Thurston Fluff

It is very similar to a coin flip. It just has more variables. No matter what a player does, they are still only going to get a hit within a certain range of odds. No a coin flip has no controllable variables. There is no need to measure the results to find out who is the better coin flipper. The results have nothing to do with level of ability. When someone flips the coin fifteen times the results are purely random. All the variance is purely based on uncontrollable luck. In baseball the opposite is true. The vast majority of the outcomes are based on measurable skills with SOME luck involved. The differences we seem to be having is the amount of luck involved. I am not saying there is no luck involved. I am saying less should be attributed to luck than many times is. In a game of skill it should be assumed some skill was involved in the outcome. If there is a measurable skill involved then the assumption shouldn't always be random variance beyond a players control. There needs to be a question asked about the measuring system. I think the stats do tell us everything but in order to tell if it was truly random luck or a measurable skill we may need more sophisticated calculations than we are currently using. To just buy into the stats at hand as tell all and ignore the outliers as random variance is the mistake that I feel is sometimes made. Sometimes you are going to do the right thing and get a bad result. That is an assumption that is hard to know is true to any statistical significance. IT may be on occasion something like that does happen. But we know there are bad ball hitters. That is a skill. So to look at that pitch we also have to look at the hitters skill at hitting balls in the dirt. Again difference of opinion you think it happens more often than I do. I would think the burden of proof is on the person who says it was random luck. After all we all know it takes a good amount of skill to do those things. To say it wasn't skill based should come with evidence. To assume outliers in the norm are just random variance and thus not skill based in the thing I think we need to rethink. Outliers are something most people tend to want to ignore because it doesn't fit the theory they are viewing the subject through. It's a lot easier to just write it off as random variance than it is to find out why. That happens all the time in many fields. Then someone comes along with a study that can account for those outliers and we suddenly change the paradigm we view the subject through. I think there is a lot of that going on in baseball. If it wasn't there would be no Bill James types out there refining the stats we hold as gospel. Come to think of it if the stats we have now are perfectly suited Bill James' work would be done know. Yet his continued work shows he must not be happy with what he has.

Skill wins out over a huge sample but over a small sample you aren't going to be able to separate the skill from the variance, This goes back to my original point. Just because it is difficult to separate doesn't mean it should automatically be assigned to luck or randomness. It very well could be a trait that players work to achieve and hold when they do achieve it. Whether they are in good place or bad place at the moment is going to look like they just got lucky or unlucky but luck has way less to do with it than how well they are actually playing at the moment. My original contention was it seems to be designated as just a matter of luck a little too often. I think it's mostly semantics. Randomness is different within the context of baseball than it is in things like flipping a coin. Coin flips are pure random happening. No amount of skill can possibly change the outcome. Baseball is an active exercise in decreasing the amount of luck necessary to achieve a successful outcome. The amount of luck that goes into it is a matter of degree. I happen to think there is far less luck than sometimes gets attributed to it. Changes in bapip to me is one of the stats that often gets relegated to luck when perhaps it shouldn't. It often seems like luck but it may be as simple as the hitter's stance changing ever so slightly thus his swing is later or earlier than usual so the ball gets hit were it usually doesn't. IF that happens it has a better chance of falling for a hit because the defense is positioned to where he used to generally hit the balls. I think that sort of subtle changes go on all the time in baseball. That isn't luck or randomness. It's a variance in skill set

