Cool Hand Lucroy

Man. Feels like Cingrani is the guy in that pen you need to get to. Hope Jimmy can get through the 7th clean. You knew CC was going to let him hit. Swarzak and Knebel the only guys in the pen you can trust at all in this situation. May not work out, but I don't see another option.

Yes! Finishing ahead of the Cards is goal #1. Playoffs is goal #2. And not just because I have a bet on it. I have a similar bet with some Twins' fan friends. Of course, it's entirely possible that the Brewers finish with a better record, but the Twins are the team that makes the playoffs. The AL is a mess at the moment. A fun, crazy mess.

Gotta love quick innings when your pitcher's the one having them.

The Cardinals have lost. In case anyone else is like me and tracking "distance ahead of St. Louis" as the prime measure of season success.

Hernan Perez just walked. I think that's worth a moment of appreciation.

Really nice pitch to Grandy for strike three. And now Sogard with a nice power stroke. Haven't seen him hit one like that maybe since he came up. Good rip. Get him in.

So even though the zone is clearly defined, each umpire should individually decide what they think is a strike or not? That really makes no sense. Then why not the same thing on a force out or fair/foul? Every rule is up to the umpire's discretion on how to enforce it. The key word is legitimate. It isn't totally up to the individual umpire because some strike zones are indefensible. My view, though, is that slightly different strike zones can be rationally defended. The width of the plate is clearly mentioned in the rule book. The vertical limits, though? They're made to vary based on the batter, and there's just no way to draw a hard and fast border when the batter is moving all the time. It's not like tennis. The boundaries in tennis are fixed. The fair/foul lines in baseball are fixed. The strike zone isn't. I don't see how saying there's room for differing, reasonable definitions equates to letting each individual make up their own rules. There is room for individual decisions within limits. The challenge for any system is to decide what that limit is. We understand this with close plays at first. Sometimes, a "bang-bang" call is possibly wrong but replay doesn't let us overturn it. It's the same concept here. The system would have to decide what's bad enough to correct and what has to be allowed to stand based on the information we have.

Just as someone who wants to see a more "middle ground" approach, let me take up for the "human element" a bit. It isn't that I want umpires to be able to do whatever they want and blow calls. When I say "human element," I simply mean preserving the ability to allow for different, legitimate definitions of what counts as a strike. Despite the detailed language around the strike zone in the rule book, there's always an element of uncertainty. The exact same pitch could be a strike to one batter and a ball to another. Pitchers want to get as many strikes in the extreme parts of the zone as possible. Hitters want the middle of the zone to be the only real place strikes are called. This makes the entire thing a negotiation. I think that's okay. I think it enriches the game. Even just watching, it's easy to notice my own aesthetic preferences emerging. Some strikes are ugly. They don't look like strikes (the 12-6 curveball that ends up in the dirt would be one example). Some are pretty (right on the outside edge at the knees). Having different philosophies about what's a good strike and what's an ugly strike can be useful and fun. That's a good part of baseball. I like high strikes, for example. Pitches up in the zone, even up to the letters, look like good pitches that a batter can reasonably hit. Somebody else might want the low pitch, right at the hollow of the knees, called more often. Debating those things is part of what makes baseball fun, and I think having some subjectivity within the strike zone allows for different styles and different ways to achieve success. Of course, there can be too much subjectivity. When zones are wildly inconsistent, that's a big problem. When pitches 3, 4 inches off the inside corner are strikes, that's unfair. That's why I'm a fan of the tennis style system. Allow for clear errors to be corrected. As fans, though, I think it's probably best to recognize that there are "borderline" pitches. The strike zone has gray areas. I'd rather live with some variance in the way different umps call those gray areas than institute one, machine-defined gray area that all of baseball lives by. To put it simply, I'm willing to live with umpires doing different things on very close pitches. I also hope technology can quickly, efficiently, and correctly eliminate obvious mistakes.

I agree with this. I think the electronic zone is a fascinating idea, and I really like the tennis-style proposals thrown out here. The biggest issue to me, though, is that the "human element" (which I can appreciate the value of) sometimes resorts to acting like blind authority. If all umps committed to using the performance review system to get better and were incentivized to do so, that would be just fine. This doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing answer. Technology can be used to help improve the quality of the human element without removing it completely. Now, maybe most umps do or are doing this, or maybe the incentive system is working and I just can't see it because I'm not behind the scenes, but it does seem like a lot of umps have trouble admitting they missed one. Even more, it seems like the league trots out the same umps year after year, and those guys keep acting the same and missing the same calls. That's an issue. Players are to blame a bit too, especially when they complain about borderline pitches. Even an electronic zone is going to have a fuzzy border, and we should recognize the technology's margin of error (lately, on Brewer broadcasts, FoxTrax looks real bad to me, as if the CF camera angle is throwing off the true location of the pitch--maybe the reliability of the tech just isn't good enough yet), especially since the vertical limits of the zone are harder to track than the fixed lines in tennis. Save the vigorous dissent for the really bad ones. There are enough of those to let everyone blow off steam.

