Thurston Fluff

Analytics will always be a work in progress. People are finding all kinds of new things to look at and measure. Add in new technology that can make measurements possible and it seems like a long time before we come close to covering all the bases (pun intended.) I think overall analytics are fine for judging major league talent. They do quite well judging minor league talent at the upper levels but not as well at lower levels. The problem is the lower the level a players is the more he faces subpar players. At lower levels I would be more interested in how they do against true prospects than I am in how they do against roster fodder. Numbers sometimes don't show that in large enough samples sizes to help. Eyes can tell you if they are overmatched when going 0-3 against better pitchers but a stat doesn't necessarily tell you that. I don't think they work very well for judging ameteur talent or talent from international leagues. Things like exit velocity and spin rates may very well be changing that to some extent but I don't think it is enough to be trusted more than traditional scouting is at this point. Even then it has to be part of the evaluation. Just not the be all and end all.

Analytics will always be a work in progress. People are finding all kinds of new things to look at and measure. Add in new technology that can make measurements possible and it seems like a long time before we come close to covering all the bases (pun intended.) I think overall analytics are fine for judging major league talent. They do quite well judging minor league talent at the upper levels but not as well at lower levels. The problem is the lower the level a players is the more he faces subpar players. At lower levels I would be more interested in how they do against true prospects than I am in how they do against roster fodder. Numbers sometimes don't show that in large enough samples sizes to help. Eyes can tell you if they are overmatched when going 0-3 against better pitchers but a stat doesn't necessarily tell you that. I don't think they work very well for judging ameteur talent or talent from international leagues. Things like exit velocity and spin rates may very well be changing that to some extent but I don't think it is enough to be trusted more than traditional scouting is at this point. Even then it has to be part of the evaluation. Just not the be all and end all.

If the same thing keeps happening and we do the same thing to fix it why should we expect a different result? It was never the manager that was the problem so why try fixing it by firing the manager?

Yes but which pole is up and which is down is arbitrary.

Stats a player has at a specific park are pretty pointless and have little meaning. I really doubt Stearns or any GM is making decisions based off of them. I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe DS will use any and all means to make a solid decision (including these numbers). Like the spaghetti sauce "it's in there". However, I did not say DS made his decisions based on those numbers. Please note what I put in bold. DS will at least look at that info. I highly doubt his predecessor ever looked at that type of data. Doug Melvin was one of the GM's who used sabermetrics early on. Melvin, like Stearns and pretty much every GM today, use both scouting and advanced stats. An approach I agree with. To me it's more about where one uses stats or scouts, and to what degree, than if they use them at all.

3. Stearns also values prospects not named Brinson and thinks the asking price for players is too high even if Brinson isn't included. Well he traded a guy hitting 359 for a guy who could only mange 2 innings before he was demoted; and he traded our 17th ranked prospect for a guy who will pitch about 20 innings or so on what is now a 4th place team then become a FA, so it does appear he is willing to over pay to get guys he wants. Ultimately it appears he made the right call not trading for Gray as the team is in full free fall and nothing Gray could have done would have mattered at this point. What does the team's standing now have to do with trading for a guy back when the team was higher in the standings?

I never understood the terms up North and down South. We live on a round planet which makes up and down meaningless in that respect. Even if we add an arbitrary meaning to it we have it backwards. If anything it should be down North and up South. After all, it's warmer in the South and we all know heat rises.

Not to pick on you specifically for this but I just don't understand why people keep saying if we make the playoffs we have no chance against the any of the other teams. The Cardinals won a World Series with an 83 win team and Jeff freaking Suppan as their ace in the hole. They also beat the Brewers who were the better team a few years later. I think if you go back and look at playoff history you will find a lot of teams that make a deep run that do not have the best overall talent. It is fairly common for lesser teams to beat better teams in both the regular season and the playoffs. Then there is the fact that player roles, especially on the pitching side, change in the post season. You need three, maybe four, starters instead of five. That makes your bullpen longer. For a team who's pen is thin that is huge. It takes a shorter staff to win when there is no worry about tomorrow, let alone the next couple months. There is also something to be said for teams like the Brewers who seem to be more or less feast or famine on offense. If guys like Broxton and Thames get on one of their hot streaks they can carry a team for an entire series. Once teams get to the playoffs everything changes. While the odds might still be against us it isn't like we'd only have a 5% chance to win a series. I'm just guessing but I'd say it would be at least 30%, possibly higher.

I'm fairly slow to criticize managers and GM's. I tend to try to understand why management does something instead of claiming how smart a move it is (or isn't.) For the life of me I cannot understand what benefit there is using Hader like they have been. Not only does it seem to make no sense for this season but I can't see the long term benefit. As Monty57 said we are losing a year of control for a few shaky innings here and there.

