Playing Catch

That was an amazing game. Duran's 25th pitch being the decider.

I guess the same way we saw the 3TO and launch angle era change how the game was played, which itself was response to extreme shifts and a generation of small ballparks, among other factors. What is the saying about such things? Something like, when the measure becomes the goal, [you get unintended consequences], or something like that?

I think that over the course of a few seasons, the players would adjust how they play due to the "perfect" zone, and that it would have unforseen impact on how the game is enjoyed by fans. For that reason, I'm in no hurry to change this current system. Additionally, I have wondered about the "why" behind many challenges. We know that there's a big difference, statistically, changing the count from 1-1 to 0-2 or vice versa. But based on my observations, I think batters should only challenge calls at the top of the zone (their best vantage-point, and one of two parts of the zone that has been curated especially for them). I also think catchers, specifically the Brewers catchers, will --- at times --- challenge a pitch because they want the umpire to see where a specific pitch landed. We know the old adage, "So-and-so needs that pitch to be successful in this game." I think that on close pitches, especially breaking balls down, and at the edges of the zone, catchers want to give a sense to the umpire just how close those pitches are. Or perhaps the scouting report on a specific umpire tells the catchers which parts of the zone the ump struggles with the most, and they are asked to be aggressive on certain challenges or pitches. Anyway, long story longer, I think that there are more motivations to deciding to challenge than we realize, and that distilling the decision down to "good:bad::strike:ball" is much too simplistic.

Since umpires get most calls correct, and the Brewers force the umps to make more calls due to their passivity, the Brewers force umps to call more correct pitches for the Brewers, too. In terms of what @Brian said, I think a home crowd is going to have a positive impact on calls for the home team. I am basing this on a decades-old SI article* on the phenomenon of home field advantage, where they showed data that demonstrated that home field advantage in most sports is almost entirely based on unpire/referee decisions (it may be different in baseball with the variety of ballpark dimensions). Basically the article stated that we are subconsciously wired to want people to like/agree with us and that since they are human beings, umpires/referees can't help it. *I'd welcome any newer evidence

I am still under the impression that rosters can be re-set after each round, correct? And that injured players can be immediately replaced, but only if they sit out the next round as well?

Oh good, so at least if the Brewers lose 3 straight, we can still complain about how dumb Fangraphs is.

I don't know who Baseball Bros from Nosebleed Sports Media are, but being that Mariners leadership also mentioned that they were looking to retain Wilson in another capacity and he's been there for 30 years tells you that they didn't "force" Dan to do anything. I suspect they asked him if he wanted to have a parting Q&A, and if he wanted company up there on the dais. Provacative clickbait. Say what one will about Seattle's front office and management, but this moment wasn't surreal, nor was it a poor way to do a firing in today's live media landscape.

I was looking at these same numbers earlier this week, and the ages of the players involved really jumps out. Additionally, this organizational deluge of young talent is magnified when you consider how young the MLB roster is. Get old, stay old is a great mantra for college sports (and AAA success), but get young, stay young seems to be the way to try and win in the arbitration era.

I always feel like Game 2 is the most important game outside of elimination games. Why not game 1? Well, sure, Game 1 is equally important as you cannot be down 0-2 after two home games. But if you can only win Game 1 OR Game 2, I want the confidence boost of winning the game before the first road game. I think losing Game 2 invites an awful lot of jitters heading to their place. You always prefer going with your Ace in Game 1 so that they are more likely to be available in an elimination game. Avoiding blow-up innings from a pitcher is the key to winning the playoffs. Is it more likely that Henderson blows up (literally has never happened), or that one of May, Gasser, Patrick, Senzatela, Harrison, or JoJo Romero blow up?

All of this. He uses his old-school persona when it fits his purposes, but the organization fed him all of these players and all of their contemporary analytics to use according to their models. His ability to embrace and help to guide change, rather than reject or fear change is a huge credit to him.

