Thurston Fluff

Boy, there's an awful lot of enthusiasm for a guy who's gone 4 straight seasons with a WHIP of at least 1.5. I don't hate the move as the price wasn't steep, but I would have preferred either Garland or Washburn. Washburn has never had a WHIP over 1.5 and Garland has just once. For the most part WHIP is a tried and true predictive stat but using traditional metrics to determine the value of a guy who has defied those very same metrics his entire career is more than likely going to get you the wrong answer again.

There is a difference between finding undervalued players as a GM and playing the hand you are dealt as a manager. Managers have to make the best use of the available talent. If that talent isn't suited to the usual SOP stats tell you should work it won't help win. If the team have a bunch of singles hitters with low OBP skills for example it may very well be better to steal more bases even if the rate is lower than the prescribed 75% rate. GM's job is to find the players that fit the money ball bill but that doesn't mean managers can manage the money ball way if the GM failed to find the right mix of players for that system.

Right, but even just comparing their last season in Japan to their first season in the MLB, there is typically a major drop in production, far more than the typical .3-.5 win which is normal for that age group. I don't know how much stock I'd put in that. They are coming to an entirely different league so there is going to be a pretty significant learning curve. Some players have a drop off going from one league to another which is nothing compared to going half way around the world and not knowing any players. Add in the task of assimilating to an completely different culture to boot and I'd be more surprised if there wasn't a drop the first season.

Linebrink, Lincicum same difference. The both start with an L.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

That said, there are other ways to acquire pitching besides the draft or free agency and Melvin hasn't been able to make shrewd moves in the trade market to acquire pitching even if it isn't an easy task given how valued pitching is. Bush, Cappy, Sabathia, Cordero, Lincicum are all guys off the top of my head he traded for.

I'd rather they go with the best available pitcher than skimp by once again and ruin the season when those guys don't pan out. At this point quality matters as much as quantity. I also like having a guy around for three years with the associated cost certainty so this team can actually build as opposed to repair. Wolf is the most certain pitcher we could reasonably expect to get. He fills a need and will do so at as consistent a rate as can be expected for three years. All the others would be fillers whose performance could vary wildly from one extreme or the other. We know have three of five starters under our control for three years. That should buy us the time we need to develop our own. No other could do all those things for the price Wolf is.

Bud Selig is open to a series between the world series champions and the Japanese World series champions. I think it would be pretty cool. In a way it'd be like the beginning of the Superbowl era in football. I think that has much more appeal than the baseball world cup which is more of an exhibition where many of the best players don't want to play in. A Japanese/American WS would be national pride and real evidence of which country has the best baseball. There would actually be some amount of pressure since it's hard to call yourself world champions if another team beat s you in a best of 7. link

I am getting compensated for that and the use of pretty much my entire front yard for the next two years. Just not much.

If they had left him down at least till the end of the AAA season I wouldn't say that but they left him down just long enough to get another year out of him. JJ's performance did not match his salary. As we see with Suppan and Hall the teams many times have to eat those contracts or suffer through them. In the rare instances where the team can actually minimize their losses I expect them to. Not doing so would be to fail in their main duty as caretaker of the team. The players fortunes are way down on the list of things Melvin is obligated to take care of. They have themselves and their agents for that. Hey I feel bad for the guy but he still made more in a couple years than I in my life and still can make more so you'll forgive me for wanting my team to put it's needs over Hardy's. As far as Hardy needing more rest because of soreness all that does is show a weakness. Dude is in his 20s and has always had problems with a sore shoulder or aching back. That would indicate he's not very durable. I would not care to speculate if that is mental or physical in nature but he just cannot seem to play every day, all year, year in and year out. It was time to cut the losses and move on to someone more reliable.

