Thurston Fluff

This is ignoring the fact the Dillon did, in fact, have those numbers. If Gwynn can handle AAA pitching pretty well when he's 30, then perhaps he would be a good PH in that given situation when he's 30. But right now, he's not and Dillon is. True but misses the point somewhat. Gwynn was putting up those numbers as a maturing young player. Dillon did so as an older player sort of preying on younger pitchers who were still developing. To me those numbers are more than a bit misleading with regard to how well they compare this year at this level. I don't see where he is going to develop any power. As was mentioned before the stiuation we are talking about didn't necessarily call for power. It called for getting on base. If the game was tied or we had nobady on and two ouot Dillon would have been the better choice. That wasn't the situation though. To be honest I wouldn't have had a problem with either one of them in that situation. well actually I have a probelm that they are the choice but that's another discussion al together. It really was six of one half a dozen of the other. That is more or less the point. Just because Ned didn't chose the person one of us would have doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice. There are plenty of situations were a choice is less about who is better than who gets their shot to show what they can do.

Firing people usually sucks. Once in a while there is someone so unpleasant that it doesn't bother you but that's rare. It's probably also part of the reason I'm not a fan of fire the manager/coach to shake things up rationelle. One thing I noticed though is people who get fired seem to be prepared for it. Either they sort of wanted it or they are used to it or something. Glad it went well even if you had it hanging over your head all weekend. Always better to do it on Friday though I'm sure the person getting fired would disagree with that.

With the number of decent position players coming along like LaPorta, Gamel, Escobar, and even Rottino I'd be more than happy to see Ben signed if they can. They could probably get an insurance policy on him since he hasn't had any major arm issues so the gamble wouldn't be as high injury wise as it relates to payroll restraints. As far as that cost goes St Louis took a huge chance on Carpenter who had his share of arm problems in Toronto. That seemed to work out pretty well for them even if you count the current problems he's having. Pitchers get hurt you pay them with the realization they probably will spend time on the DL. The hope is to get a couple good years out of them during that time. If they stay completly healthy then all the more power to you. It's not normal though and one just has to accept that as the price of remaining competetive.

So Dillon gets the nod becuase he was never quite good enough to get to the bigs until his 30's? Of those minor league numbers how many came as he played agianst kids just learning to play at the same level he repeated several times? I like Dillon and think he should be getting his ab's as well but to say Dillon, a career minor leaguer until this year, is vastly superior to Gwynn ignores the fact that Dillon put up some of those numbers at an age Gwynn has yet to reach. I'd expect Gwynn at 30 to be able to handle AAA pitching pretty well also. I believe the Brewers could not be any worse off with a different manager. I'm sure anyone who suffered through Davie Lopes and Jerry Royster would disagree with you on this point. While the players have definitely not done their part this year, I doubt Yost has done anything at all to inspire them. If a major league player needs inspiration they need to change proffessions. Especially young players or ones without a WS ring. Inspiration isn't the problem lack of hitting or pitching is. To me it says that they're just like any other player in the league that needs to be put in a position to succeed, but we have this unreasonable expectation out of our players to succeed in any situation at any given time. If the player is an everyday player just what postions should the manager expect them not to be able to handle? Pinch hitting is not nearly the problem as everyday players hitting below 250 at nearly every postion is the main problem. Same goes with pitching. Starters are expected to go 6. if they can't then the idea of them not being put in postion to win is completely differant than the manager's main goal of getting the most wins in a season. Every starter with few exceptions should be expected to pitch 6 and keep their team in the game. So far that has not happened with any regularity. The closer should be expected to close games. What postion is he supposed put Gagne in other than closing situations? it's not like many of Gagne's closing situation were of a real tough variety. I'm not saying he hasn't made any good moves, but I'm curious as to what you believe they are? I don't think there's been any one game where Yost clearly cost the Brewers a win, but there's certainly some moves that are questionable, ie: Gagne 4th day in a row in Cincinnati, Gwynn coming up in big RBI situations in key points in the game, and probably some more. Again, I'm not saying he hasn't made any good moves, but I want to know what you think that he did that helped the Brewers win that the players could not otherwise do themselves. I'm not going to recall every specific but he's handles the bullpen generally pretty well IMO. A major change form last year though that may simply be to havng better pitchers to work with. He managed the shortest bench in the league for a 10 day period and played with bascially a 24 man roster while Sheets was out. I thought the way he managed Turnbow all year was quite good. Some may argue that but he did keep Turnbow out of crucial games until he heard some grumbleing from T-Bow. Then Turnbow was given enough chances in tighter games to show himself and failed. Now Turnbow and, more importantly, all his teammates see Ned doing what he has to. Not making knee jerk reactions after one bad stretch or a bad outing. He gave Turnbow nobody to blame but himslef and now everyone involved sees A- Ned will give you a chance if you have some history of effectiveness and B- nobody gets a free ride forever. They have to be effective when they are given a chance.