If he hits it over the fence with his eyes closed just 1 out of 1000 times the 1 time he actually does it is going to be variance or luck. Sure if it ever happens. since there has never been a reported case where that happened I don't know how you can use it to show luck is involved. Yes there is luck involved to some degree. I question to what degree. I just happen to think there is a lot more stuff written off as pure luck than is really involved. I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "luck" to mean more than most here want it to mean. In this context, all luck is, is random variance. Good luck, being variance in favor of the player (3 black jacks in a row) and bad luck being against the player (an ace after doubling down on 11). Random variance is not the same in coin flips as it is in baseball. Treating them as such is a mistake. In flipping a coin there is no amount of skill involved to change the odds. IF you flip the coin five times and it comes up heads five times it is pure luck. In baseball there is a huge amount of skill involved which means a player who normally hits the ball 2 out of 5 times suddenly hits it 5 out of 5 cannot just be called luck. It could as easily be he's seeing the ball well or he faced some pitchers whose repertoire is something he's good at hitting. AS time goes on it usually evens out. Sometimes it doesn't. That still doesn't mean the player had no variance in his skill set that could account for it. It may not even be something he knows is different. That still doesn't mean it isn't a skill based measurement. For analysis as a fan this is all academic. Most times those variables, luck or otherwise, go back to the norm. AS a GM, coach or player I would be all over any variance to find out what changed. I would never just say it was luck and leave it at that. I'd try to find the reason why so I could control it. Many times you might find out there is some measurable and correctable asset that made those numbers change. When Yost found a hitch in Jason Kendall's throwing motion was causing him to be a split second late on stolen bases attempts and corrected it for example. To have just written that off as luck or declining skill set would have been wrong but the problem could have been easily misclassified as uncontrollable. To say luck is why something happened when so many controllable variables are in play just seems like too broad an assumption for evidence based statistical analysis. Not without exhausting every other possibility anyway. Pitchers throw meatballs all the time that don't go for hits, you hear the announcer say 'I bet he wishes he could get that swing back', because the pitcher made a clear cut mistake and the hitter did not make him pay. To say that is luck goes to show how easily things get called luck that isn't necessarily luck. Yes the pitch was one that should have been hit. But to say it was pure luck it wasn't neglects the fact that the pitch previous to that was different enough that it caught the player by surprise. Or that the players timing was off in that ab which caused him to miss the meatball. Again easy to say it was luck but not necessarily correct. When all the variables are added up it may be he missed because of a combination of surprise, excellent pitches prior to that meatball and the inadequate ability of the hitter at that particular time. Granted that amounts to luck but that type of "luck" is not pure random luck it is lucky in that all the things necessary for that outcome came together. That is not statistical random variance luck.

Rare if ever is not agreeing. The "if ever" was put there for a reason. It is possible it is random I just am not as sure we can assign luck to all the things some seem willing to designate as such. One would think those who rely on statistical evidence would want more than it's just luck as an answer. I would also think to assign it as luck or to say it really does happen multiple times dureing any given game is a huge assumption that should be backed up. Thus why I question if it is just random luck or are the stats missing something and need to be refined. Since we know there are skills involved it makes sense to me we should assume it took some skill to make an event happen. To just assign it as luck just because the current calculation doesn't show the skill seem contrary to what those very calculations are attempting to do. Really I'm not slamming the stats or those who go by them. I'm endorsing them. Just think they need to sometimes dig deeper instead of just writing it off as random lucky events. Random events that are out of control are still events that had a cause. In baseball those causes should not be called luck until every factor is exhausted. Then we can make areal determination of how much luck is involved. I tend to suspect there is less of it than some others may. If an event has a cause we must find that cause to know if it is controllable or just plain old luck.

There is a difference between "luck" and a bunch of variables that are unobserved or too small individually to matter. For example we know lighting has a large effect and isn't really "luck" as in the sun sets at a given time. However it is beyond the pitcher's control. I think it depends how luck is defined. For instance it is luck that the lights are a certain way but it isn't what most stats people would call luck in a calculation. It's an uncalculated variable. It is my personal belief (nothing more than that) there are a lot more unobserved variables going on that generally gets lumped into the luck category. A pitcher can make an absolutely perfect pitch in the perfect situation and have it go over the fence, he can throw a total meatball with the bases loaded and get a pop out. When those things hold true how on earth can there not be some luck in the results over a single game. this is where I disagree. A pitcher who throws the perfect pitch in the right situation would rarely if ever have it hit over the fence. Unless you think the hitter could hit the ball with his eyes closed over the fence as often as he can hit the perfect pitch over the fence you have to dig deeper for the explanation. There is a difference between being anti stats and questioning how well the current stats tell what happened. I am not anti stats. In fact I believe stats can tell you almost everything and predict to a very great degree if we have the right ones. Until we have the perfect ones I am of the opinion that stats should be questioned so they can be improved. Thus I ask questions about the ones being used. IF we end up at a point where we have the perfect stat for the occasion I tend to think we will find very little luck is involved. Again with luck being defined in the sense that it is completely random with no variables that can account for it. Closing your eyes and hitting a baseball would be complete and random luck. Having your eyes open and hitting it should be assumed to have some amount of skill involved. It is the job of the stats to uncover what skill that was and predict how often it will happen and when. I believe stats can do that to a very great degree. Just disagree the current ones do that at a deep enough level. Thus to beleive in current ones is to beleive in more luck than perhaps is really there.

