Thurston Fluff

Braun seems like he's getting going.

I still believe. Why? Because this is a very streaky team. For every horrific down turn we are capable of an equally huge upswing. It is also a much better team than the bottom feeder it is now. It was a slightly better than .500 team last year and are basically the same this year. Add those things together and we should have a pretty dang good stretch ahead of us. Things always even out. If we start bad all that means is things will get better. Injuries happen. The good part about them so far is they are not season ending. That means when the players do come back they will not be worn out in the dog says of August and September. Is it likely to end in a playoff push? Probably not. But I for one will not give up hope after a month of play, let alone 13 games. If that is unrealistic so be it. I'd rather be myopic than miserable.

5. Aramis Ramirez: I had low expectations to begin with but he can't even reach those. Can still make contact and should get some hits with better luck but bat speed and ability to drive the ball are in his past. Maybe he should consider moving up his retirement date by a few months. Give him some time before writing him off. He tends to start slow most seasons. Age is a easy excuse and it might be contributing somewhat to his lack of power but his inability to hit at all is premature. Especially considering his history of slow starts. 7. Scooter Gennett: Talk about a manager sending mixed signals to a player?? Wow. All offseason, they proclaim confidence in Gennett's ability vs. both RH and LH pitching, then for the most part he's relegated to unfamiliar and taxing 8th spot in the order after hitting at the top of the order most of last year and with the rest of the lineup so inept, the plan to let him play vs. LH pitching gets tossed out the window. No wonder Scooter too is pressing. Since when has hitting in the 8th spot been more taxing than hitting at the top of the order? His struggles have nothing to do with where he is hitting, his familiarity with that spot in the order, nor the mixed messages he is supposedly getting. He just isn't hitting a lick right now. His major problem seems to be not taking pitches out of the zone. I don''t know if that can be attributed to pressing but if it is the reason he is pressing it most likely has to do with why all of them seem to be at the moment. They want to do too much because they know how badly they are struggling as a group. Other than those two I think you have some pretty good points.

What about a person like me who loves Seinfeld but never liked Calvin and Hobbes? You're just a lost cause. Seriously though I think part of the problem for me wasn't just Seinfeld. It was the whole standup comedian turned sitcom fad back then. Tim Allen, Rosanne Barr, Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, Ellen DeGeneres pretty much anyone who had an HBO special over the previous decade suddenly did a sitcom. None of which was as funny as their standup stuff. I would get all hyped to see them only to find each one less interesting than the last. Even Seinfeld's mantra of a show about nothing wasn't all that fresh. Married With Children did that first in the sense that it was not there to teach us all a lesson or be a moral compass. It was simply there to be funny.

At least the bad stretch isn't a long losing streak. When things are going bad scratching out a win every series helps keep us in range for when the good times start rolling.

When I saw him play every day I thought he was ok. When he left I was reminded of what good really was. I realized he only seemed ok because I saw so many years of bad play I didn't even remember what good was anymore. That and I'd have to admit he was so cool to have on the team I kind of rationalized that it wasn't so bad.

I just read the letter E is breaking it's silence. Refuses not to be heard when it's part of the word anymore. What this means for the Olympics isn't known but according to officials probably not much since it was not involved in them. Not to worry Patrick. I knew what you meant. Certainly didn't take offense to it. I just thought it was ironic that I came to post something pretty stupid, yet funny to me, and read that.

IF we win tonight we will have the exact same record the the Cards did after 10 games last season. It's looking more like a championship season already.

If often wonder the 1600's style of art, music and architecture ever lost it's popularity. After all if it isn't Baroque why fix it? I came here to post that then I saw your post Patrick425. I never liked Seinfeld. If that is the benchmark of comedy I chose my profession poorly. No offense taken though. As long as enough people pay me to make them laugh I am good with not being funny.

Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's assassination. One can only imagine what he would be doing today if that had not happened.

We are so good right now we don't even have to play our best to beat the Cards. On their opening day against Wainwright no less!!!

