of what has been widely viewed as his weakness. If you have some sort of problem with the way I state things sorry but I'm not doing anything that hasn't been done on this site, indeed this very thread, by a good number of people. If you really just don't like the way I state things maybe skip my posts. I promise I won't get offended. As far as not liking Gamel I don't have an opinion on him as a player yet. I'm not sure if he's all that bright or maybe he's just immature but it has been reported several times that he has done some silly things. As long as he can play at a high level I don't care about his intelligence or maturity but those things do tend to lead to bad results like getting injured by not warming up properly to swing off a tee. Guys who don't get what it takes to be both good and healthy tend to be a tease more than a contributor. But that is just my opinion. Small sample, but Gamel's UZR was right around average last year. He showed good range, just had trouble with some throws. Meanwhile, McGehee is still butchering the hot corner as we speak. If it's small sample then why bring it up like it means something? Yes McGehee is bad as well. I'm not trying to say McGehee was better at defense only that I don't think Gamel would have been league a average 3rd baseman if he played more last season. Issues that were widely reported and talked about last season and further back to his very beginnings as a prospect. Issues I have no doubt would have reared it's ugly head with more playing time last season.

And yet, his overall OPS production was league-average for 3Bmen... as a rookie. That's fantastic, especially since it appeared that if he would have had regular playing time, he would have been above-avg. as a rookie. Offensively maybe but his defense certainly wasn't. He would not have been an average overall third baseman. He would have been an average offensive third baseman whose poor defense would have put him well below average. To get back to the original thought has Macha's handling of Gamel really screwed him up? I don't think Macha's use of him last season hurt his chances to make the ML roster this season nearly as much as his own actions have. Looking at his season so far in the minors his OPS is pretty much the same as his career minor league OPS is. Don't know how Macha's handling of him could have hurt his progression when he is doing pretty much what he always has done. dude had the same chances as McGehee, Hall, Hart, Hardy and every other player on the squad. Some did better than others and got to play more. While immediate production isn't the only factor it should play a role in who plays. As joepepsi pointed out they all had a fair shot at showing their abilities and the one who was playing best played the most. Looking at how well McGehee did in the same period with the same amount of playing time it's hard to argue Gamel deserved more time than McGehee did.

That's cool because he was, and always will be, a Brewer. Overall I never thought guys who sign one day contracts to retire as a player on a team was realy retiring as a member of that team because of that contract. He retired as a Brewer because he was a brewer at heart not on paper. That was there before he signed a meaningless contract to retire as a Brewer. If it makes him feel better or mends some hurt feelings fine. No harm no foul. I just feel he didn't have to do a contract to retire as one of ours. Either way I loved to dude as one of ours. He was a bright spot in an otherwise dim time. I will always appreciate his wanting to be a Brewer even when things sucked.

Both statements are grossly untrue. Hardy , despite being out with injury for a good part of the season, is almost twice as many Wins Above Replacement as Gomez and Escobar combined. I think that says as much about WAR as it does Hardy, Gomez or Escobar. It uses defensive stats as a component yet defensive stats are not as reliable in same size samples as offensive one are. As far as Escobar goes I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in his defense or with the team touting him to be something he really wasn't. It isn't his errors that I am disappointed with as much as the lack of great plays. Perhaps I'm off base but I don't really buy into the learning curve argument in the bigs when it comes to defense. The fields are in better condition in the majors so his chances should be less adventuresome from bad hops and other such field related situations. The balls he's committed errors on weren't lasers he just missed so I can't see how harder hit balls play into it. The pitchers should be more accomplished at hitting their spots in the majors so he should have a better idea of where the hit balls go. I guess in the more abstract sense learning how to be a big league player has something to do with it but all the other factors that should lead to better defense in the majors should mitigate that. Time will tell if he really is just young and learning or we were sold a false set of goods.

How did that untimely injury occur? From not warming up properly before he swung the bat. That's not untimely that is one waiting to happen. IF he had never had injury problems before maybe I could overlook a failure to warm up properly but he was so I won't. His injury was a stupid one that could have been avoided. I suspect his age may be a major factor in his actions so maybe he isn't stupid as a person just stupid like many of us were at his age.