What it's showing you is that a pitcher's performance might be very consistent but the results can still vary significantly, from game to game. I understand that is what it is trying to show,. I just question if it did show that. This isn't directed at you, you know I like your stuff and certainly respect your point of view, but I think sometimes stat people write off things in their analysis as luck or random variance a little too often. I think if luck or randomness seems to play a large role then maybe a more in depth look is warranted instead of just writing it off as noise or randomness. If there is a large amount of luck in performance one would think there would be a larger variance in players performance and team results would routinely vary without much relationship to talent. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. So I think something is going on related to actual ability more than just noise or luck. What that is I'll leave to those smarter than I. Good article that does make a point of how small the differences in performance may be but not convinced it goes deep enough to say the same pitcher can pitch the same and have drastically different results.

It appears to me the article suggests luck has a lot more to do with success than I would think possible. So either the article missed some vital differences or talent really doesn't matter all that much.

For comparison's sake I looked up Jeffery Hammonds career totals. He had a .787 OPS and 4 years where he played more than 100 games. Bradley has an .821 OPS with 4 seasons over 100 games played. I realize 34 points difference is no small matter but given the rest of his issues I think they would both have close to the same impact on a team. Unless of course a person thinks attitude has no impact what so ever. Then Bradley is the clearly the better choice. I don't think it matters except in a few extreme cases. Bradley is one of those IMHO.

I look at the Mariners as the winner mainly because he trade a horrid pitcher with a bad contract for a decent player with a bad attitude and contract. He at least has some upside with Bradley being a decent player, Silva was bad with no upside. Bradley is a 12 year veteran he is not going to get better than what he has been. He has all of 4 years in his career where he played more than 100 games. That is essentially a part time player. I think there is some argument to be made that a guy who has some value as a 5 the starter is as good as a part time player. Especially when the 5th starter is aquired for that part time player and a portion of his contract is paid for by the team getting a part time player with a bad attitude. Garbage for garbage. If a player is in it for the money I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him work harder in a contract year. I also think during the Steroid era there was a number of players willing to take them for one year to get a better contract. I think for the large majority of players it's a non factor. It's why a team has to know what type of player they are spending moeny on.

And this is based on what? The Cubs making him the fall guy instead of dealing with the atrocious play of Soriano? Chicago sports talk following Pinella's lead made Bradley the reason for the Cubs' problems two weeks into the season. I am basing it on his performance and attitude history. Injuries being part of his performance. His entire history goes into it not just last season with the Cubs. He's got a 12 year career yet only had 4 seasons in which he played 100 games or more. Only one in which he played over 130. That was 7 years ago. That's an awful lot of money to pay what amounts to a part time player. The only season in which he played over 130 games his OPS was .786. Not bad but nothing to write home about. As far as attitude the Bradly situation with the Cubs last year was not just him being the fall guy. He didn't stay healthy and couldn't keep his mouth shut. If that was the only place he ever had problems maybe then I would agree it was Cub/media driven but it isn't. Given the total package he just isn't worth what Seattle has to pay for him. The only way it isn't flat out bad is they also got rid of one of their under performers in the deal.

This is basically a garbage for garbage trade. I'm not sure if anyone other than Jack Z. making this trade would have anybody here saying this is anything other than trading one bad contract for another. Jack is a BF favorite and with reason but this isn't some astute trade. It's taking a chance that their garbage isn't as bad as his, nothing more. Granted Bradly does have some ability but is always injured and a severe head case. The most this does for either team is give each of them a shot at a lucky change of scenery boost from the player aquired. I think they both have about the same chance of doing so, which is close to none. Most likely both end up on the scrap heap by years end. It'll end up a wash from what amounts to a trivial trade IMO. Character issues are severely overblown in any sport, especially baseball where almost every encounter is 1 on 1. For the most part I agree in baseball. Bradley seems to be the exception to that rule. He transcended from bad guy in the room to flat out distraction all too often to think he won't do so again.