Right... so we should celebrate players doing exactly what they are paid to do? Hooray for mediocrity? That probably should have been in blue. My point is trying to do a thread where only pointing out the bad things does not in any way show that this team is that bad. That one happened the same night as the bad plays did. I could just as easily post about Ian Desmond making three errors in one game which is pretty much par for the course in his career. I could have mentioned how stupid it was for Pittsburgh have the five hitter sac bunt in the second inning last night. I could point out Oakland and the Yankees have more errors than we do. I could mention a lot of things. Point being setting up a thread only to show the bad is nothing more than reinforcing a preconceived notion. If there is to be a discussion that shows we are worse at it then we need to look at more than just things we want to believe are true. As has been pointed out already most base running metrics, while imperfect, do not show we are terrible at it. In fact better than the Cards IIRC. Ditto for team defense. WE are pretty middle of the road in both. Something that shouldn't surprise us considering we are a pretty middle of the road team overall. Gomez is a perfect example of this... he consistently throws to the wrong base and makes poor decisions with the baseball, that's been a continual knock on him from the Mets, to the Twins, and now the Brewers. There are many attributes to like about Carlos, but he's not a heady baseball player, all of his positives come from his tremendous athleticism. We are talking about the same guy aren't we? The guy who won a gold glove? The one who is regarded as one of the best overall fielders in the game today. The one who managed to stay in the majors with the Mets, Twins and Brewers despite being horrible offensively because of his defense? Who cares how he accomplishes it? I would rather have him miss a cutoff man once in a while than not get to balls that would be doubles with any other center fielder. How anyone can complain about Gomez's defense is beyond me. Think about what you asking of him if being one of, if not the, best center fielders in the game isn't good enough? The frustration, at least as I see it in regards to the Brewers is not that players make mistakes, is that they will continually make the same boneheaded mistakes game after game and year after year. As do plenty of players on all teams throughout the history of the game. I've already mentioned Ian Desmond and his error prone history. Or Fernando Vina's bad base running throughout his career. Even playing for the mighty Cardinals and Tony LaRussa. It isn't limited to the Brewers. Why are so many players allowed to continue to make the same mistake over and over again on multiple teams? Because they are all good enough in other areas to still be an asset. It's fine to get frustrated with it. I certainly do. That is not the same as thinking it is only our team that puts up with it or that we are particularly bad about it. Absolutely wrong. Any out is way worse than any non-out. 1) the drop in scoring chances from a runner on 3B and X outs vs runner on 2B with X outs is way better than runner on 2B with Y outs and NO RUNNER at all with Y+1 outs. 2) Based on lengthy analysis, a Caught Stealing negates 2 SB or simply making an out takes away 2 bases so a runner being conservative and not taking an extra base only equates to half an out. Not at all equal. From which years did you get your metrics from? Have all of those metrics come form the post defensive shift era or are some of them from before. Are they taken as a whole generic or are they particular to a team with a fairly low OBP? I have already posted quite clearly why the assumptions people make today based on information collected a decade or more ago might not be valid. I also posted quite clearly how all that information is being used wrong when applied to a specific team. Perhaps you would be kind enough to share where your data comes from, how current it is and how accurate to this particular team's makeup it is. Then I could determine if it works for this team.

http://m.brewers.mlb.com/news/article/117160984/brewers-khris-davis-makes-show-stealing-catch-in-left-field I get your points about our specific team needing to push the envelope and take the risks but I still think the math would work out for us not to burn the outs so willy nilly. You will get no argument from me other than we aren't especially bad at doing that. Nor are we especially good at not doing it. So we should work to get there. This season in particular. We don't have the talent to overcome too many mistakes.

Wasn't a big lesson of Moneyball to not give a way outs because you only get so many per game? Your point is true but overall big picture and mathematically it's better to conserve the outs. Actually the big lesson I learned was to look for undervalued assets. Those things change as the game does. As a matter of fact I just read this past winter an article about how stolen bases were more valuable last season than in years past. That the presumed 75% success rate to be worth it was actually somewhat lower. While that may be an anomaly we do have less runs scoring so it does make some amount of sense. I'd guess defensive shifts and better overall pitching have something to do with that. If it's harder to get consecutive hits it makes doing more with the few you get more valuable than it used to be. Personal opinion here but I think sometimes advanced metrics get misused when it comes to managing. It isn't as simple as plugging in a generic formula based on all teams over a decade of play and determine how this team will score the most runs. Sabre metrics are great to use to build a team. I don't think those type of analysis are as good at maximizing a particular team's potential. Not unless you can spend all you want to build the perfect team specifically for those metrics. As far as giving up outs yes it is bad. But so is giving up a run to save an out in an age where runs are harder to come by. Ultimately we are talking about what an acceptable rate of stupidity that is bound to happen with any philosophy. Be it stupidly stopping at second when you could have taken third or stupidly running into an out at third. If we had a bunch of high OBP guys I would be fine with station to station baseball. Then a conservative mistake would be less costly over time. We don't so I am not. And really the whole point here was the times when they're massively thrown out or when the situation makes it completely wrong to take any risk. I think we're all fine with generally being aggressive since we have speedy players for the most part and it creates a more entertaining game. In your situation, I think we all agree to be aggressive if there's 1 out and try to get to 3rd and if it's a bang bang play then so be it. If you're thrown out by 4 steps you were clearly wrong or if you get thrown out going for 3rd with 0 outs (lind the other day) then you're wrong. Or if you're thrown out at 3rd with two outs with Braun coming up next, you're wrong. Yes obvious bad plays are bad. I get aggravated like everyone else when they happen. Not arguing they are not. But mistakes will happen when you are aggressive just like good plays fail to happen when you are overly conservative on the base paths. They are just less obvious. We should work very hard to cut down all types of mistakes. However I have seen perfect throws being made that makes some bad plays look worse than they really are. I have also seen what would have been a bad play turn out well because the defender bobbled the ball or threw off line or missed his cutoff man. With our team I think we need to force the other team's hand a little bit. Make them be perfect. Because we know we are not going to be.

