BrewCrew8682

If it goes 7 they better win it because that might be it for me. Still, I’d die seeing something I didn’t think I would.

Pfft. If we win I fully expect Uecker to deliver his own message.

Proud owners of a post-season road winning streak!

We’re undefeated after he does it if it makes it easier to stomach. What if he doesn’t and the unthinkable happens?

OK, can we all agree that one was Uecker?

Wouldn’t have it any other way. I mean, I would, but they seem to thrive on this stuff.

Running like his rear end was on fire.

I was really hoping he’d slide himself out of making that play.

Ashby is calmer than I am right now.

Pesky Mitchell!

I can’t believe he led with that, and I had low expectations for him.

My bingo card has missed most of what has taken place. And I’m loving it!

Or 10+ pitches to Bauers

Hard to control something you can’t find. I was so relieved to get through the 3rd batter and end the nightmare…

Also one of our best at relaying pitch calls from second 🤣

But is that a HR?! I think that might be a HR!

Sorry for the rant, but I guess I've always found going out of your way, lessening your chance of being called safe because you found your odds unfavorable from the start as obnoxious/childish as a player not running out a pop-up or Arod attempting to slap the ball out of a players hands. Hustle and accept defeat of it comes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what was his intent? Players slide to bases in an attempt to be called safe or to avoid overrunning the bag. Rasmus didn't even bother to make contact with the bag. I think the number of times a player makes a legitimate slide and fails to maintain control of the bag is going to be quite small. These are professional athletes. I expect they should be able to dive at a stationary object on the ground and make contact with it. How often do you see a player miss 3rd base entirely? Or even second when the runner feels they have a legitimate chance of beating the throw or there won't be a play at first. I don't think I've ever seen it. It seems we are simply asking them to slide in a manner consistent with the reason they are supposedly sliding in the first place, regardless of whether or not they feel it is a lost cause from the start. Ever seen a football player, upon realizing the end zone was likely out of the question, turn back and start stiff-arming anyone he could find? No, they run for as much as they can. The fielder could drop/bobble the ball, and the runner might even end up safe, assuming he bothered to wave hello to the base as he sails past.

Khris Davis and his 20 HRs in Aug/Sep and 4 years of team control says hello. Domingo Santana and his 2.5 WAR ZiPS projection say hello back at you, and then Khris Davis and his 0.8 WAR ZiPS projection say goodbye. Or if you prefer Steamer, Davis (1.3) and Santana (1.4) exchange mutual pleasantries. You're going to keep insisting that the Brewers are tanking no matter how many knock-down arguments people throw at your biases, and that's fine. But if the Brewers were tanking, the most useful predictive evidence we have tells us that making a trade whose consequence for this year's team is to replace Davis in the lineup with Santana would be at most irrelevant and at worst harmful to the Great Tanking Conspiracy. The beauty about sports is we dont have to argue about it, the results will be on the field. The team will be bad, and in fact, VERY bad the next 2-3 years and the Brewers will be picking very high in the draft. Call it what you want at that point. If a team offered 25 potential future all-stars in AA in return for your entire Major League team (assuming they were a good team), would that be tanking? Just because it likely makes your team worse in the upcoming season? Does the actual intent (not a higher draft pick for the 1 season before they are ready) not matter at all? Tremendous exaggeration, but the point stands. Also, if Stearns wants the first pick so bad, why hasn't my phone rang? Clearly he must know I could do light-years more to hurt this team than Santana or Carter. And I'd come about $2 million cheaper too! A lot players he brought in are long shots, but there are those without a shot at all. Why risk the chance that someone steps up and ruins everything?

He wouldn't have to be part of our long-term plans, but I'm quite sure we'd be able to flip him for something that would be if he bounced back even close to his old numbers. If the Red Sox did cover a good chunk of his remaining salary I'd have no problem taking a flier to see if we could convert him into something valuable for the future. If rather use some of the excess payroll we have over the next few years to try and acquire future pieces than try out some scrub just for the same of following some line-in-the-sand philosophy that we won't sign older players because we are rebuilding. Atlanta didn't deal for Arroyo because they thought HE was gonna be a big part of the future.

