Thurston Fluff

I do know that, whether people want to accept it or not, the primary motivation for professional players is money. Since their future financial prospects are tied to their current production, most players seem to do just fine keeping their eye on the true prize. I agree but there is a small part of the game that isn't stats oriented like hitting to the right side to move the runner over or working hard on learning opposing hitters to position yourself to make a play defensively. The money aspect doesn't cover everything. Those other parts can be effected by attitude. There is no evidence that playing on a good or bad team with good or bad chemistry has any measurable effect on performance. I don't dispute this I just think the reason there isn't any is not because it doesn't exist but because it is hard to measure correctly. The Earth was round even before we knew how to calculate it actually was. For many of you, you don't need proof of something to "know" it is important. Hell, we've got player quotes! Touche! Sometimes I actually do believe what players and managers think/say is actually important. Just gotta weed through all the coach/player speak to find those nuggets.

Couple things from the article If it's how a team came together, or fell apart, something you can only see and use in an after-the-fact explanation, then it's a story, not an effect. This is far from true. The inability to predict the unpredictable does not mean it does not have an effect. Even the idea that we should be able to predict which team will do what is the wrong way to judge it. It isn't about predicting which team is going to be better because they have chemistry. It's about getting chemistry to maximize the particular team's potential. If you could at mid-season determine which teams playing badly to that point had maintained a good clubhouse attitude, and so would have a great second half, the evaluation of team chemistry might be useful and significant. But even here, given a half-season of data, prediction fails. I thought well before the Brewers turned it around they would due to their ability to stick together and keep moving forward as a unit. It has been preached day in and day out throughout Ned's tenure. Now that it is actually happening it guess maybe it was predicted. There was an article in the JS today that the thing missing last year was the veteran presence and is a big difference this year. To me that is part of team chemistry. It is one thing to say there are no examples of it but maybe before doing that they should actually try it. If chemistry can't provide any additional predictive information on which team will win a game, or a series, all the way up to a season, even if you're aware of what kind of chemistry and how strong it is, then what use is it to know? Existence and useful knowledge are not the same thing. I say if a team is together, has good chemistry, it has the better chance of winning a series than if it didn't. The problem isn't the existence it is the inability to measure it to see if it exists. You cannot have the exact same team with chemistry go through the exact same circumstances without it. That means it is one of those things that cannot be measured. Some feel that means there is little or no impact because of that. That is the problem. By not having a way of knowing it could be minimal or it could be huge. We simply cannot know for sure. The non stat guy in me feels chemistry is important because most managers or coaches in any sport I've ever been around or watched seem to think there is a real benefit. I guess I'm just willing to believe. BTW if anyone sees the tooth fairy I need that money or my tooth back.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry makes it clear that no one even knows how to measure chemestry, much less measure its effect to wins and loses. Blind speculation. You know I like you. I have learned quite a bit form you as well so I hope you take this as the constructive criticism I mean it as. You seem to discount or minimize anything that can't be measured in a neat orderly way. You do that not only with intangibles but with defense as well. I think chemistry is not nearly as important as talent but once the talent is there chemistry makes that team better than it would have been without it. The Parra - Fielder situation is a prime example. When something like that happens a team that generally gets along can get past it quicker. When the team struggled earlier I don't think they had poor chemistry as much as they were willing to show their anger with each other because they had good chemistry. They all understood it was a dispute between family members not simply co-workers they couldn't wait to get away from. Chemistry helps in the low times even though it might not appear they have it at the time.

I think enjoying coming to work every day is more important than some might think. With the amount of time players spend around each other liking the experience has to have some amount of effect to performance. I think a talented team with poor chemistry would still be better than a team with little talent and great chemistry. That said if you take the exact same team and add in good chemistry it would out perform the same team without the chemistry. That is why it's important to have it if possible. It maximizes the team's production. Team Chemistry is a big deal in football but I doubt it contributes to winning. "The Bronx is Burning" is a perfect example. I don't think a made for TV drama, even if it is based off a real team, is a good example at all. It is embellished to make the show worth watching.