I would guess that's because it was always the plan for Woodruff to start Friday. If he doesn't take that turn, I'll be very surprised. I think you'll see Brinson down for Woodruff following today's game. I just don't think they are real high on Jungmann right now for whatever reason. It's too bad because he's been very good in Colorado Springs. Complete turnaround from last year. I think if he is doing well now let him continue doing what he is doing. Judging from his comments last season, how he pitched last combined with his mental break that saw him basically start over last season I'd guess they want him to stay in a situation that seems to be working for him right now. Sometimes letting well enough alone is the best coarse of action. He's having success right now. Let him have more and see if that can help him for long term success. The worst thing that could happen to him now would be to come up and get hammered.

I would guess that's because it was always the plan for Woodruff to start Friday. If he doesn't take that turn, I'll be very surprised. I think you'll see Brinson down for Woodruff following today's game. I just don't think they are real high on Jungmann right now for whatever reason. It's too bad because he's been very good in Colorado Springs. Complete turnaround from last year. I think if Jungmann is doing well now let him continue doing what he is doing. Judging from his comments last season, how he pitched last combined with his mental break that saw him basically start over last season I'd guess they want him to stay in a situation that seems to be working for him right now. Sometimes letting well enough alone is the best coarse of action. He's having success right now. Let him have more and see if that can help him for long term success. The worst thing that could happen to him now would be to come up and get hammered.

I think what is shows is how much they thought of Scott and Nieuwenhuis. But if you think what you said then you must agree that this is just back of a roster adjustment. Every team makes that over the course of the year. That means this isn't an actual deadline move and the timing was incidental. If the timing was incidental then judge the move itself based on the value of the players involved. If you are just angry that they are not making a major move I understand. But I don't think that has a lot to do with this trade. At least not if you think Jefferess would have been available for nothing anyway.

I'm not all that surprised the market for relievers isn't what it was last season. It's hard to imagine that many GM's would lose their minds two seasons in a row. Why they suddenly became the rage was beyond my understanding. I get that a good bullpen is vital for a WS run but relievers are so fickle there isn't much reason to give the farm up for extra control. Half the time you end up trading them for PTBNL or DFAing them before their contract is up anyway. Paying something for a rental having a good year seems a wiser move to me.

I wish him nothing but the best. He came up before he was ready and filled in admirably from the start. His time here was one of the best stretches for catcher in franchise history. I wish Texas would have been able to get the value for him the Brewers did but that is on them. If he has a decent stretch to finish the season he may still land a decent contract. Especially if the Rockies got to the playoffs and he does well in them. Someone is always willing to overpay for that sort of thing. I really hope he does get overpaid. Not just to balance it out for him but because it would hurt whatever team does it.

AS much as I hate to say this about the Cubs but this was a great thing to do. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2724861-steve-bartman-will-receive-2016-cubs-world-series-ring Side note: I was going to say classy but that word is forever tainted.

I'm willing to give him a pass on the pen this season for a few reasons. Even good relievers are hard to gauge year to year so it made sense to mine for nuggets in what was supposed to be a non competitive year. Low risk, high reward was the right call to make IMHO. It failed this season. We found ourselves in a pennant race due to other teams being ineffective more than anything so I can't even blame Stearns for not predicting how competitive we would be. More than that though, bullpens are high risk for every team every season. No matter how much you invest in them, bullpens are always in flux. Had we not traded Thornburgh, Smith and Jefferess last season the pen wouldn't be in any better position today for example. Yet nobody could have blamed the GM for that based on their history. It's just such a crap shoot that I am not going to judge a GM on a single season of failure. If this becomes a regular occurrence then it may be time to worry about his judgement.

Agreed. We need look no further than Ted Thomson's approach to free agency to see how action, any action, is easier than no action.

I have never been one of those who got on you for your comments. Hell more than once we've joined together on some less than popular positions here. That said I think to so definitively state that this team is stung by the Cubs aggressiveness and the brewers passiveness is well out of what you can possibly know. You are better off sticking to opinions based on observable facts or reports. I am fine with your opinion about how we should go for it even though I disagree. Not so fine with making outlandish statements that are not based on anything at all to back up your opinion.

Usually the second year of a rebuild is the worst. All the good veteran players get traded in year one and it takes a year or two for the new players to make it to the majors. So year two tends to be a lot of losing with little movement in the personnel front to get excited about. Yet here we sit in year two with a competitive team and some hope to remain so for at least a while longer. For a summer of fun (so far) in a year I wasn't expecting any I am grateful.