I have never once said Manny was mentally weak. Nor am I one to jump on players or to assume the negative in any situation. I made that statement by looking at both things he has done and comments made by some of his coaches along the way. Last season he was late a couple times in spring training. A season in which he was trying to show he belonged in the majors. Then this spring while vying for roster spot he hurt himself by not warming up properly before he swung the bat. What would you call that if not stupid or lazy?

Duh forgot about Gamel. I tend to agree with endaround on Gamel though. IT appears his youth wasn't why he was riding the bench so long. He seems to be either stupid or lazy I'm not sure which.

At first I was not at all on board with how he handled young players and to a lessor extent his bench in general. While I am still not sure about it I can't think of a young player whose career has been hurt by it. McGehee's career seems just fine after riding the pine for the first 6 weeks last season. Hell he's doing far better than anyone would have predicted when he came here. A waiver wire pickup to one of the better 3rd basemen in the league in a year's time is hardly a candidate for poor player management. Hart's bench time has hardly hurt his season. Lacroy started out with very few games and progressed quite well for someone who was called to the majors before he was really ready. I'd love to think I was right and Macha was wrong yet can't find a reason to fault him based on results. So what am I left with? Am I as wrong as I think or am I missing something? Please make me feel better. What, or who, am I missing that Macha has really screwed up with his management of young players playing time?

Never said they were stupid. I said they would be better off letting their pitchers hit. I'll say it. If they all chose a path that leads to less runs they are all stupid. Normally the stat heads will tell you it is a way to less runs and I would agree. Since pitchers are not normal hitters normal stats do not apply. I think it's a mistake to use normal evaluations in abnormal situations which appears to me you are doing. If you have some information about pitcher related run production that shows me I'm wrong by all means do. I love learning new things. You're right that having SOME information is better than none, but I don't see what we're lacking that WOULD justify using pitcher/hitter splits to set matchups. The absence of other information thought was a way to say the only time I felt using those limited stats as a predictive tool was ok. Never meant to indicate the incident you were talking about was such an instance. When tackling two things in one post I sometimes muddle my thoughts together too much. Sorry. So clarify one thought was small sample stats are only useful when there is a total lack of better information. Even then probably not very useful. I think for the most part we agree on that. I'll add those instances very well may never occur in reality but in theory small samples are better than none at all. The second thought was related directly to the assertion Macha misused those stats as a predictive tool. I disagree with that statement because he didn't use them that way. Macha used it as a way to describe what happened in the past not predict what will happen in the future. All he said was Coffey had flat pitches which resulted in the stats he stated. That makes it a descriptive stat not predictive one. There is nothing wrong with using a descriptive stat the way he used it IMO.

If he wanted to be proactive he would be much better off by never having his pitcher sac bunt. The only time pitchers should sac bunt is if they are brought in as a pinch hitter late in a close game. He would be better served by just letting them hit. The Brewers pitchers are good hitting Pitchers not good hitters overall. I'm not sure if for example Narveson and his .281 OBP and .572 OPS scores more runs with a runner on first than Rickie Weeks .354/.776 does with one out and a man on second. If that is the case then there are a whole lot of stupid managers out there. Pretty much all of them in fact. If he's stupid then pretty much every manager is. If your opinion is it's stupid fine but that's pretty much saying you know more about the chances of scoring than every manager in the game. If you feel that way all the more power to you. For myself I'm pretty much willing to admit I don't know and will defer to the 30 managers in the game today. Just because he handled a guy in the past and he didn't this time means nothing. His pitches looking flat was much more important. Of course his flat looking pitches was the more important part of the comment. Doesn't mean the other part was somehow indicative of how he is going to use those stats as a predictive tool. I think his use of the stats was more a way to put his assessment into some sort of context not as the sole tool of evaluation. Certainly not as a predictive tool as you claimed in the original post. I'm not trying to pick on you for feeling the way you do. There are plenty of reasons not to like Macha. I am not as fond of him as I was of Yost, though his unflappable attitude and consistency of his approach to his players is growing on me. I just don't think you need to imagine things that aren't there to justify your feelings. I don't think he would. He has used pitcher vs hitter matchups in making decisions in the past. I do not think he uses it as the sole rationale unless there is nothing else to go on. In those rare instances I don't see how using limited information to base a move on is worse than using no information at all. Hitter vs pitcher matchups are bits of trivia and bragging rights and should be otherwise ignored. For the most part I agree with you. In the absence of other information it is better than none. It should only be used as a predictive tool in instances where there is no other credible information to go on and then only in conjunction with things like a player being hot and having good BP in recent days type of stuff. a rational person bases his decisions on the information he has at hand. I think you would agree ignoring marginal/trivial information in favor of none at all is silly. looking beyond the extremely limited use of small samples as a predictive tool I think using it as an evaluative tool has some use. knowing a guy always handled a hitter well and see him get smoked by those guys should raise questions. It may very well have been pure luck but to just write it off as such without further evaluation is not wise. If you look back on it and find a flaw then you can fix it. Hard to fix flaws if you write it all off to luck.