As mos there I want JZ to do well. he's one of ours. I don't think he's better than Melvin but he may turn out to be as good or better. Time will tell but he has a good start. He needs to win something before we dub him the next coming though. Stats are great and need to be used. I am not sure we have access to some of the best stats. Guys like Melvin may have developed methods unlike the public ones but he thinks are improvements on them. It may be he, or any other GM for that matter, is using statistical information that is unnoticed as stats info. Some of Melvin's moves have also made me question whether good statistical analysis is being used. Some of Melvins quotes during the Suppan signing made me want to gag (Innings eater, proven winner, knows how to pitch in big games, blah blah). The average baseball fan eats that kind of stuff up but come does Melvin believe that stuff? some of that I think is just fodder for the public. I do think he values durability and innings eaters. I don't know what statistics show about it's value but I tend to think there is some merit to durability. The Suppan deal was right in the durability department but wrong on how good those actual innings would be through the length of the contract. Even then I think some of that signing was with the knowledge it would be bad in the end. If you remember he was signed after the Brewers lost a season when three starters went down. The one thing they needed badly at the time was a guy who would take the ball every 5th day. At the time he was that and was an average pitcher. Soup has been durable through most of the contract so a major reason for signing him did happen as planned. Problem is now he is below average and still expensive. I think Doug knew that would most likely be the case but thought the short term gains were worth the long term risk. With Escobar and Gomez, it looks like Melvin is starting to put more value in defense but still. I remember when Stairs was on the team he said he thought Stairs was having a pretty good year but didn't realize how much Yost valued defense. It seems he's been coming around to at least understanding the mangers desire for defense. I also think he's starting to see there is more value in defense than he previously thought. part of the may be because stat guys need good stats to make proper value judgments. If they don't have them they may undervalue those types of players.

Why keep him around? He's not suddenly going to become a different pitcher. He has a 4.77 ERA as a reliever and a K/BB ration of 1.12. An OBP against of .365. That's bad. I agree he was not good for the most part but to answer your question about why keep him around is because relievers do suddenly become different pitchers for a year or so relatively often. It seems half the relievers we've had this past decade were that variety. He will get a job somewhere and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did well for a year or so again somewhere along the line. We can get that type of pitcher for a lot less money so I'm glad they non tendered him but to say relievers don't just turn it around for what ever reason is to ignore quite a bit of Brewer history. I actually like having a few sub par performing hard throwers coming in to spring if they come cheap and can be stashed in the minors. McClung's problem was his price tag was going up and he couldn't be stashed in the minors until needed. Good guy bad risk. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the memories of his few good moments in a few important spots.

The playoffs are not a coin flip. You just said that if we went in with Sheets, CC and Yo we would have been able to go deeper, but we had Suppan instead of Sheets and the better team, the Phillies, beat us. If they are just a crapshoot then we had the same chance of winning no matter who was in our rotation because it is just luck anyways. Suppan helped the Cardinals beat superior teams and got them a world Series title. If it happens once it could have happen the same way again. If you have a 30% chance of winning your best shot of getting that win is in a smaller number of chances.

What average RPs do any fans really 'trust'? Villy will have a strong season in the near future, and will probably have another bad one in the near future. McClung's control problems have always been his roadblock. It's what keeps him from being a valuable pitcher. Whether people trust CV or not, he's been the better pitcher without question over the two guys' careers. Excellent points. Villy may not impress or instill trust but he has been as consistent as most middle of the road relievers. That is why I am happy we got Hawkins. There just aren't a lot of consistent year in and year out relievers in the league. I'd like to thank McClung for his time here and his contributions to our great playoff run. Without those we may not have gone to the playoffs. I wish him well and hope to see him land in a good situation. His very classy twitter showed how real men handle tough situations in their careers. I wish him nothing but the best I think we might see DiFelice again on a minor league deal. No brainier to non tender him though. Rivera was just not worth more than league minimum and I'm glad we didn't waste resources on him. It is telling we had two managers think a light hitting 100 year old Jason Kendall playing 150 games was a better option than Rivera catching at least a league average number of games for a backup catcher. I hope he catches on (no pun intended) because he's one of those guys who fought hard into his 30's to get a shot and I respect that. He just wasn't good enough to warrant more than league minimum.

We lost about 2-3 wins most likely by moving from Cameron to Gomez. We lost a lot of offense but gained a little defense so yes it is a clear downgrade. That said if Hawkins and Wolf only upgrade us 4 wins over Looper and McClung I don't think Cameron to Gomez is 2-3 wins difference. Maybe I put too much emphasis of defense and this would be were we view Gomez's value differently. I see it as 50% of a player's worth. Gomez is worth more than projected if Wolf and Hawkins are worth that much more than Looper, McClung.

I like this signing because he is a guy who is a known commodity over a long period of time. Our pen has a lot of talent but most of it is with players who have only been good for a short period of time. Relievers are so up and down a Hawkins type of player is a nice addition to a pen that, other than him and Hoffman are not time tested. This adds stability in the event some of the others we are depending on falter as so many relievers do.