Also, those numbers can sometimes reflect the manager. Not pulling someone at the right time affects ERA. Putting TGJ in any situation affects SLG. While a manager can make someone's numbers look better they won't help win games over the course of 162 games if the pitcher gets pulled after 5 innings becasue his ERA would go up. A starter has to be expected to go six. A closer has to be expected to save a game with a two run lead. Ned could have made Gagne's numbers look better if he had pulled him after one run but that would only lead to more problems later. TGJ is on the team so if he has to be used it isn't Ned's fault it's Doug's. I guess I just don't understand sitting here saying that nothing is Ned's fault and that it's all on the players. I've always wondered why critics always fgelt it was Ned and never seemed to realize the players he has haven't done squat yet. The point I was making is if the players are playing poorly and Ned is a poor manager how the heck is this team still winning? Some of those moves he's made must have helped somewhere along the line. What the hell does Ned do then? These players have performed in the past, so there's no reason to think they don't have the ability. It's the manager that needs to get the most out of his players. You can point to some string of luck that has us barely above .500 and say that Ned is somehow the reason for this, or you can watch his decisions in-game and decide for yourself.[/i] Ned has shown he can get it out of these very same players in the past though. Prince hit 50 homers and is now so feared he routinely gets pitched around. Hart has been consistantly good. Hall was pretty much a borderline prospect until Ned came along. Ned has also done some things with players who have't been very good the last couple years. Kendall has improved over his last couple years so far. Mota is another. If the players are not performing now it isn't the manager who isn't getting everything out of them IMO since the very same manager got more out of them in the past or is getting more out of players than the last manager they played for did. As far as putting them in position to succeed that sounds all well and good but if they can only be put in certain situations or they fail what does that tell you about the player? To me it says they aren't very good. I have heard all the games and have made my decision. To me it has nothing to do with Ned's choices this year. In the past I agreed he wasn't the greatest in game manager but liked him for other reasons. This year I don't get he critisism he gets for his in game moves. I think he's been much improved in that area. Whether it's due to Simmons or him learning from his past mistakes I don't know. I do think ultimatley the players are the ones who have let this team down so far. Yet despite all that has went wrong so far Ned has managed to get more wins out of less production under tougher circumstances than any other manager in the league so far. I just don't see why people can't accept maybe they are winning because of him vs in spite of him. Because so far it certanly isn't the players production or the schedule makers that have been the key to a winning record.

How can it be said that Ned consitantly makes bad decisions when he manages a team that is 26th in BA, 16th in runs, 22nd in hits, 20th in OBP, 17th in SLG, 24th in ERA, 24th in walks, and 28th in WHIP and still has a winning record? That despite the playing the most road games in baseball so far aginst one of the tougher schedules so far. Somewhere he must have made a few good moves. It hard to imagine he's costed this team games and this team is just that good that they still have won more than they've lost. Not if you look at how poor the players have played so far anyway.