Really Ken? You started out good then you lost me at the end there. 10-11 AB are a very, very minuscule sample. It is not predictive at all. Please stop saying things like this. If he actually used it as predictive I would agree it was stupid. I suspect Macha would agree as well. Seems to me he used it as explaining something that happened not something that is going to happen. The way Macha actually used those samples was to figure out why he didn't have success that day. He was saying - I've seen him handle those guys in the past and the difference is... Sample size has no relevance in that type of analysis. Using the information at hand to explain and correct what happened is a completely normal and valuable analysis. Especially when the alternative is to wait until he has a large enough sample size against those guys before he works with Coffey on making some changes. That would be absolutely insane for any manager to do. Sorry about that Kenneth. I am really hopeful the pitchers can improve at making outs for you. once again you misrepresented what he was saying. He said they have to get better at moving guys over when I ask them to sac bunt. I agree they have been terrible at doing so even while I think they are very good hitting pitchers. It isn't because they haven't been giving up outs that has Macha concerned it's because they have been making outs without getting the benefit that out was supposed to produce when asked. How good the pitchers hit has no relevance on sacrifice situations because their hitting prowess isn't useful in those situations. If Macha didn't try to improve on that because his pitchers are good hitting pitchers I'd have a problem. As it is I think he's being proactive in trying to maximize his pitcher's contributions to the offense. Which is exactly what he's supposed to be doing.

Last night I happened across a PBS program called Baseball that was just wonderful. It is a 9 part series that goes through the history of baseball both MLB and Negro leagues. Since I love history and baseball I'm always on the look out for good books or movies on baseball history. I thought maybe it'd be nice to share and hope somebody has suggestions for others I have not seen or read. Another one I happened upon was Reel Baseball: Baseball Films of the Silent Era. Not exactly baseball history but baseball movies of the silent era which also had Babe Ruth playing himself in one of them. Both are available on Netflix if anyone is interested.

If you can't average 5 innings in 4 starts you're not a starting pitcher you're a reliever who pitches the first couple innings.

Don't you need three years worth stats to make defensive metrics useful? Not saying he isn't ok just not sure there is enough info one way or the other to make that determination.

If you're the type of person who dislikes all or nothing players 3TO would not be the type of player you want. While he does drive in runs and gets on base well enough he's not going to move runners over by hitting a ground ball behind the runner and such. He's either going to get on base or not touch the ball at all. If I had to make a team up I woulnd't mind a couple players like him but wouldn't want an entire team of that sort. A team full of that type would lead to an equal number of 12 run games as 0 run ones. Just not good for a consistent offense IMHO.

but he doesn't seem all that flexible to me and I doubt he has any range at all. Not to mention he probably can't scoop worth a darn. So he's Prince?

some of the money invested in those contracts are bad now but I think they knew that would be the case when they gave them out. They knew in the long run it was too long and too much but it gave them the best chance to win right away. If they had actaully won the WS while their window of opportunity was open it would have been worth it. Problem was they blew it when they had the opportunity and now have to pay anyway. As far as the Z meltdown I refuse to celebrate someone else's obvious mental problems... oh what the hell hahahahahaha.

That's my thought as well bullox. There isn't a team without flaws in the division so it may be one of those years where 83 wins gets it done.

My point is, there's a big difference between trying to support a .500 team and one that is 20 games under. It gets embarrassing to blindly root for a bad team. A lot of fans disowned the team in early June. The Brewers getting back to .500 will get many of them to at least flip on the game and check the score again. There is a difference between following a team and watching the games. For many to watch the actual games the team needs to be playing .500 or better. Some people follow the brewers even in crappy times but may find something else to watch on a given night if the team blows. Hell I'm as optimistic as they come and there have been years I just couldn't stomach watching the games nightly because of how frustrating they were to watch. Yet even in those times I followed the team and kept up with every little thing that went on in the organization even if I couldn't stand to watch Jose Hernandez flail hopelessly at another pitch outside the zone by 6".

