Thurston Fluff

I just looked at Lance nix's numbers so far this year. 52 ab's, .357 ABP, .635 SLG for an OPS of 992. He's LH hitter who is above average in the field and we had him in house until this year. Man couldn't we use that type of production now? I would much rather we kept him instead of Gwynn. I know it's small sample but how much of a sample do we need to know he would have been better suited with the Brewers than Gwynn ever will be?

Despite all the criticisms I still don't see much denial that Ned did, in fact, accomplish the things he said he would pretty much in the time frame he said he would. If he was so terrible I guess all that means is how inconsequential the manager is. I tend to think that is only partially the case. The other part has to be he had qualities that compensated for his supposed dismal game management.

Does that show some kind of unfair personal bias on your part? No. It's just a sound discretionary judgment based on these people's history and reputations. What history? What reputation? Are you talking about the guy who came in after a 106 loss season with even less talent than that team and immediately show improvement? Or are you talking about the guy who managed a team to it's first winning season in more than a decade? Or are you talking about the one who, once he had some semblance of major league players to work, with won more games than he lost? Or maybe the guy who managed the team to 99% of the first playoff appearance in a quarter century? Like him or not he did his part in bringing a moribund franchise back to respectability. The only negative reputation he had was among armchair quarterbacks who seemed to enjoy picking apart every move he made. Many of which made sense on one level or another. Like keeping the batting order more or less the same even if it meant a guy batting in a place some thought would be detrimental. Never mind it has been shown not to matter one bit. BTW the same time he was being criticized for that he was also being criticized for having too many different lineups. Never mind that turned out to be totally false since he had less lineups changes than average but he was simultaneously criticized for both having too many different lineups and not changing the lineups more. The simple fact is he was not what many made him out to be. His reputation wasn't tarnished completely by his own doing like Madoff or Brown. It was in large part fabricated as being something it wasn't. Maybe he should be compared more to someone like AIG's CEO Edward Liddy who inherited a mess and, in the process of cleaning up made some questionable moves, but on the whole was not to blame for the current mess. Yet, unlike Liddy so far, he had in fact done exactly what he set out to do when hired. He started by getting them to play hard and not embarrass themselves or the city. Then, when talent permitted, he actually won. Then he got them in position to get to the playoffs. Yep pure trash as a manager. All he did was what he said he would do. Somewhere he should get some amount of credit for doing what others failed to do. He should be remembered as much for actually succeeding in his stated goals as he somehow is for failing to make universally accepted strategic maneuvers. After all isn't the record supposed to count for something? Isn't winning supposed to trump using the wrong pinch hitter in a particular game? Especially when 90% said use is debatable to begin with? Ned was not perfect but he was far from the buffoon he is usually made out to be. I have no doubt he will get another shot at managing and will do just fine. After all Garner was made out as some sort of idiot (I'll admit to being one who thought so) as well but he did manage a WS appearance with a team that had never been there before. Not to mention a couple division titles to go with it. Ned was not perfect and maybe even the wrong guy for the team as it currently is but he can and will win in the right situation. Which is what all but a select few managers ever do.

Melvin seems to like to get guys shots at regular jobs if/when they come available. I have no empirical data to support that, just something that 'seems like' what Melvin does. When Brady Clark was traded Melvin mentioned something to the effect of not liking to keep players around who he thought could get more playing time someplace else simply to have them on the roster. I seem to remember he doing this several times though I can't recall any others than Clark at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if Nelson ended up traded to a rebuilding team sometime soon as well. He seems to be the type of player who could use regular playing time but will never get it here. Olney states pretty clearly that Melvin told Branyan that he had "no interest" in him but thought that Jack Zduriencik, who had a team coming off of a 101 loss season, might. When someone says someone said I think there is room for misinterpretation along the way. Melvin may have said he had no interest but it might have been in the context of I have no interest in keeping you for the 100ab's you'll get here. Or it could mean I have no interest in you because I have to have more versatility in my bench and you play the wrong defensive positions. Or it might simply be no interest because I think you aren't good enough. Of all the possible reasons for not having interest I think simply not being good enough is the least likely. Olney could have used the words no interest when in fact he had interest if nobody else wanted to give him a shot at more playing time than he would get here. Regardless it is never good to assume the exact meaning of one party is exactly what a third or fourth party portrayed it to be. If Melvin really thought 3TO was useless he probably wouldn't have bothered to direct him to JZ.