I think it is also hard to determine how many times conservative base running teams lose runs but never gets noticed. If Gomez gets thrown out at third because he was over aggressive we see it. If a conservative base runner stays at second when they could made it to third it doesn't get counted as a mistake. Yet it really is equally bad base running. If you stay at second with one out and the next guy hits a fly ball you score. If you stayed at second you don't. So in those instances the run never scores but the guy who failed to take third when he could have doesn't appear to have made a mistake. But he did and it cost his team a run.

The point of this thread isn't that we do good things, it is that we do an excessive amount of bad things, undisciplined things, things that make us go....hmmm. And my point is it isn't excessive. If you only point out the bad and never point out A- other teams do stupid things as well and B- they do far more good things than bad, it would make them look far worse than they really are. All you are really doing is trying to validate your preconceived notion. If you only look for things that do that what other conclusion do you think would be drawn? If they really are as bad as you claim then there should be a lot more instances of us doing bad things than either good things or other teams doing bad things. Having a thread dedicated to only showing one side of the argument does not prove your point.

Gomez with a man on and two out. Double, runs scores. If you really want to document every bad play I'll document every good play. Lets see who has more when the year is done.

We have a lot of unknowns. Unknowns by definition cannot be judged as good or bad. In all likelihood some will turn out well others not. When I look at the sheer number of unknowns that have to go right to be a contender I think it would take a pretty amazing year for it to happen. When I look at the sheer number of unknowns that have to go wrong to be horrible I think it would take a pretty amazing amount of misfortune for it to happen. What I do know is I am truly interested to see how all those unknowns turn out.

Is there anything less sincere than an apology stating you didn't knowingly take anything?

Have to agree with you on dropping most of last year's AAA team. It's not like the guys they dropped: Kentrail Davis, Halton, Gindl, and now Morris have had any trouble finding teams that wanted their services either. All are playing somewhere in AAA this season. Or that they had to make room for other guys coming up in the system. Or that the guys the Brewers signed were any better (they're not). In the case of Matt Clark though, I think he did show more than Morris last year. I think they got rid of some of those guys because they requested it. I know I read something to that effect about Halton. If the Brewers didn't view them as prospects it might be better to let them go somewhere were they might be viewed as such. While it seems silly to get rid of your own AAAA guys and bring in another batch of AAAA guys I think it helps your overall system to have guys who want to be there and feel like they are wanted. It helps keep teams more cohesive, not to mention shows the organization as a whole tries to treat their players right. Overall the potential of boosting, or at least maintaining, a team's moral along with the image of the organization is probably of more value than keeping a player deemed a non prospect would.

Yes they are comparable. Both guys had spots in their rotation lined up regardless of their spring results. Nelson came to camp as the Brewers #5 starter. He wasn't in a competition. Like Samardzija he was free to work on whatever he needed without having to fret over losing his spot. In a few days both will be 0-0 with a 0.00 ERA. So basically what you are saying is that they are comparable because they are both starting MLB pitchers. So, I'm guessing you would also say that Khris Davis is comparable to Andrew McCutchen. Sure, by that logic, pretty much anything or anyone is comparable...that doesn't mean they are the same. I would replace Nelson with Samardzija in the rotation in a heartbeat, even if Samardzija had an ERA of 11 in spring training. I believe Nelson can be a very good MLB pitcher someday. Maybe he shows that this year, but as of now he has not given any indication of that (and doesn't have several years of quality MLB starts on his resume). I think some of us just believe that Nelson performing well this year is a key factor to the Brewers being successful this year and we are concerned that he may not quite be up to that task yet (and we also don't believe the Brewers have a viable backup option). I also think that most of us that hold that belief hope that we are wrong. That is not what he is saying at all. He was saying players who are not competing for a job in spring approach spring differently that those who are. If you have a job wrapped up results are of no importance at all. You can throw your worst pitch 20 times in a row knowing ten of them are going to be hit and not care. You are looking to get a feel for the pitch. What the hitter does with that pitch is of little consequence. If you do not have a job wrapped up in spring you have to show you are capable of getting results. Thus you would show your best stuff and not use your worst stuff. When good players are working on their weakness and mediocre players are showing their strength that can make good players look worse than mediocre players.

For what it's worth, if you began to follow a team not in your MLB-designated market, they might actually be easier to follow via MLB.TV - provided you can manage any time zone differences. [sarcasm]Thanks, MLB and your irritating market rules![/sarcasm] Not to take this to far off track but the blackout rules never made much sense to me. In an effort to get more people to go to the games you sell them a tv package that doesn't allow them to see the team they most likely want to watch? Here's an idea MLB, why not try to give people more access to the games and see if they might get interested enough in the team to go see them live?

Can't love someone who leaves you so no to following the Brewers. Long distance relationships are too hard to maintain so I don't know if I'd ever get interested in another team unless they were close enough to follow day in and day out. I hated the Cubs even before we ended up in the same division so I doubt that would change. So unless the White Sox, Tigers or Twins broadcast all the games in the area my interest in baseball would probably just fade away.

This year the Freedom and Kaukauna wrestling teams became team state champions. They both have the same zip code. Talk about a hot bed of wrestling.

I like the idea. All I could think of when I saw that was Uecker calling the end of the Mets game in 2008.