Thurston Fluff

It is apparent the moves made by Doug Melvin (Branyan, CC) jump started this team, and have so far cancelled out the ineptitude of one Mr. Yost. Good thing Ned has such an awesome GM, or he would look worse than Cecil Cooper does right now. If it wasn't for Sabathia and Branyan Hall would never have won two games in a row, on the road, against a team we are chasing. Truth is it takes a team to win. Yost and Melvin make a pretty good management team. Bill Hall is a good example of why Ned is so good. This is a guy who lost his starting role to someone else and was mad about it. But did Ned allow Bill to wallow in self pity or disrupt the team? NO Bill let out some of his frustration then got back to work and continued to work his way back to his original role. Much of credit has to go to Bill Hall, whom I am gaining more respect for by the day, but some of it goes to Ned as well. If Bill had lost respect for Ned that type of situation turns into a real problem like the Mets situation did when they lost respect for Randolph. Ned knows how to keep his players playing through distractions and adversity. In the they end up better players for it. Ned's ability to keep players focused is why I believe he wins far more games for the team through his leadership than he loses with some debatable moves within the game. (fixed blue text on blue background --1992)

Villy's updated Marcel projection ERA for remainder of '08: 4.32 Torres's updated Marcel projection ERA for remainder of '08: 4.07 So using better or more appropriate stats confirmed Torres is the better option to prevent a run from scoring. Thank you. It is much better to be shown the stats that work better than simply being told the ones I used were wrong. In any event I think it's far better to keep the better pitcher in the game to hold a lead than it is to take him out and hope to score another run. Especially considering it would have took two hits or an extra base hit to score the run.

Lots of choices here. FIP or xERA if you insist on looking at single season stats. 3 or so year FIP and xERA trends, and the constituent stats that determine them (pitching peripherals). Updated Marcel projections. A weighted combination of the better projection systems (Pecota, ZiPS, CHONE, etc.) and this season's results. These are great at telling who is better overall or who would be the best player for the money or the most productive over a long period of time. When determining one instance in one game with minutes to evaluate, calculate and cross check all the relevant stats I think it's better to make that choice based on a quick reference what players have done this year. Ned has a one run lead and no guarantee of more no matter who he has hit. He wants to make sure he picks the guy who has done the best job of not allowing runs to score. ERA does that. Torres has done a better job at not allowing runs to score. Go ahead and check your other stats and see what you get. But do it in two minutes or less. That's about the amount of time Ned had. All the others are fine for other uses and long term predictions. Not so fine with choices that have to be made now. I'd be interested to see if my ERA use turns out to be wrong. If not then it seems like the quick and dirty evaluation worked. It amazes me how I used a stat to counter someone who doesn't use any and I'm the one who is questioned. What evidence was used to determine the relative value of a pinch hitter in one run game in extra innings vs the superior pitcher? Until someone wants to give me real evidence I'll continue to think my limited use of stats is superior to none at all. So far that is the alternative in this particular discussion.

Pretty much my point. It's a better risk to spread the money around to relievers than piling a lot of money on one guy long term. If we paid CoCo we have the same level closer this year and very little else to go with it.

You cannot be serious. No I wasn't just forgot to put the smiley dude there. With all due respect, this is where your problem begins -- using half a season's ERA to determine talent. ERA is not = 'odds' When determining odds that a run will cross in any given inning the earned runs a pitcher gives up would seem to me to be relevant. Predictive no, but when balancing out whether pinch hitting for the superior pitcher would give the team a better chance of winning than the seeing how much better one pitcher is doing than the other in not allowing runs to score is at least relevant. It certainly is better than just arbitrarily saying one move is better without even looking. I don't think there is much doubt in anyone's mind that Torres is the better pitcher this year. I was just illustrating how much better he is this year. How much better he is was relevant to whether it was wise to let him hit in that particular instance or not.

Just thought I'd check on CoCo and see how he's doing vs Torres to see how much we lost with letting CoCo go. His ERA and WHIP are higher but that was to be expected in that park. What surprised me is he blew 6 saves in 26 chances. Torres has blown 4 in 21 chances. CoCo had a great year and will be a good closer for several more IMO but at what price? It just goes to show no matter how good a closer you have there are some out there to be found that are cheaper with a decent chance of being as effective any given year.

the only way this makes sense is if they think they can sign Wolf and thought Reineke just wasn't going to pan out. Or they feel they can pitch him for a start or two then spin him off for something they like as much or more than Reineke.