And having lived my adult life in equal parts Scottsdale, Milwukee, and Chicago I can say with perfect certainty that there is more to do in Chicago than either of those cities. I think it depends on what you call something to do. There are better outdoor things to do close to Milwaukee than a similar amount of time would afford someone in Chicago. Hunting, fishing, water sports, hiking, things like that can be found easier closer to Milwaukee than Chicago. Granted the lake makes it good for Chicago to go sailing and some fishing but there isn't the river and small lake type fishing or other water sports that do not involve freezing ones behind off are just not all that available. For the most part hiking is far superior in Wisconsin than in Chicago and much of it can be found very close to Milwaukee. All in all I'd say there is more nightlife in Chicago but there is as much if not more day life (minus museums) for Milwaukee people. Wisconsin as a whole has a lot more to do outdoors during the day. Other wise the flow of traffic would be going in the opposite direction Fridays and Sundays. It really depends on one's lifestyle. Wisconsinites tend to be way more outdoorsy than southlanders. Probably why they live in Wisconsin instead of Chicago. I'd like to put my vote in for Appleton. We can do two things nobody in Chicago would ever think of doing. We can walk down the street counting $100 dollar bills. Partially because we didn't need to spend it on living expenses and partially because we aren't afraid of being mugged. The second is we aren't afraid to let our teenage daughters walk home alone at any time of the day or night.

Isn't Freel just another poor man's version of DeRosa like Miles was? Why did they get rid of Derosa if all their subsequent moves are to replace him?

They have to come up with fake reasons why they are superior to us even if their team isn't as good. This way they can preach to us about how they once won a lot of games too. How they were so much better at winning once upon a time that they can now share their knowledge of years gone by with the new kids on the block so we to can be as classy as they once were. OF course these classy people will someday be begging the Cards to offer Braun more money than the God could hope to afford so they can watch him disrespect other teams while they cheer him on. All this means is other teams are getting frustrated with us. Teams rarely get frustrated with doormats. They just walk all over them and not even take notice. They only get frustrated when they go home with more losses than wins in a series.

I always wonder what exactly are the things that one can "do" in Chicago (and other big cities), that one can not "do" here. Same here. I love going to Chicago for the museums and it does have a pretty good comedy scene but truthfull I've seen some pretty good shows in Wisconsin as well. The midwest in general is good for comedy. Wisconsinites are quite up to date in that respect. When I go to clubs they seem pretty much the same in every town. Big city night life is way overblown IMO.

Remember last year when Ned decided to platoon our 5th stater spot (Bush/McClung) with McClung getting road starts and Bush getting home starts? That was some classic baffoonery. just what exactly did that do to harm the team's record? Nothing that I can see. In fact if you look at it there was some possible net benefit to it. If Ned had just put one in the pen that person could have resented it. By effectively making both of them tell him they would rather just know their role than keep that platoon going neither of them would hold a grudge. So what it actually did was cause no harm but possibly avoided lingering resentment in one of them. It didn't work out, as I recall Ned never said it would just that he thought it was worth trying, and hurt nothing for the effort. Doing something that has no effect one way or the other is not pure buffoonery. Just someone willing to try something new instead of following the other sheep. If people never tried new concepts we'd still have a three man rotations and all white players.

That is a marginal one. The downright stupid one would be to let Suppan hit and then just take him out without facing a hitter. I think you get the point though. Sometimes the move is perceived as better or worse than it actually is depending on how one feels about the person making the move. Even the idea of letting a backup hit in the same spot as the starter had merit in that it didn't force others to move up or down the order to accommodate one person. Given how several of his players felt about the place they were hitting in, Braun behind Feilder and JJ batting in front of the pitcher it had more merit in that particular team than perhaps others. I didn't always agree with his choices but on the whole could generally see the reasoning behind it even if I disagreed. Like you very astutely pointed out he did have that what the heck moment about once a month but I think it's being shown that many do.