So McGehee, Counsell, Hall or Hardy could not have finished the season at 2nd base? Because Lopez was better and the team had hopes of comepting for a playoff spot at the time. Why was Lopez acquired, shifting Counsell and McGehee to third, blocking Gamel My guess is Gamel's defense wasn't good enough to be trusted. especially when a starting pitcher was more needed at the time? That's assuming they could have had one for the price they were willing to pay. Starting pitching even crappy ones are expensive in trade. Why did the team feel that Escobar was ready to play regularly and Gamel was not? Defense and attitude combined with better options in Mcgehee and Counsell would be my guess. Why did Melvin acquire David Weathers, which bascially cancelled out the savings from the Hall "salary dump" when the team was obviously out of the race? I don't think they felt out of the race when they go Weathers. Fans quit far faster than teams do. Hall as not a salary dump since they didn't dump much salary at all. IT was pretty much a bad player dump.

Our road is going to be done next year and our lot is going to lose a small amount (roughly 8 square feet at one corner) of land to it. I wanted to know if anyone else has expereince with eminent domain issues. Specifically I want to know if getting an independent assessor is worth my time and the city's money. I know it's my right to have one and it wouldn't cost me a dime but if they both have to follow the same protocols in assessing the value is it really going to make much difference? If not way waste the city's money. If it would I want what's fair for my loss. I'm happy to get the road done and the loss is fairly negligible but I did pay for it and it is mine.

I don't think Lopez was Hall's replacement. Lopez was Weeks replacement. If he wouldn't have been on the team Hall would have ben replaced by someone else. For the sake of argument though do you really think replacing a pitcher with a 5.29 ERA for one with a 5.10 ERA was going to do as much as replacing a 600 OPS player with a 810 OPS player? Really though it doesn't matter. Hall was not worth anything while Suppan was about a league average 5th starter. Not worth his pay but still not totally worthless like Hall was.

You can spend that money on Prince and not be able to fill another hole or you can spend it on Prince's replacement and fill another hole as well. We either have a great player and a void or we have average players with no holes. Personally I don't care either way as long as the production is there.

Why doesn't this principle apply to Suppan then? He made more than Hardy and Hall combined. Over 10% of the team's total payroll. I guess the argument basically is, "outside of his really bad games, he pitched to his career norms..... which suck" - or "we knew he was bad when we signed him". First of all he was about average for a 5th starter. That has value. Hardy and Hall both had no value to the team playing the way they were. It's not about the money spent it's about not being the best option for the team. Hall and Hardy both sucked and had a replacement player available. Suppan was the best available option so he got used. I have no doubt at all if there was a better player available Suppan's salary would not have been enough to keep him around. We could have at least got something of value for Suppan in a trade if we were willing to eat as much of his salary as we were Hall's.

I think I'll stop whining about paying $170 to be told my dog has a sprained toe.

they hurt his career by bringing him up too soon, and they screwed him over last season using performance as an excuse. Wasn't his performance worthy of demotion? Didn't he get outplayed by the guy who replced him? Isn't the majors supposed to be for the best players available? Why should he not be held to the same standards as others? He was given a chance and failed. That is on him. What happens after that is dictated by what is best for the team not what is best for Hardy. If he would have sucked from day one and never got better then maybe you could use his being brought up too early as an excuse. If his career was so hurt it's hard to understand how he managed to get to be an All-star? Hardy has only Hardy to blame. As badly as you think Hardy was screwed over I think an argument could be made that Hardy screwed the Brewers over by his poor play. He cost the Brewers a much better player than Gomez is by his poor play. Melvin certainly didn't go into the season hoping Hardy would suck so bad that his value would be increased by a demotion. Had he just played to his career norm his value would have been much higher even with one year left before FA than it is now with two and huge questions about his ability. It always makes me wonder why in sports it's so hard to blame the guy who actually sucks for what happens to him.

In my opinion, getting Suppan out of the rotation would be addition by subtraction. The guy has been downright brutal for the past two years and I would bet that many waiver wire pickups (someone like Jeff Weaver) would have outperformed him somewhat. If you think getting rid of an average 5th starter is addition by subtraction then, yes it would have been. I tend to think having an average 5th starter is better than replacement level. His problem wasn't that he wasn't good enough to be the 5th man in a rotation. It was how much he's being paid to be one. You have to separate overpaid from useless. Though it pains me to say it because I always liked him Hall was useless. Soup is overpaid.