This core is the first wave of what should be a steady stream of viable major league players for years to come. The problem most of us have is we went through an era where so few prosepcts panned out that we now worry no more are coming after this bunch. The way the Brewers have drafted post Sal Bando makes me feel like this team can continue to upgrade the team without firesales. The core so to speak will change as we find which ones pan out and which don't. If Hardy doesn't produce this season Escobar will be a capable replacement next year and so on. We trade Hardy plug in Escobar and move on. The players we get back from Hardy get plugged in as well. WE don't need this core to be the magical one that wins everything and when it's gone the team will go back to another 15 year slumber. This group is the first of a long line of players that eventually will put it all together and win it all. That was what was sold to us after the Bando era anyway.

I've been one of the people that felt Turnbow could be a valuable part of the pen for quite some time but I can't defend him anymore. It really has got to the point were he's taking up space that oculd go to someone far more useful to the team. Given his history I think he has finally reached the point of dimisnishing returns. His erraticness now far outweighs what benefit he could provide if he got back on track. Ned has treated him very fairly in trying to get him turned around. He has been given every opportunity in both crucial situations and mop up to prove himself one way or the other. At this point if Ned would use him in anysituation the outcome would likely not be benificial to the team. If he's used in a tight game the chances he would blow it are way to great. If he's used in a blowout he cannot even do the one thing asked of that type of pitcher which is to save the rest fo the pen. Note to Turnbow if Chris Spurling is more useful than you it's time to go. I don't really think it's mental though I think he just can't throw accurately enough to be effective. The relatively short amount of time he did get both his pitches over the plate may just have been an anomoly in his career.

And even if a guy can legitimately and significantly, raise his expected performance level for a short period of time, how the heck would you know? It's going to look exactly like the very typical normal variance all players go through. Coin flip luck. You don't make your lineup based on that. The way you would know is by being around the person all the time seeing their approach at the plate, batting practice, ect. The thing we do not have the abiltiy to see is when someone legitimately is seeing the ball well, has his mechanics, timeing ect all in order thus giving him the best chance for his abilities to succeed. That is the only problem I have with a completely stats related approach to who plays when. It doesn't take into account a lifetime of seeing how well someone is acuatally swinging the bat, reproducing the mechanics of their swing or pitching motion ect. Just because I am not good enough to see if someone is on a good streak due to luck vs actaully playing really well doesn't mean people more adept at it can't differentiate between the two. All the stats you wish to show me does not differentiate between the two. Numbers don't have eyes and they do not see physical evidence. If you can find a study where the manager says the guy is really in a good grove and his numbers are equally random as that of when the manager says he's playing at his usual level but getting better results due to random luck then I'll concede that point. Until the I don't think it's unreasonable to think that players could be like everyone else and have ups and downs in their professional life due strictly to just being in a groove so to speak. It is equally likely that someone immersed in a field of work all their lives would be able to see when someone was really effective due to tangible visable evidence or just getting lucky.

WhileI'm glad we upgraded from him I always respected him. Good luck at what ever you do. If he so choses I'd bet he would be good at coaching/managing down the road. Guys who have to scrap and fight for every inch always seem to do better than the guys with a boatload of talent when it comes to teaching others.

What he's done this year, offensively, is irrelevant, IMO. It tells us nothing with regard to future expections. It shouldn't even be entered into this discussion. This is a very minor point to an otherwise very agreeable take but it is not completely irrelevant. It does tell us that he is playing well right now and we might as well use him while he's hot since he inevitabley will be so cold at some point this season that he will play to his career numbers. If he has to be used, which I think we all agree he will have to be, it might as well be when he's going well. Other than that very minor point I agree with you.

I thought Ned mentioned he wanted to get Counsell in more games in a pregame show last week. IIRC he panned on getting him a couple starts a week. As far as Branyon goes I'd rather see Dillon back up before him. Dillon seemed to be able to do more than hit homers or strike out.