It isn't the marginal moves that put it over the line it was the downright stupid ones he seemed to make at least once a month. Moves that were so bad they were likely the absolute worst thing he could have done Macha had Soup hit in the bottom of the sixth inning the first solid outing he had all year and was approaching 100ish pitches and then replaced him with nobody out and a man on in the 7th. I tend to think that is a downright stupid move. One that few thought had any justification. I guess that could be called one stupid move a month so far in Macha's tenure here. By your own reasoning Macha is no better than Ned so far.

To be perfectly honest I would have probably defended Ned more than I did Macha simply because I know anything Ned did got way over amplified vs how bad a move it was. I did not like the move and said so. If Ned had done it I would have said I'm not in favor but mentioned it's something that many other managers would have done and tried to see the rationale for it. That was the thing that aggravated me about a lot of the Ned criticism. Many if not most were things that happened all the time on every team by every other manager in the game. A lot of them even got several pages of people debating if it was good or not. Anything that has that much debate can't be all that stupid. Ned was not a good game manager but he was far from the idiot he was often portrayed as.

If A-Rod has taken steroids regularly he is an idiot and doesn't know how to take them. Look at the guy! In no way, shape, or form does he look like a juicer. If I was on roids and thats as big as I could get, I'd want a refund. His weight has stayed the same for most of his career and numbers have been about the same. He is consistant and not that injury prone (which steroids usually causes more injuries) Then he should get a refund because he admits he did use them in Texas. He has failed a drug test. Oh and isn't he out wiht an injury now? Steroids may cause more injuries but i think they start to show up as the body gets older. Steroids don't give you the skills that A-Rod has, he is a natural. If the argument was steroids help people become great athletes then this argument makes sense. Since the argument is whether steroids help individuals achieve better results than their natural talents would allow it is irrelevant whether or not they help the talentless do something they naturally can't. Steroids most certainly do help those with natural talent get better results. I bet they go to GNC once a month load up on all their supplements which do what? I bet you're wrong. I bet most players with an intelligence level beyond that of a fifth grader knows all too well GNC products are not tested by the FDA and there is no telling what is actually in those products. There are plenty of people today that avoid anything at all simply because they want to know what they are putting in their body. Athletes who regualrly get tested are even more aware of such things. If A-Rod did he did, oh well it didn't make him the player he is today. And Barry Bonds would have hit 70hr without them even though he only ever hit 40ish before using steroids. If they didn't work people wouldn't use them.

But if they use it now they are going to get caught. So now it's just arrogant stupidity that compels a first ballot HOF'er to risk his reputation. Because they know they can always just pass it off as unknowingly taking a prescription from their doctor and their reputation is unharmed. In this case I even half believe it. All that means is baseball players don't need to be smarter than your average 5 year old to make millions. Hell Merriman tested positive for steroids and there was pretty much no backlash at all so I don't think players in any sport are all that concerned about how it will harm their reputation..

With a blanket statement like that, we have to assume that Ryan Braun is dirty, since he has a pretty super start to his young career. Why should our players be any different than other team's players? As far as the Manny statement goes sorry I don't believe him. Anyone who has any brains at all knows they can check what they are taking against a list of banned substances. The fact that he passed tests in the past only means he had his cycles lined up correctly until now.

If A-Rod is dirty and Manny is busted, who do we go to as the best pure hitter of this generation? Pujols? Is anyone sure he's clean, too? At this point I don't think we can assume any player who is doing super human things is clean. I don't think it's unfair to the player either. Even the clean ones looked the other way and did nothing to force their union to take cheating seriously. If they had made their union demand testing it would have never got to this point. I do feel sorry for some of the outspoken guys who openly criticized their union in the 90's like Frank Thomas but there just weren't enough of them.