Torres is a good pitcher, but the diffrence between Torres batting and Gabe Kapler batting is much greater than Villaneuva vs Torres pitching. Torres has a 2.73 ERA Villy a 4.87. Two runs in a one run game difference seems to be more problematic than Torres making an out at the plate in a one run game than the possibility that Kapler would succeed pinch hitting. Especially considering Torres in now hitting .500 for the season. To further illustrate the difference between Villy and Torres pitches 1-15 Torres ERA is 2.67 Villy 4.60. Pitches 16-30 Torres 1.89 ERA, Villy 5.51. Only after 31 pitches does Villy do better. Torres threw 22 pitches so the second inning was more or less the 16-30 range vs Villy's 1-15. That is an ERA difference of 1.89-4.60 for a 2.71 run difference. Going with the better pitcher in extra innings, with a one run lead, seems to me would give the team a lot better chance to win the game than pinch hitting with the lead and going with a pitcher more than twice as likely to give up a run that inning.

I fear Guillermo Mota from afar, yet those closest to him continue to let him pitch! I'll admit Mota does put a strain on my Yost love.

I think this is more Melvin than Yost. He doesn't like to give up on hard throwing relievers. We had the same debate in spring with McClung and whether he should just be DFA'ed and if someone wanted him no dig deal. So I can't say I'm surprised Melvin would do this again even though I'd rather Stetter stayed. Maybe he's as right about Mota turning it around as he was with McClung but there is a lot more evidence of Mota being what he is than McClung being what he was previous to this year.

I think platooning Bush/McClung home/road is a bad idea, because it gets SP out of their routine of going every 5th day or so. It happens to be Yost's idea, but that's not why it's a strange or bad idea. If the idea worked out ok, it would not change my opinion that the concept is a poor one. But reasons like it would screw up the routine or put pressure on them or that it will adversely effect the bullpen all seem to be things that everyone brings up anytime anything new is tried. It's almost like the old school guys who thought inter-league play would ruin the WS or that the wildcard waters down the playoffs and makes the divisional races less interesting. Those were legitimate arguments made by very astute baseball people like Bob Costas that turned out to be completely off base. No one would have known for sure unless it was tried. We will never know if you are right or not unless someone tries it. Same with the five man rotation or the specialized bullpens of today. Those were new concepts once as well. I think there was opposition to that sort of new thing then as well. Probably with a bunch of sky is falling scenarios along with it. Not saying your doubts are that type of extreme scenario TLB your fears might be warranted. That being said... This is one of those times where the risk reward factor is in favor of trying it. This idea may very well may turn out to be a poor one. If it is the risk isn't all that high. I don't think this platoon will be what determines the postseason unless there is some sort of extreme outcome one way or the other of doing this. It is the fifth starter they are trying to weasel a little more effectiveness out of. They either do it by this or they do it by picking a guy and hoping it's the right decision. Picking the wrong guy would have as much, probably more, detriment to the team as doing this. At worst it gives them more time to make the final call on who is best suited for that spot.

I think Cub fan is right to a degree. The problem Harden has is throwing too many pitches/inning. Last night he threw .56 pitches/IP less than normal this year. I took a look at his pitches/inning vs Sheets, Zambrano and Sabathia just for the heck of it. Harden pitches an average of 16.56 pitches/inning pitched. He had on month (june) that was well under 6 at 15.57 to drive down the P/IP a little every other month he had at least 16.3/IP. Zambrano was the lowest at 15.45/IP. Sheets was 15.46/IP Sabathia was 15.47/IP. Like Harden he had one odd month (April) that was 18.87/IP so that drove his average up a little. Take it for what it's worth but I think there is some correlation between Pitches/IP and injury. Harden would be example A.

considering the makeup of the pen Mota in the 6th isn't that bad a place for him. The team has time to comeback if he implodes and they have to use him sometime when a game is not completely out of reach. Using Mota earlier in games now means the other relievers are still fresh in the dog days of August. Ned learned last year that using only the most productive relievers too often means they don't do as well late in the year. Mota can be a bridge to the late season by taking some middle innings now. As long as he isn't pitching late in close games I'm ok with him this month. At this point of the year Ned can't be afraid to use the all players he has. If he is then they shouldn't be on the team anymore.

Bottom line is any Tony LaRussa team is going to be good and a contender. Who managed the Cards last year a LaRussa impersonator? I agree the Cards are better than people give them credit for. They have a good offense and defense. The pitching has benefited from that but I still think they fade because they just don't have enough pitching. I know many people believe Duncan can fix any middle of the road pitcher and make them top of the rotation but Kip Wells sort of shot that theory down last year. I'd compare this rough stretch for the Cubs to the rough stretch the Brewers had early in the year -- it's not that they're unable to hit the ball hard; it's that they're hitting balls hard right at defenders. right on. They are a good team going through a rough stretch. Whether they really were as good as they appeared earlier in the season or if they simply beat up on bad teams for the most part is debatable. I thought they would be better than last year but didn't think they were as good as they looked earlier this year. The Brewers and Cubs are both slightly better than last year IMO. Should be a great finish to the season.