Gut feelings and hot-hand have no business as justification for guys getting playing time. playing the hot hand is most certainly justification for getting playing time in a particular instance. Players get into and out of streaks all the time. It only makes sense to capitalize on a hot streak. I just never understood why someone wouldn't take that into account along with overall numbers. I get one will be better in determining long term ability but short term it is no better than just going with who is playing well at the time. The "3" wins is far from a random number. Where did it come from? Is there some sort of study like the link from gifted or what? If so please post it if possible. I'd really like to see how it was done.

I think statistically people have boiled it down to a 3 game swing -- a good manager picks up three games for his team, a bad one loses 3. So the difference between Ned Yost (a bad manager) and a good manager is probably 5-6 games. How many games do you think Ned will have saved us from losing by noticing and correcting a flaw in Kendall's throws to second base on steal attempts? Do things like that get noticed like the supposed strategic mistakes that he often gets critisized for? I don't think so but doing something like that before the season even starts helps the team in a way that, in my view, win far more games than deciding whether to pinch hit for someone at a particular time. I think the Kendall example is one of many that a sound manager, with a capable staff he puts together and works with win far more games than the mistakes he may make during the game. They just aren't as noticable. Quite frankly if he's doing his job they won't be because the players will always have done it right. The Kendall example is just one that is easier to see because it was such an obvious problem under a couple differant managers and seems to have been corrected here. So for that reason I agree that perhaps it is a five or six game swing. I just respectfully disagree which direction that swing is. For reference his totals last year was 111 sb/20 cs. 59/15 in Oakland and 52/5 Cubs. With the Brewers so far he's 12/8.

2) We already hired Yost's replacement. He's sitting right next to Yost. The only question would be who do we bring in/up to be bench coach? Or do we move Sveum back to the bench and bring up a new 3rd base coach? That's assuming he would be willing to take the job after managment fired one of his friends. because he has done that before, and why else would he throw a struggling pitcher that is making his first start since an injury back out there? It's not like he was cruising along. Because his pitcher is not injured anymore and the team has played the most extra inning games in the league. Because he remembers what happened to the bullpen last year when the starters continually came out early. If Sheets would have said one word about being sore or tired or anything that might have hinted at continueing problems with his triceps I'm as convinced Ned would have pulled him as you are Ned could be replaced by a helper monkey pulling names out of a hat. Regardless of what Sheet's somewhat minor injury status is if he is going to take up a roster spot he has to be competent enough to pitch five measley innings. The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is the best way to get Sheets back up to his usual standards is to actually have him pitch. What better way to get him back on track than let him work through the rust in game?

Anyone up for a caption...? I surrender.

I was watching sports center last week and they showed the Cards and Astos bench clearing after yet another episode where a Cardinal pitcher beaned a hitter apparantly with purpose. It seems top me La Russa manages to find some sort of fault with every team he faces that can only be sovled by having his pitcher throw at someone. Many people thought LaRussa goaded Yost into a beanball war that got him kicked out of the game last season. After more thought on the subject and his rather long history of that sort of behavior I think it had nothing to do with outmanaging anyone and more to do with his insufferable attitude toward others. I'd think at some point the opposing players as well as his own would get a little sick of someone who never has to worry about actually getting hit by a 90 mph fastball calling for others to get hit on what appears to be a more regualr basis than any other manager in the game. I'm sort of curious if during one of these bench clearings if someone like Prince gets a chance to haymaker LaRussa if they will take it knowing he's usually the one who orders such nonsense to begin with.

If the fans at Miller Park boo every time the opposing pitcher makes a move to first it basically says all you need to know about the baseball intelligence of the people booing. I feel embarrassed half the time from the things I hear people talking about and the way they cheer. Every city does this. They were talking about that on the radio last week during the game. I hear it from every city every time an opposing pitcher throws to first. It's sort of an unspoken tradition throughout the league. As for Helms the only real critism I had of him when he was here is he seemed to have come into spring training out of shape after he singed his contract to be our thrid baseman. Maybe his injury had more to do with his poor performance tha tyear than being fat in camp but the injury had nothing to do with his booting easy grounders timeafter time before he got injured. Being a poor player can be understood if it wasn't for being out of shape.