So long as the Brewers avoid allowing big innings from the opposing offense, I don't think it matters much. Get ahead early in a low-scoring Padres game, or go-ahead late against a shaky Cubs 'pen. Either way, just keep the games close, and I believe in the Brewers ability to put key runs across in key situations. Of all the tactical matchups, I fear the Cubs defense against the Brewers offense the most. But seriously, if there is a fear-factor in any of this, it is in the minds of opposition pitchers. Any inning where a pitcher is at the 25 pitch mark (for an inning) is a serious red-zone against this Brewers team because of their ability to keep the line moving. And with excellent home plate umpires and ABS, this fear is even more distinct. Throw a fastball strike? Opposite-field single. Throw off-speed strike? A ripped double pulled down the line, or a bloop double the other way. Throw a ball? It's taken for a ball. They have no quarter. And that's with nobody on base or threatening to bunt. This offense reminds me of the Dick Bennett Badger defenses. Pitchers will need to be really really mentally tough to face this lineup in the heat of the playoffs without giving in, or making a mistake.

Re-seeding with the unbalanced schedule seems unfair to teams in good divisions. If you put the Dodgers in the AL West and they win 120 games, do they deserve a better seed than the Rays playing an AL East schedule?

If I was making the decision, it would be based purely on his stuff, command, and tipping, and not have anything to do with recent results (although those things are obviously related). I don't think role (starting/relieving/leverage) matters at all. Opposing lineups will dictate how pitchers are used outside of Miz, Henderson, and probably May. If they deem Harrison worthy of a roster spot, it will be because he's left-handed, not because he's a starter. They will only count on him for a particular stretch in the order, and probably just once through due to his strength/endurance.

Timing-wise, this is another Murph masterstroke. IF the Brewers are going to win a World Series, it will necessarily come with a tremendous amount of attention. Putting a very visible "C" on Yelich's jersey tells every national baseball reporter who to go to for a quote or an interview. Figureheads don't need to provide tangible value. They attract attention, thus diverting attention away from everyone else so that everyone else can focus on their jobs. Attanasio clearly values Human Resources and developing talent of all kinds. He has made a habit of making good hires, and keeping good people that publicly represent the team's values. He kept Doug Melvin around, he promoted GMs and Scouts from within. His team in the front office has modeled this with their scouting and development hiring youngsters like scout Ginger Poulson, or jack-of-all-trades, Daniel De Mondesert, and promoting them. Obviously, Murph was promoted from within. They hired Weeks and Vogelbach -- perhaps untraditional hires, presumably because you can always find a role for the right person. Anyway, there are more than a few examples of the organization committing to people for the long-term --- OR helping people develop into the role they want, even if it's in another organization. Attanasio clearly values marketing. The Brewers are a media-driven enterprise that depends heavily on marketing the team properly to derive as much value out of baseball's smallest market. He encourages the media department to provide the link between a winning ballclub and their fans. Uecker, BA, Rock, Sophia, Levering and Block, Provus. They are all examples of how the organization has valued their roles. But in addition, putting a "C" on the jersey certainly juices the "star quality" of a professional athlete be it in soccer or in the NFL. (But please, please, please MLB... Do NOT go to the NFL "C" program. Not every team will have a player that is deserving). Captains are still a rare sighting in baseball, but the habit is established enough in sports that it's not totally born out of a marketing gimmick. High School and College coaches for eons have relied on captains to reinforce the message. Often those captains are experienced role-players. Yelich embodies the work ethic, personal development, humility, and team-centric focus with which the entire organization functions. He has been paid in order to serve in THIS role... not just his MVP role, and I think publicly acknowledging this is what separates Yelich or Sal Perez from other high-earners like Juan Soto or Zach Greinke (whom are both great ballplayers and good-enough teammates, but are NOT captains).

Looks like the stats bear out what our eyeballs have witnessed. A good defender that has learned to hit a bunch of singles the other way. That OBP is supported almost entirely on that ability, with so few walks and so little meaningful speed. One could point to the "power," but I think the power, too, is just a by-product of putting the bat on the ball. It's also a challenge to make sense of the numbers based on his role. He's a shortstop playing a platoon 3rd base on the best team in baseball, so both the defensive and offensive comparisons become pretty muddled pretty quickly. This thought just popped into my head, too, but being in a lineup with other good players will have a positive affect on offensive counting stats due to more opportunities. More PAs just because their team is pacing the league in OBP, and more opportunities with runners on-base means RBI and (typically) stronger rate stats. So a platoony kind of player on a good team plays up due to being in a good lineup. But I'm not sure if that would have much of an impact or not. And, too, when a team wins at home, they only get 24 outs, which would probably negate any positive impact on counting stats.