It starts form the top and works it's way down with this team doesn't it? Mark A doesn't go Steinbrenner on his management team every two game losing streak, Melvin doesn't panic or overreact and Ned just keeps his team on an even keel through think and thin. The team has a good mix of players and they all seem to understand what is asked of them. I think more often than not that leads to happy players and good chemistry.

Liriano was in AAA this season. He started their because he was recovering from injury but was stuck there even when it was obvious he was ready to return the MN and they had a guy who needed to be replaced in Hernandez. Sometimes the odd man out did not deserve the demotion as much as others may have deserved it less or the organization has financial reasons for the move.

No, the point is to maximize the collevtive talent on the field within a certain budget. I have no doubt that the difference between Suppan and McClung's talents in terms of $ is less than $10 mil. But to maximize the ability to win sometimes one must overpay a certain person of need vs just sign a bunch of cheaper guys who are collectively better than the one. Suppan was worth the money because,at the time, they needed a reliable veteran pitcher in their rotation. So while McClung would be the better value he may not be the better answer to accomplish their goal. Oakland made some very astute moves relative to talent and cost but hurt themselves relative to their playoff chances this year.

Not being claimed on waivers at this time of year has nothing to do with how good someone is. Every team knows any player with any value at all would be pulled back if claimed so they don't bother trying.

Really don't think it can. Given that the runner from 3rd has already been sent home, either the guaranteed run plus the guaranteed out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance at an outless run / risk of a runless out, or it isn't more valuable. There is no way for it to be both more and less valuable at the same time, unless we're scrapping Aristotlean logic for something more extravagent (I could see Hegel arguing your side...). Actually I am using Aristotlean logic. You are making a very common mistake in the either or statement. You are assuming if A is true that B has to follow. That is not true in this case. What you are saying is if every team takes the easy out then it is wrong for the team to give the easy out. If A then B. I am saying B does not have to logically follow in your syllogism. It is possible, actually likely, that a team can force the opponent to make a decision. It is forcing the team to take the lesser of two evils.

If we were willing to give Suppan 10 mil per year over 4 years we have the money to pay Ben Sheets. We gave Suppan the money because he does what Sheets couldn't. Take the ball every fifth day. At the time of the signing it was way more important to have an average pitcher who could do that than an above average one that couldn't. The whole we gave Soup the money so we should be able to give Sheets more is off base IMO. Different circumstances, different needs at the time. Soup gave a very unstable rotation one guy they could rely on at a time when that was paramount. Sheets at 18-20 million give us what YoGa would at 400K.

Why? Why not just see whether they can throw the guy at home out? The obvious answer is they want to guarantee the run score not take a chance it scores. If they can't, you get a run, and you still have a runner in scoring position. Because if they can you don't score the run. A bird in the hand is not always worth two in the bush. It depends on your odds of getting that second bird, and on how desperately you need at least one bird. Absolustely correct. Never argeued that it wasn't. What I was saying is this But if the single run has become that important, it is highly doubtful the idiotic "hey, look at me, stupid, throw me out at 3rd!" ploy is going to draw the throw. If the run seems that important to you, it will seem that important to the other team. Really, the stupidity of this concept is amply demonstrated by the fact that the opposing team consistently takes the free out that you're offering over the chance to throw the runner out at home and prevent any runs from scoring. If the free out is worth more to the opposition (every opposition) than the chance that the runner is thrown out at home, doesn't that tell you something about what should be more important to you? was not logically sound since it can be both a good offensive and defensive strategy by both teams at the same time. It can even be a sound strategy if every other team takes the easy out.

I am more concerned with Sheets not getting into the later innings and just not looking sharp agreed logan. I'd like to see him averaging over 7 innings this year but he's a little lower. I don't know if part of his problem is durability or maybe the fact that he only really has two pitches. The second and third time a team sees him might help them. Anyone know how we could check on that?