Assuming St. Louis and Cincinnati both go 8-9 over that same stretch we would still be 5 games back. Not impossible but I still think not probable. I think 5 games back at the break is in the race if the team is .500 or better. No team sub .500 IMHO is in a pennant race. That said I think the Cards and Reds both have some flaws that may start showing as the year goes on. The Cards have little depth as Suppan starting shows. The Reds are young and perhaps have played above their heads. I don't beleive the Cards can trade their way up like they did last season and the Reds probably don't want to give up too much given it's probably a team poised to be contenders for a few years as is. The Brewers have an interesting trading chip in Hoffman who could bring us someone better suited to the team's needs without hurting our team's future in the in the process. An 11-6 run isn't going to magically jettison the Brewers into the middle of a playoff race. It might let the fans take their paper bags off though, which would be nice. No but a continued run of 11-6 stretches does. There is a huge hole to climb out of but the only way to do that is to make that first good run then see if it becomes a tend. Hey I'm an optimist, I prefer to see the possibilities not the limits, what can I say?

Well, If Gallardo is a rational person, I think he'd get over it. Managers pull their starters all the time in that situation, anyway. It wouldn't be some unprecidented move. No it isn't unprecedented but I think each one pulled in that situation had it's own set of circumstances that made the manager chose to pull the pitcher. Some (by no means all) of those circumstances is the pitchers mentality. Gregg Maddux was a guy who was reputed not to care about those things all that much yet Nolan Ryan would rather cut his foot off than give up a complete game shutout. I wouldn't be surprised if the next game has YoGa at 90 pitches after 7 innings he'll get pulled. Sometimes letting a guy go long in one game is mitigated by shortening up his next one. As far as what that does to his arm I think letting a guy who is going as well as YoGa was yesterday is less damaging than 90 pitches in 6 inning when he's struggling. I would let a guy throwing free and easy go throw more pitches than someone fighting himself.

With a 5 run lead, I don't see the point of pushing it. If there's a 1% chance that 10 less pitches thrown in 5 games makes Yo 1% more fresh in September, I take it. I don't give a crap about a complete game shutout, though. While a agree in that it is logical in a vacuum I think sometimes a good manager has to remember he is working with people not a computer program. While we don't care about YoGa's complete game shutout he probably does. If 1% less performance in September is the price of giving YoGa a well deserved personal achievement I'm ok with it. Sometimes humans need that dangling carrot once in a while. I wouldn't mind if they used Davis as a 6th starter when he returns for one rotation to give YoGa an extra days rest soon.

The 5+ bb/9 as a rotation in May was not just pitching calling, it was pitchers not being able to throw strikes. The HR blip in April most likely is just luck since it didn't come with a FB% blip. I don't think anyone was arguing it was all about Lacroy's game calling. I think the debate is whether it has anything to do with HR or BB. I suspect it doesn't but I cannot look at the stats and find that out. I do think how the catchers calls the game does have some impact on BAPIP but have no idea how it much. Just looking at how pitch selection effects where the ball is put into play makes the relationship between defenders position and pitch selection obvious. Thus if the catcher is calling the game the way it's supposed to be called the defenders should be in a better place to produce an out on a ball in play than if he doesn't follow the game plan.

In April we gave up way too many HR, in May we gave up way too many BB, this month things have stabilized some and we've had good luck with BABIP and LOB% to offset some of the bad luck we had earlier in the season. Sure they are giving up less home runs and BB's now but the question is does some of that drop off have to do with the catcher calling the right pitch/location or not. To some extent I would thing calling a get me over fastball in a fastball situation is going to produce more home runs because the hitter is looking for it. Same with BB's. Calling a pitch that the pitcher is having trouble getting over the plate too often means more walks. How much difference is the real question. When it come sto BB's and HR's I suspect very little is really related to the catcher but it is possible he has a knack for it. BAPIP I think may have more to do with the catcher than some beleive. Defenders position themselves according to how they plan on pitching to the particular batter. Thus it makes some amount of sense that a catcher who calls a game according to the gameplan should help produce a more favorable BAPIP.