Actually diesmitty you sound just like a Brewer fan rooting for his team. Nothing wrong with that. You should be excited about being in first place. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also be nervous. Basically i think the Cubs held serve so to speak. As far as losing key players we have as well. We didn't have Gallardo for most of the year that was a crushing blow to our team. It'd be like losing Dempster. Capuano was lost before the season even started and we have navigated through that and a couple other injuries during the toughest part of our schedule. If the Cubs can do as well as the Brewers did then they will win. I do think there should be concern that the Cubs did not put very much distance between them and the Brewers while having the favorable part of the schedule.

In that 22-19 stretch they had a road record of 10-16 and a home record of 11-4. The strength of schedule had them seeing teams below .500 in 39 games and only 12 vs teams with a winning record. Of those 12 games with above .500 teams they went 3-3 at home and 2-4 on the road. That means they played against losing teams on the road at a 8-12 clip. Just pointing out why Cub fans should be concerned. They have had the easiest end of the schedule and they couldn't get more than three games up on the third place team.

Seems we'll be in a fight for "how deep our SP will go" before we have to go to shaky BP. This is why I think the Harden trade didn't do all that much for the Cubs. They have essentially traded a lot of depth for the best 5 inning pitcher in baseball who gets hurt an awful lot. Even if he stays healthy this guy is not good for the pen. Most of the national media think the Cubs have a lot stronger pen than the Brewers. I think both are still unknowns. They have Wood as a closer we have Torres. Why would one be considered so much more stable in that role than the other? If anything the advantage constancy/predictability wise should go to the Brewers. They have a great 8th inning man in Marmol but he has been anything but good lately. He might have been worn out a little by Pinella. After that they have the same as we do. A bunch of middle of the road veteran releivers who will do well in stretches and not so good in others. Two things that should play into our bullpen's favor is we have two innings eater type starters and a favorable schedule where they have one and a tougher schedule going forward. That should test the true merit of their pen.

He moved away from that for no apparent reason. It's almost like he has to do somehting crazy jsut to show he's creative Not true. He moved away from it because Hardy didn't like it and Kendall was the only guy it made sense to hit 9th.

For Bush to be ready to start on Saturday he really can only pitch tonight and maybe an inning on Wednesday which is the day he'd normally throw off the mound. If one of the 2 were a true long reliever you would be able to use him more often. True but I see it as the same as one guy not being able to pitch due to being used the day before or three days in a row. Ned will have to plan the use of those two looking ahead to their workload instead of back to it. Not really all that much different in my mind. I'm sure if you already have doubts about Ned's ability in that area this only compounds the worry of how well he does looking both ahead and back. Can he really chew gum and walk at the same time sort of worry? But the premise of a platoon leaves doubt in a players mind as to what to expect in the future. I don't see this as any different than a pitcher who knows he's on a short leash. Nobody has certainty when they know all it takes is one or two bad outings to be removed from their role. That does not mean they won't perform well knowing they have to in order to keep their job. If Bush pitches well, will he earn the spot? Ultimately I think he would. I really think they just want to see a little more of McClung as a starter to help them make future decisions. If McClung pitches and Bush doesn't then Bush goes to the pen. If they both do well then and only then would this platoon thing stick around for a while. Why mess with it if it's working? When all is said and done, if the Brewers make the playoffs both of them will be in the bullpen. Who cares who the #5 starter is right now, as long as its the best pitcher available. So true. But if they do want to use Bush in the pen in the playoffs it would be better to see how he does now. Maybe this is good for the playoffs if we get there. Bush gets a taste of working there and the Brewers get to see what he does in that role. At this point they don't know who the best pitcher available is and it doesn't hurt to see what each can do in different roles while making that determination.

I have no idea. There may be a logical explanation -- but I don't think you change your methods until you identify a cause. By this reasoning you don't change Weeks role unless we know why he's not hitting well. It doesn't matter the cause if the plan is to not have him do it anymore. If he was going to pitch away from home then it makes a lot more sense to know the reason why. Long term they will look for reasons why. Short term it makes a heck of a lot more sense to not have him play where he doesn't play well than just bash your head against a wall looking for answers that haven't shown themselves for three years doesn't it? Perhaps -- but this argument is saying Dave Bush pitched poorly in Park A, therefore he will pitch poorly in Park B. Does Bush pitch poorly in every park that is not Miller Park? -- Of course not. He really hasn't been good in any national league park except Turner Field were he pitched a total of 7 innings. The only two that could be considered good are Turner field where he has 1 game, 7 IP, 1.29 ERA, .071 WHIP, .160 BAA and 5/1 K:BB. Hiram Bithor in the Dominican is the other I'm not bothering to put up the numbers since it's not relevant anymore but roughly similar to Turner Field. No other park has an ERA under four and plenty of real ugly ones. The other places he hasn't been horrible in was RFK with a 4.09 ERA 9/3 K:BB, but a 1.55 WHIP and 304 BAA. The only other parks he has an ERA under 5 is Wriggley with 4.78 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, .258 BAA, 24/8 K:BB, in 32 IP. Minute maid park 4.31 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, .308 BAA, 20/4 K:BB in 31.1 IP. Coors field with 4.50 ERA. 1.20 WHIP, .270 BAA in two starts lasting a total of 10 IP. The rest just gets plain old ugly. All in all his two best places that have any amount of starts in them are Rogers Centre and Miller park. Both coincidentally are parks where the majority of his starts where his home park. If Ned wants to go statistically park by park Bush wouldn't be making a whole lot of starts on the road regardless of which park the played in.