Usually the second year of a rebuild is the worst. All the good veteran players get traded in year one and it takes a year or two for the new players to make it to the majors. So year two tends to be a lot of losing with little movement in the personnel front to get excited about. Yet here we sit in year two with a competitive team and some hope to remain so for at least a while longer. For a summer of fun (so far) in a year I wasn't expecting any I am grateful.

Being below average is not the same as replacement or garbage. I think the point being made is you don't seem to have any room between garbage and average. Not all players who produce below expectations/average are garbage. Garbage is completely useless. Broxton is not completely useless.

Not only is it possible I'd expect the Brewers to pick it up. You don't often get a starting pitcher for a $5M one year deal unless there are more serious risk factors than Garza has. Not saying he is risk free obviously, but he is not coming off surgery or been terrible. His health issues are more or less minor and he has shown the ability to pitch with declining velocity. If he doesn't pan out at all it's not a major financial loss. If he does he adds some depth to a fairly young, unproven pitching staff.

That makes no sense though. "You're going to sit on the bench until you learn to throw strikes."? Send him down if that's the case. He's not a 26 year old finished product. If he's not going to pitch regularly in Milwaukee he needs to be pitching regularly somewhere, whatever role that may be. But he isn't just sitting on the bench. There is more to learning about being a major leaguer than just playing in the games. He is getting coaching and learning what it takes to pitch to major league hitters then getting some chances to put what he's learning into action. Just sending him down to CS might not be the best way to learn at this point. It is a weird place to pitch and one has to think that has to play some part in it as well. In an ideal world, from Hader's development perspective, the Brewers could either use him a lot and let him learn because the team isn't in contention or they could send him down to a normal AAA pitching environment. Thankfully, the Brewers are in contention and cannot afford to let him learn on the fly. Regrettably, the Brewers do not have a normal AAA pitching environment to let him work in so that option isn't ideal. I tend to think this is the best way forward for everyone involved. What I do not think is this is somehow going to ruin him because I just don't believe either Counsell or Stearns would do anything that stupid. I think saying he is going to be ruined over this is overstated. Not trying to pick on you personally for that, everybody does sometimes. Lord knows I have overstated things many times. The great thing about this site is people point out those instances so we all stay on an even keel.

He will not be a viable major league pitcher without it changing. Don't be fooled by the ERA which is meaningless over this sample, Hader has not pitched well at all. I trust every RP in the pen over him except for Scahill who shouldn't be on the team. The way he is being used I think Counsell probably agrees. I expect it to improve over time, but until it does improve he really isn't trustworthy. If Counsell thinks Hader is the second worst pitcher in the bullpen then Stearns is pretty much ruining him by having him on the major league roster. I'm pretty sure Stearns and Counsell are smarter than that. i don't think Stearns is going to risk ruining one of the highest rated left handed pitching prospects in baseball. If anything I think it's more likely they want him to understand what it takes to be an effective major league player by not playing him much if he walks too many. I think if he cuts the walks down his playing time will go up accordingly. Maybe this isn't babying at all. It just might be tough love. A learn to pitch to major league hitters and you get to pitch to more major league hitters sort of thing.

Bullpen roles are silly. If Hader is the best matchup for a hitter or a group of hitters, he should pitch against that hitter of group of hitters. Whether its in the 5th inning with 1 out or the 13th inning with two outs. Roles are why bullpens fail because managers fall in love with preconceived notions of situations rather than the facts of what is happening in the moment. Wouldn't you agree facts of the moment are subordinate to how a bullpen does over a season? Perhaps overall bullpen performance is tied to at least semi defined roles even if a certain reliever might seem better suited to a different time than usual. I know I am in the minority on this, outside of virtually every manager ever that is, but I think generally defined roles are a good thing. I read a post above that said "The issue is that CC, like almost every manager, does not understand how to use a bullpen and solely determines when to use different pitchers based on the inning. Nothing else is taken into consideration. Since it was the 6th, there was a 0% CC would have used his "7th inning" guy, or "setup man" or certainly not "closer"." If all the mangers are doing it then there must be some reason for it. I just don't buy into the idea that they all do it because that is the way it has always been done nor do I think it is done without consideration. Considering how bullpen usage has changed over time it's obvious to me most managers arrived at this situation for some reason. That reason is not just to frustrate fans. I think it is done because it is the best way to get the most out of the whole pen. To me this whole debate about proper use of the bullpen is like the debate in football about the prevent defense. All coaches do it because they will all tell you the numbers back them up. Yet everyone thinks it is the stupidest thing to do and the only thing it does is prevent you from winning. Somehow I side with coaches on that as well.