Carlos Lee is a much better fielder than Ben Sheets is a hitter, it isn't even close. Semi joke but the main point is if you no longer have any pitcher hitting there will be something else as the biggest mismatch in sports. That would most likely be forcing big nonathletic power hitters attempt to field. Just because a certain position isn't as good at a minor part fo the job doesn't mean they shouldn't have to do that portion of their job just like every other player does. AS was pointed out Kendall isn't much better at hitting than many pitchers and Bf's favorite whipping boy of years past, Chad Moeller was no better at all. Most teams look for defense first catchers so the next logical step is to make it a defense only position and have two DH's. Then shortstop will be the next position teams feel they can get away with as a defense only positions since it is so important. Then we will be watching slick fielding shortstops flail away at a .200 clip until we get sick of watching that and DH for them. Of course now that there are so many great fielding players on defense we will have much worse hitting so there will be a need to substitute the center fielder for a better hitter and the second baseman is just too small to hit or enough power. The same arguments that can be used for DHing the pitcher can be used for every position.

Pitchers just do not get enough ABs to stay in hitting form and I stand by what I said before, there is no bigger mismatch in professional sports than watching a pitcher try to hit. How can you say this after seeing Carlos Lee in the field. The reason the DH was instituted was to give old players who couldn't really play a chance to stick around for a few years. If you don't want to see players doing something they are not good at then you should be in favor an entire lineup of DH's. Then we could watch super defenders make great plays in the field and never have to watch Jose Conseco have a ball bounce off his head for a ground rule double or Prince Fielder attempt to dig a ball out of the dirt. Of course then the offense would go down the tubes because very few balls would fall in, but the best of the best are playing only what they are good at right? Should make the game better shouldn't it?

I don't think you can blame ESPN that this is not a gripping national story line. They are only showing what most the viewers care about. Is there really all that many national stories in sports? Most people are interested in their team and what effects their team. I really doubt Joba Chamberlain is really all that big a story nationally either. I do not think a majority of people who watch ESPN are all that interested in him going less than 6 innings and giving up four runs. Granted the Yankee audience is bigger than the Brewer audience but it is far from a majority. So if they really want to have a national appeal they need to cover stories relevant to the league and all it's teams. Not just the biggest ones. That would mean covering unusual things like exceptionally long winning streaks. It's got to be at least as interesting as the Dodgers having the longest home winning streak to start a season.

Fair point but if someone is a known cheater and only admitted to what he was caught cheating at should we automatically give him the benefit of a doubt? At the point a person is caught and admits then I am way more skeptical of that person. I think he did cheat more than just the year in Texas. Why do I think that? Because he had as much reason to cheat prior to that than he did when he got caught. Why would he not cheat before his big payday only to cheat at a time when he knew he would be tested? His story of wanting to validate the contract is weak at best. If he never used them prior to that why did he somehow now feel the need to cheat to perform at the same level he did all along? I just don't buy what he is selling. So maybe he didn't cheat but maybe he did. What we do know is he did cheat at a time when he knew he would be tested and he is trying to tell us he didn't at a time he knew he wouldn't be tested. That is rather odd behavior for someone who was supposedly so good without them. It is easier for me to believe he knew he had to continue to use to justify his contract than he started to use when he never needed them to do that well ever before. That type of person doesn't get the benefit of a doubt in my mind. The only doubt I have is the person who wrote the book has no better credibility.

If A-Rod had only used steroids in Texas then he was a major league player when he used them. Just like Bonds. If he only used them in Texas and he had all the professional training professional players get and he had no discernible difference between the time he admitted to using them in Texas and the time he claimed to not have used them in Seattle or while in NY, both of which are during his major league tenure, then it seems to me he is the only guy who didn't seem to get any effect from them. So your whole argument about his training doesn't hold up if he was only using them in Texas. If true that he only used in Texas his time in Texas should have stood out more than it does.

If Chamberlain's 5.2 innings of 4 run baseball was worth what seemed like half the show I would think the Brewers doing something that hasn't been done since 1969 should have been worth similar time.

For me baseball is a game of changing emotions. A pitcher unexpectedly getting a timely hit or a HR or drawing a walk affects my emotional level positively or negatively more than does a big bopper doing what big boppers normally do. Great point. Having the unexpected happen is part fothe fun. What was more unexpected than Ben Sheets getting a base hit after the team intentionally walked someone to get to him? How much more satisfaction was that vs someone like Prince getting the same hit?

That would be super.

I just ordered a new coffee roaster. They just called and told me it's back ordered but should get them in on Thursday. That's an extra two whole days of suffering with my old one. Impatience is my middle name.