Bush and McClung are starting pitchers. McClung has been a starter less than half a year. Before the season nobody here had any belief what so ever that he would be able to be effective in the pen let alone start. That is why I think Yost doesn't want to officially send him back to the pen yet. Real definitive knowledge on his ability as a starter is still far from complete.

If defined roles are such a bad thing in the pen why is defined roles such a good thing in the rotation? I have no idea whether this is going to turn out well or not. Neither do any of us. It hasn't been tried yet. The five man rotation was something that met it's fair share of criticism when it was first introduced. Some of the claims that a five man rotation meant less starts buy the best four pitchers in favor of a weaker #5 or the five man rotation messed with the starters routine turned out to be more than balanced out by the benefits. For that reason I'll reserve judgment on it's productivity when there is some valid evidence one way or the other. When I look at these type of situations I always assume the manager is not a complete idiot. Complete idiots rarely get to that high a level in any profession. So I'm left whit trying to understand the rationale. I think Ned is doing this for several reasons. One is he wants to see both Bush and McClung start because they need to see what they have in McClung as a starter for the future. They want to do that without unduly harming the present. We don't know how Bush will be in the pen. This way we get to see each of them in both roles for (my guess) a month or so without a major effect on the team. What I see is Ned working with incomplete data on McClung and Bush (in the pen) and trying to get a clearer picture, buying time so to speak, to make a clearer more reasonable resolution past that. I guess, worst case scenario, it so negatively effects both pitchers that they both turn into a bowl of jelly and can never pitch again. The chances of that are so mind numbingly slim that realistically the real negative has far less impact on the team and players. realistically the worst case scenario is we miss the one good start Bush would have had on the road that McClung simultaneously sucked in where the offense didn't bail him out and the team lost. The best possible scenario is it turns out to be the greatest idea since the five man rotation and is adapted by all the teams and becomes the norm in a few years. The chances of that are so mind numbingly slim that realistically the real gain is we see more of both pitchers in both roles to determine who is best in what role. Then Ned makes a more informed decision and we lose nothing in the process. All in all I see it as a move that won't have much impact one way or the other while the actual platoon is in effect. It may have an effect later if we get the right guy in the pen and the right one in the rotation down the stretch. I don't see this as having any different effect than having the #5 starter and long man rotate after every bad outing or two like so many managers do when searching for that effective 5th starter.

6) Wendy - Left with a completely barren cupboard from the mismanagement of the team and a difficult MLB environment, the ship is stabilized and begins to point in the right direction. Commissioner Selig makes progress in revenue sharing and battles the players union. The long battle for Miller Park is won and financial collapse is avoided. The team stays in Milwaukee. Dean Taylor comes in and while performing poorly on a major league level, puts in many of the building blocks to rebuild the horrendous minor league system. Eventually Doug Melvin is brought in, further upgrading the baseball management side. She guides the franchise through a sale process and not only secures a more stable financial future for her family, but places the team in solid hands for the city of Milwaukee. Wendy was left with Sal Bando as GM but she extended his contract when she should have been looking for someone else. She allowed the poor me small market mentality to be an excuse instead of finding someone who could work with the cards dealt them. If she had fired Bando when she should have and went with someone who understood the value of drafting and developing young players she wold have been a lot better off. That is all on her. She was not around for the stadium deal that was Bud. She did bring in Taylor but that didn't exactly turn out to be a great hire either. The team only turned it's fortunes around when she stepped down.

Bud Selig was once championed, yes, but what did Wendy Selgi Preib ever do with the club? I am honestly asking because I have no idea. She managed to run the team into the ground and tarnish her dads legacy. Wasn't that enough?

Last year at the end of the season when he was arguing at calls every day is what I want to see from a manager. Isn't his meltdowns last year one of the criticisms people had of him? I don't think demonstrations in the dugout makes the players any less likely to make a stupid play. It only angers them to be shown up in public. I have no doubt that Ned pulls them aside out of sight and tells them when he is unhappy with their play. I think airing out a player is best done privately. It gets the point across and doesn't needlessly embarrass the person.