I like the concept of debating strategy in general so this is a much appreciated thread. If the free out is worth more to the opposition (every opposition) than the chance that the runner is thrown out at home, doesn't that tell you something about what should be more important to you? If they go for the runner at home they either get an out and still have a man on third or they don't get any outs, the run scores and the man is still one third. In many instances it makes sense to take the easy out vs risk the alternative. Since the offense knows the logical choice is to take the man at third it is also equally sensible to have the runner go to third to guarantee the run in those same circumstances.

It would help if he could go more than 6 innings more often. In his last ten starts he's made it to the 7th three times. I realize wins are team stats but there is a part of it that goes on the pitcher as well. After all he is part of the team and has a significant portion of control over how many runs get scored against him. Sticking around longer would help the rest of the team get him the win.

Sheets might not be a Cy Young winner like Sabathia, but he would be the best pitcher on 2/3 of the teams in MLB. The other 1/3 are still in the playoff hunt.

As for Sabathia saying he was fine to go, Pedro Martinez told Grady Little he was fine too. Since CC didn't implode and successfully finished the game despite some poor fielding what's the point you're tying to make? Add in the fact that you could cut CC in half and he would still be bigger than Pedro so I don't see how those two scenarios have anything to do with each other. Since when does a pitcher's size have anything to do with if he is a "horse". Everybody brings up the fact that he is huge for a reason behind leaving him with higher pitch counts. I may not be a doctor but I don't buy this argument. I don't think someone who is 100 pounds lighter than CC with the same talent should be treated any differently in terms of pitch counts. size matters in that bigger guys usually aren't max effort guys. Throwing with every ounce of effort to hit 95 is a lot harder on the body than free and easy 95. Not every big guy is like that so size may not be the factor but CC does throw pretty easy and rarely seems to tire. There was a study done -- that concluded that a pitcher can expect to give up about 1 run over his next 3 starts after throwing 130 pitches (or something resembling that). Unless that study includes the effects of having an extra day of rest before the next start it's not really relevant to this situation. It is odd that last year at this time the main criticism of Yost was pulling his starters to early and over working the pen in the process. This year it's him overworking his starters. Which is it? I realize the pen was capable of absorbing the one inning without undue stress. Unless of course the pen is needed top cover 10 innings over the next five games. Unless someone can tell us how much the pen will be used in the next week or two it is hard to criticize Ned for saving them now when they have a starter both capable and willing to finish the game.

but the truth is even if he did start somewhere next year he would be 29 years old in July already on the downward slope of a career. when did 29 become on the downward slope of a career? Isn't the average age of rookies something like 26?

Many people across the country hate Selig because of the contraction fiasco, While I agree many people hate him for the contraction idea I think it was anything but a fiasco. It was IMO one of his first great moves to stop the union from just running right over the owners like they always have in the past. That was the first time the union had something to lose that they couldn't control. It finally gave the owners something they could use to force the union to make some concessions. I think if it wasn't for the contraction threat the union would never have allowed the original luxury tax to get implemented. Without that initial tax there would be no inroads made toward leveling the competitive balance. I really believe it was the first time players and the union realized how serious the owners were and that they could actually lose something permanently. I'm not so sure they ever felt it would get to the point of actually contracting the teams but it sure did change the mood of the union and Fehr. Once the union and Bud got to the point where they were working as equals. Unlike the previous way where the owners were being treated like a red headed step child. They actually started to work without the animus that had previously plagued them. He took the worst owner/union relationship in sports and made them one of the best. That is quite the accomplishment. In essence they are going in the exact opposite direction as the NFL with regard to player management relations.