I'll forgive Ueck for a lot, and what he lacks in on-point description, he makes up for through sheer charm and longevity. He does have a knack for the big moment still, and when the Crew completes a dramatic victory, I often find myself wishing I'd heard the radio call, to the point that I'll go look it up later. I'm glad he's paired with Levering, though. And the Levering/Grindl road combo is a really nice change of pace. Great detail, good rapport, and the 3-3-3 innings model is more enjoyable for me than the 2-2-2-1-2. I hope that's the next great Brewer radio team. It would be awesome to have a non-player featured broadcast pair. I guess that's a little more common in radio, but the two non-Milwaukee crews I hear most are the Cubs and the Twins. Ron Coomer is just awful. If you thought Ueck didn't describe the action, man. I've heard Cubs innings end when I wasn't aware an out was recorded, not to mention RISP hits where there's no information given about where the runner ended up. Dan Gladden isn't as bad, but he's definitely a typical ex-player. Provus and Hughes do a great job as the main guys for those pairs. If you haven't seen the Fangraphs announcer rankings from a couple of years ago (essentially just a crowdsourced survey with some representative comments), they're here: Radio: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-broadcaster-rankings-radio-10-1/ TV: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-broadcaster-rankings-tv-10-1/ It's a little dated, but still a fun read. I second Cleveland's broadcast team as a personal favorite. Worth the Gameday Audio subscription.

1) I believe in Major League, the Cleveland Indians are 61-61 after 122 games, and the general consensus is "these guys aren't so bad," even if the grounds crew thinks otherwise. 2) Villar 3-5 last night with a dinger! 3) They didn't quit. 4) I'd rather swoon in August than September. 5) I still like this roster moving forward. Between the experience some of these guys are getting and the talent in AAA on the way for next year, I'm glad to be a Brewer fan. I think we've got three or four fun years of baseball ahead.

A combo of bad luck, bad defense, and bad ABs hurting tonight. Man. Just frustrating. At least the pressure's off a little bit, I guess. Going to try hard to just enjoy having baseball for another two months without worrying as much about the postseason.

I'd be pretty surprised if Garza wasn't either traded or starting in the 5 spot next year. Agree on Suter to the pen, as I'm just not sure his profile is someone who can go three times through consistently. Maybe he adjusts after these last two starts, though. We'll see. One possible route is to recraft the bullpen using some of the starting pitching depth, especially guys like Guerra. I think you want to give the young guys as much opportunity in Spring, so I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if some of our older starters' stuff can't play up in shorter windows. I would be inclined to sell high on Anderson, but I'm having a tough time imagining a return that would make up for his three years of team control (even if it is through arb.). Even with regression, Chase is probably an MLB-average starter, and he might be a good bit better. Three years with that kind of production would have to turn into some darn good prospects (maybe a 2B? C? Elite bullpen?), close to ML-ready to get me excited. I really like the idea, but it see it as a tough swing in practice.

That lineup is about the best I can imagine given the circumstances. Win today, and ground is gained. Go Brewers!

Yeah, I think the recent swoon says as much about the roster as Craig. I mean, the bullpen options beyond Swarzak and Knebel and Hader aren't good, and that last guy is a rookie. A couple of the arms are serviceable, but they're going to have bad outings. Offensively, there are just too many dead spots right now. I do think they'll be alright. I'm still optimistic about 85 wins. Doubt it will be enough to win the Central, but you never know. I think getting this talent to that level is a pretty good managerial job in the end. I'd prefer better in-game decisions too, esp. w/r/t the bullpen handling at times, but I do think the day-to-day of dealing with players is important in a way we can't quantify with statistics, at least not yet. Seems like CC does okay there.

This thread needs some life. Tomorrow will be August 9th. The Brewers are over .500. The Brewers are within a couple games of a playoff spot and chasing only one team. The Brewers haven't been playing well but are ready to get hot! I feel a nice little win streak coming on, and I think we play meaningful baseball against the Cubs in September. Woodruff, Davies, Nelson, sounds like three in a row to me!

Since this has sort of becoming a general announcing thread (Wasn't one of those floating around at some point? Maybe it could be brought back with that more general title?), I wanted to add my appreciation of Grindl and Levering. I will be really bummed when Ueck can't do this anymore, but those two offer hope. As for Lepay, I agree that baseball doesn't suit him as much as radio football and basketball, but he's gotten a lot better since he started. Seem to me like the guy is a professional that will just get better at anything broadcasting related if he does it long enough.

Count me among the throw to second camp. I think if that's any pitcher other than Garza (maybe John Lester), they throw to second. Mauer and Dozier aren't exactly blazers, so that should be afford the room to at least try to get the out. All that said, since it is Matt Garza, eating is probably the best call.

The frustrating thing is that the Twins did everything they could to give the game away today. Errors, missed chances, hangers late in the game, and the Brewers couldn't capitalize. The margins are so thin lately, and Suter just didn't have it. At least Keon was good, and Braun had a couple of nice ABs. I'll be glad to see Pina tomorrow.

I mean, I get it. But Jared Hughes has a 3.74 FIP and a 116 ERA+. That's pretty solidly above-average. Not crap. I just don't see a situation in which he's not a better choice than Drake to start the seventh.

Well, he wasn't stranded.

Agree on this. Hader to start the sixth and Drake to start the seventh, not to mention leaving him in this long. Really, this is a game we have no business winning. Crappy defense, and half of our runs have been gifted.

I mean, I don't think he gets there based on where he started anyway, but that display may have cost them the run. This has been an ugly game. And Drake is still pitching...

I am missing something with Hughes? I know a lot of folks don't like him, but he's been okay, and it seems like he hasn't been the first option in a big inning in a while.

This is a really tense game without a lot of pace to it. Odd that Suter started.