There's a lot to indicate that Davis was lucky last year to keep his ERA down, he had a lot of walks. Davis always has a lot of walks. He's the same pitcher he always was. Last season his WHIP was 1.50 his career WHIP is 1.49. He's one of those guys who defies the laws of comeuppance.

It's believed to be back loaded so they will end up paying a lot more in two years than he will likely be wroth at the time. Not enough money to really matter but maybe enough to hamper them slightly in FA by year three.

I am always an optimist about the Brewers but they will definitely be significantly better in 2010. A new playmate on the optimist's playground. Welcome feel free to use all the toys. They will be available it's not crowded over here.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Yes I can. This means our offense went cold in the 30 games Wolf pitched and those runs went towards games pitched by other players who will win more than they should. Or those runs get spread out evenly and we lose a lot more games by one run than by 6. Or they all come in two games and we win two more from two other pitchers. Or we lose all those higher scoring games because Suppan is pitching that day. You can't just say those run will win other games. There are a lot of variables that does not equal one to one wins. Since nothing is going to truly be accurate I think it's as ok to just look at wins as it is to try and divine how those extra runs scored would be divided up. If Wolf wins as many games as Looper we would be fine but unless other pitchers step up, or get lucky like Looper did, we will not win more games next year. What Wolf gives us is a better chance every 5th day than Looper did. I also think he will get knocked out early less often than Looper did so we will save our pen a little. His being left handed also means you can save Stetter for late innings or not use him as often. All those things add up to more to the total as actual wins. So if we investigate a little no wins don't matter all that much. For a quick and dirty assessment that starts out a thread I don't think it's a terrible thing. Hell it got two pages of talk already and the other threads were getting worn out. Gotta get a baseball fix somehow.

Not sure why this is relevant.If the question is who is better then the answer is Wolf. If the question is will he get us more wins it isn't so clear. I read his question as will we get more wins with this team. If he was asking if we will improve from last season's record wins by a pitcher does have some relevance.

Does the BAPIP change in any player without also having other stats change as well?

I personally could care less about why it is there because it is variance and not sustainable. I look at stats as a way to judge the talent level and future talent level of a player. If he does something that isn't sustainable it is variance and that data set is 'tainted' as far as looking at his talent level. A mediocre talent player can be hot all year and put up a great season, doesn't change the fact he is mediocre talent. You want to worry about why he was hot, was the BABIP spike a hot streak or luck or whatever. All I care about is it isn't sustainable so it isn't a true reflection of his talent. Or that same player found something that made him better. If someone can find what that is they can help the average player become above average. I am not sure what you mean here. Nobody is saying very much luck is involved. We are talking about how much luck in involved. What your definition of much is can very well be different than mine. We are now discussing what that level is. This all started by my assertion that luck often gets attributed in areas that it not warranted. If it isn't repeatable, then it can't be given much weight. In general a guy with a BABIP outside of the "normal" range isn't going to repeat that year after year. Since that is the case, you can't give to much weight to it. As a predictive tool your are right. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be evaluated as something that could possible be repeated if we found out what the reason for that bump was. If we find out there was a solid controllable factor then it should be addressed so it can be repeated. All this falls into the category of different uses for stats. I can certainly see both yours and Ennder's view that it is likely not going to be repeated so it can safely be viewed as irrelevant. Maybe it's the old coaching instincts coming through but I tend to want to know if there is something that can be controlled and repeated. Just a different way to use the same stats.

I get what you are saying Ennder. What I'm not so eloquently trying to say is even if there are 3 or 4 players who determine the outcome that doesn't mean the variance is luck. It is the combined skill of the players involved more than luck. In one sense it is lucky to have good players helping make plays but that still amounts to skill based measurable. I know it's splitting hairs but when it comes to measurable skills vs pure luck based results those split hairs matter. I guess I just am not willing to say variance in year to year stats like bapip are mostly due to pure random luck. I think mostly we disagree on why the variance is there not that there is variance. Maybe some of the differences are based on what objective we have in looking at the stats. I tend to view them as how to improve or maintain performance. I look at how they performed and try to see if the stats/studies can tell me where they need to improve or why a certain outcome happened so it can be changed/maintained. Some others may view them purely as predictive tools. Neither are wrong just different uses for the same thing.