I always thought teams put players on waivers in August so they could be traded immediately rather than have to wait for them to clear waivers when a trade was made. It's a preemptive move to guarantee a player can be traded without other teams blocking it after the trade was made. AS it stands if the Tigers would trade Shef w/o waiver clearance any team could claim him to block. If they put him on waivers w/o a trade in place and he clears then he can be traded w/o worry of being claimed by a team trying to block the trade.

Where do you live and how far are you willing to travel? I don't know of any off hand but I do know a lot of hunters and dog people so I'll ask around.

Nice find TLB. I think the closer role is overrated but, as Beane mentioned, if you don't have one it looks worse than it really is. It's sort of the same as lineups. Even though all of us know the order of hitters in the lineup has relatively little effect on the outcome of the game we all argue who should go where and think the manager is an idiot if he places a guy one spot too far up or down the lineup. I'm not talking we all as in the brewer fans mind you. I think it's fans for every team who gripe about every manager's lineup card or how they really need a closer. I'm every bit as guilty of that as anyone. I hated the pitcher batting 8th even though I knew it had little to no effect on the game.

What user name does that guy post under here? CUBFAN1126 OF CORSE. HE, DON'T EVIN, NO WITHC, BORDE HES, ON THE, IDYIT. WEHT KND OF MORAN ORE U IF U CANT KNOW THAT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Anybody want to take Yost over Sweet Lou today? I would. What?! Prince has apologized to the media & everyone except Parra? The coaches have told Manny that what happened was OK, but that it was a tad too far? And this is acceptable? I've never encountered an incident where I've questioned the type of ship Ned skippers more than this one, and that's saying quite a bit, I think. i think what it says is Ned agree with Fielder that Parra should have stayed to watch the team. perhaps Parra was getting a little too self centered or something. I don't think the problem was what prince said as much as how he said it. Prince did apologize for how he said what he said just not what he said. Sometimes players do need to be straightened out a bit. I know I had a teammate talk to me once after a spat of minor injuries left me less than thrilled with the world and it started to effect my attitude around other teammates. I didn't like hearing it at the time but it needed to be said. As far as the Counsell thing goes I did not and will not defend it other than to say he did turn in the defensive play of the game. It was a big play at a critical time in the game. That does not make it the right decision in my mind but I'm not very good at determining the worth of defense or even how much better one player is than the other so I'm in no way qualified to know who is better when in that regard. In the end Counsell did end up contributing in no small way to the win. If you want to say it was wrong fine but also mention it worked out the way Ned chose to do it.

I still wonder if it's personal. Yost didn't want to play Branyan over Helms during his first go-around with the Crew. I guess we'll never know but sure smells. I'm thinking along the same lines. I won't try to rationalize it because it defies reason. There has to be some sort if reason for it other than who is the better overall player. Either some sort of nagging injury or Branyan refuses to do something Ned feels is necessary and is paying the price for that refusal. No idea of which it is but htat is the only logical explanation.

It pains me to bring this back up to the front page but I think Orca has made an interesting point. What is the best way to handle being wrong? Orc makes some very good points about spin and credibility. But if I may there are some things to dissect. If you try something and it doesn't work, you are wrong--regardless of your logic for doing it--which may have had incredible validity at the time. I don't think wrong and failure are the same thing in baseball. It is not wrong to have Prince swing away with a man on first and nobody out behind by a run in the 9th even if he fails to move the man over. He could have failed to bunt him over as easily as he failed by swinging. If there are no options that don't have the potential for failure and an option has to be chosen then it cannot be wrong to make a choice. You are worng only if you make a poor choice or one for a poor reason. When they do not acknowledge mistakes they have zero credibility. People--for the most part--are not fooled by those who simply don't admit they were wrong, especially when it is obvious. when one is confronted by better logic one should admit it. So touche. You have a good point. With more thought on the subject I agree explaining why you did something and admitting it was a mistake can be useful. I do think it can be bad in some instances or to the wrong type of person so I'm not willing to do a complete turnaround but I do concede there are times a person even a leader has to do so.