I know I shouldn't quote something this long, but I'm on my phone and j just had to say I agree whole-heartedly with everything said here. The success of the team's youth and the general talent level likely won't lead us to a top 5 pick. I'll root for the other bottom stragglers to get hot, but I can honestly say seeing Santana, Davies, and the trade-able vets playing to the higher end of their expectations has been a breath of fresh air.

It's not on his agents. Contracts in baseball are not supposed to be performance based. That's what the MLBPA has fought for. I personally don't have any sympathy for a millionaire baseball player getting screwed out of being a larger millionaire, but I can still understand why Garza would be mad. I know that the most-likely reason he is being shut down here is to avoid reaching 60 starts, and that it was intended to be health-based, but I also can't imagine that such a provision should ever guarantee someone that they will be given the opportunity to reach those milestones regardless of whether they take down the team in the process. Where would you draw the line? What if we were competing next year and his ERA rose to 8? Fact is, it was intended to be health-based, but it was also implied that he would be one of the 5 best options the team had to make those starts. At this time, and for most of this year, he simply hasn't been. We can disagree on whether or not the Brewers truly feel that the look they get at the younger players is truly worth giving Garza time to straighten himself out, but maybe they currently view him as a loss? Or believe it will really take an offseason away for him to straighten himself out. Edit: Also, incentives can be based upon time spent on the DL as well. If it was intended to be 100% based upon health, they could have built the incentives around that as opposed to number of starts. That requires health and some amount of performance.

Obviously their system isn't THAT system wide, or at least nobody told the players. They're out their winning games like their draft position won't be affected at all! That poor GM. How are they supposed to maintain their ranking? Umm....the point was to basically tear it down, build a system so that for YEARS they can be competitive. Guess what? They're in first place. Look at their minor league teams. All in the playoffs. Young talent, working together to build something great for years to come. That could be the Brewers. If there's commitment to building and not wasting money on the Matt Garzas and Kyle Lohses and Jeff Suppans of the world. The point was not lost on me. I guess what frustrates me is the idea that the other teams that have recently completed a rebuild are some progressive thinking geniuses, when the Brewers themselves only got the the point they'd even consider making a splash to push them over the top or extend their window was because they themselves built from the ground up with their farm. Give the Astros a few years, and if they don't make similar moves I'll be surprised. They've already started with Gomez and Fiers, much quicker than the Crew did in the mid 2000s. I'm totally for a rebuild, but I don't think that it means we've turned a corner and accepted a new enlightened form of thinking. I hope that if we are able to develop enough young talent without any trades/signings that we hold steady and try to continue to replenish the system on an ongoing basis, but if we aren't able to develop a full 25-man roster I hope that we make some sort of push when a window is open. I think it is much harder to fill an entire roster than many here want to admit. If the money is there, and the timing along with some pre-arby talent allows for a FA to be sprinkled in here and there I hope they pull the trigger. I think developing a solid core is the most you can ask for, and they remaining needs need to be solved with some creativity, hopefully not mortgaging the future if possible but if the well is beginning to run dry with a series of bad drafts (or reduced from drafting at a lower spot) I'd hope they consider it. A perpetually average but homegrown team would frustrate me as much as the teams we've trotted out the last few years. I believe these things are cyclical, and just because we are re-entering the building phase doesn't mean we've had it wrong the whole time. Just that it didn't work out or the moves we made inside the window weren't correct.

Obviously their system isn't THAT system wide, or at least nobody told the players. They're out their winning games like their draft position won't be affected at all! That poor GM. How are they supposed to maintain their ranking?

Still important to note that unlike BlackJack, analytics are not the true "odds" in baseball. They are an approximation that becomes more accurate over time. The players are however people, and the odds of a player getting a hit on any given night against any given pitcher exist, but they are unknown. I'd prefer the manager have some digression in making decisions, and if he sees someone seeing the ball well against a pitcher (or not) I'd like to see that factor in. Not saying I want a tingling feeling in CCs leg impacting who plays, but I'm sure a former player can see some things that we can't.