The Twins making multiple playoffs has more to do with how terrible that division is in general than how great they are at building a team. Since 02 it took a minimum of 90 wins to win the central 6 times. Over that 8 year span it was the worst division 4 times and best (or tied for the best) 3 times. It had division winners with 99 wins once, 96 twice, 94 once, 92 once and only two of the entire 8 year span won it without having at least 90 wins. Of those two times the lowest total was 87 wins. That is hardly winning by default. Minnesota has indeed built it's teams well. Better than the Cardinals if you want to go by the rationale you are using. If there is a team that had been perennial division contenders due to the division they play in it's the Cardinals.

I've wanted him for a couple years now. Just always liked him. A lefty with a record of success. What's not to like? I thought the only chance we had on him was last year when he was coming off an injury. I know he likes the west coast and there are teams who both need pitching and could afford him there so I wasn't sure the Brewers would have been on his radar after last season's success. Now we have at least two lefties in the rotation which should ease the load on Stetter a little. I think this signing helps the pen somewhat for that reason as well as his ability to log a lot of innings.

Actually I'm happy with this if they use him correctly. If he's a 3/4 inning at a time guy then he can be helpful to a bullpen that is overworked. If he's brought in, in win/lose situations then I think there's trouble abrewin'. When I was a kid the long reliever role wasn't just a scrub. He was a guy who could bail out both sides of the staff (starters and relievers) by piling up some innings once a week. I don't know why more managers don't go back to that strategy more often. This is one of the best observations I've seen in a while. Both in Vargas' best role on the team and how that role should be viewed. Just wanted to give props where props are due. But I'm not optimistic anymore. You think this is easy? Never quite being and optimist. We are right as often as pessimists and have a lot fewer ulcers. We also enjoy the game more because we see the good stuff going on over the bad.

coming down in Appleton. The wife is out doing a delivery and said the roads are slick. Couple accidents already. And backupcatchers, if you can ever provide video of your beautiful dog doing his/her thing, feel free. It's a her. I do plan on making a video of her this winter and yes, I will share. I kind of chuckle when people call her beautiful though. When I first saw her at the pound I knew I wanted her. I went home and told my SO I found a border that I need to bring home but warned her she was kind of ugly. She still chastises me to this day for calling her ugly.

He was a starter in the minors and already had major surgery before he added the cutter so I don't think it was workload or new pitch related. I think it was just wear and tear. I feel bad for him but even if his career is over he did get a chance to play in the majors for a full season and was successful. Granted he wants more but given his history his is still a wonderful story of perseverance and success.

About dang time. I play a game called skip dog which skips a disk off a ramp through a hoop to be caught by the dog. It has a complete scoring system so we have competitions. It's great fun for any dog or disk golf enthusiast but is most fun in the winter. Way fun during actual snow storms. This summer I got a couple neighborhood kids involved and told them how mush fun it is to play in winter. They've been waiting for a snow day and I've got new ramps to throw off of. My dog has also been waiting patiently. http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv208/ThurstonFluff/gladystouchedup-1.jpg

Given Melvin's desire for cost certainty I'm not surprised by this. Year's past I would have been against it thinking it would hurt the team's long term. I'm ok with taking the conservative approach this time around. I think the financial risk of another losing season would be worse for the team's future than losing a potential second round pick. After last season's disappointing performance and seeing things like the recent article from another tread it seems this team has to do what it takes to win now. Otherwise they risk losing any semblance of a legitimate franchise. That is irrelevant on the national level but very important for the fan base. Doubly so for the casual fans. This team has to think short term in order for the long term to be as bright as it can be. Draft picks would have been nice but I'd rather not risk losing a pitcher due to salary constraints just to have a chance at a second round pick next year. I think the only one I would have taken a chance on would have been Lopez but even he might not get the same in free agency as he would have in arby. It's also somewhat of a risk to think he would repeat last year. I always worry about players who do their best in contract years. It really depends on whether the market stays as depressed as it was last year or not. If it does Melvin might have been wise to decline all of them. If it doesn't he'll look bad. Even worse if Lopez does maintain his level of play. Time will tell if not offering Lopez is a good move or not. Even if he does the risk of more losing short term outweighs the benefits of Lopez or a second round pick IMHO.

Time to clear him out and try to lure Jack Zduriencik back How does getting the guy whose weakness with this team was finding pitchers help the team when it's major need is good young pitching? Lets see what he does over a period of time in Seattle before we deem him the next great GM. I don't see how Brewers management can expect Weeks to play a full healthy season... therefore you definitely risk offering Lopez arbitration. We have Irabarren and Heether if Weeks does go down. Failing that there is always trades to be made if that happens. Lopez type trades are usually out there to be had. Tying up valuable payroll to avoid possible problems at the expense of spending it on known problems seems counter productive to me.