The way I look at the Cubs hot streak is it didn't start until they got beat two out of three by us so it will probably finish when we beat them two out of three once again.

But I to do hate his post game press conferences. He always sounds like a condecending jerk. I won't argue about that but as someone who, as a coach, knew I was kind of a jerk at times I can't throw stones. Competition made me irritable and combative which was good for some things as a caoch but quite frankly I was not a good person in those moments. So maybe as a condecenidng jerk in the competetive arena myself I'm more inclined to overlook it in others who share that ignominious trait.

Here's the link. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/912654,CST-SPT-cubnt24.article It seemed to be part the Brewers part Hill's struggles in general. He's the fifth starter and Lou seemed to want to keep his other pitchers on 5 days rest as much as not wanting him to face the Brewers.

I thought I'd see all kinds of posts berating Yost for using Turnbow in a save situation yesterday. The reason I'm posting is because I wanted to point out one of the strong suits of Ned which can be pointed out in the use of Turnbow both during the bad and the good. In the past week he was given a chance to play in important spots of two game. He has both succeeded and failed. The point isn't so much the success or failure in either situation rather it's that Ned will allow his players the chance to prove themselves one way or the other early enough in the season to demsonstrate what they will do for the team later in the year. It would have been very easy to bury Turnbow on the bench using him only in mop up. If he did that nobody complains and Turnbow just leaves town at the end of the year. If he uses him like he has this past week, a couple times in tight games, Turnbow may correct a few things, get a little confidence and be a useful part of the team later in the season. The only way to get Turnbow going is to use him on occasion in those spots to see how he will repsond to the situation. Once would not have been enough. Twice really isn't either. He will be given a few chances to show he can still be a major contributer and he should. Over the course of a long season I believe a good manager has to challenge all his players to show they can be productive. Now I know the arguement is it cost the team games and if we lose by one game the one Turnbow blew was that game. While true enough it does not take into account how many games might be won later on if Turnbow can straighten himself out and ease the load on the other relievers. I do not believe Ned uses player he does not think are talented enough to actually play the game at this level. I just think he understands teams don't really win more games over the course of 162 burying potentially usefull players for a bad stretch of games.

What I would be way more concerned about if I was a Cub fan would be the high number of innnings pitched by the pen so far. They are overtaxing the pen over a relatively easy portion of their schedule. That would seem to indicate their starting pitching hasn't been good enough to go deep even agianst inferior opponenets. If it was jsut a case of very good starters being cold right now it'd be one thing but if you go by their career numbers Lilly and Marquis are not as good as they showed last year, Dempster may very well faulter as the inning pile up ala Looper last season and Hill just hasn't been very effective so far though he may be the one guy who can put it together yet. Overall the starters and the overused bullpen is why I feel more confident wiht the Brewers chances than the Cubs despite the current Cub lead.

Here we go again. Prince might be very muscular, and even fit, but his body fat percentage is pretty high. Just look at his midsection. The only time I ever saw anything written about his body fat % was when he was measured a few years ago in spring training and he had the lowest body fat % on the team. Not that it isn't impossible the rest of the team is just that much fatter or he could have added a few extra pounds of fat since then but it is unlikley given his diet and desire to be a complete player.

13 really since you can't really count Sheets rihgt now. But they used a lot of pitchers recently and now are a little thin in the pen as was mentioned in the JS this morning. One of the critisisms of Yost's use of Turnbow was his inability to go back to back days yet Ned would do so. Now that they don't use him and he gets it for not using him? No win situation I guess. But lets not get too far down this road in this thread since it would ruin an otherwise intereting point about our pen.I still think it does point to good things later in the year. I wonder if Ned trying to get to know his players has much to do with the even workload. Not only has he used his pitchers pretty evenly the ones he hasn't used as much are ones who were on the team last year. Shouse being the exception since his role was preordained.