Cool Hand Lucroy

Nearly grabbed a sweep despite a pretty woeful offensive performance yesterday and today. As others have said elsewhere, it's hard to be too broken up about this start given the roster's obvious holes. Sure, it'd be nice to have wracked up a few more wins against some pretty soft competition, but I'm a big believer in the "not who but when" baseball schedule philosophy. I certainly don't expect the Cardinals, Reds, and Pirates to all keep up this pace. Heck, I don't expect the Cubs to keep up this pace either. I'd say we're probably underdogs in the Central, but that's the way it's supposed to be. And the Cubs came out on fire last year, too. The roster is only going to get better from here. Saint Louis has a good staff to get healthy against offensively. Let's get a winning road trip.

Feels like this is going to be a fundamental disagreement and fault line for ABS discussions. There is such a thing as "always strikes" and such a thing as "never strikes." There is also, though, in my view, such a thing as "sometimes strikes." I don't think the strike zone is one thing. I think it is a negotiation between batter, pitcher/catcher, and umpire. That negotiation is rich and, yes, democratic. I prefer my baseball that way. The challenge system does support this "democratic" idea, importing a kind of Supreme Court that only accepts appeals within the rules and whose decisions are final. That feels good to me. I concede that the ABS zone is cleaner, easier, and more consistent. And it removes human biases (against particular players or teams or kinds of strikes). Folks are totally free to think that's a better way to watch baseball (I will admit that after a lot of initial skepticism about tennis going all-electric, I now think it's probably the superior way to experience that sport--line arguments there were more of a distraction to the experience, though I think the strike zone is a different thing altogether). Point is, I doubt we'll be able to convince each other. At the end of the day, I suspect that the "all ABS, all the time" crowd will win. That seems to be the direction these things are heading. Maybe it'll take a while. Maybe all the anti-AI sentiment out there will generate a backlash, and baseball will board the Luddite train. Who knows? I just suspect we'll go all-ABS at some point, and I believe we'll lose something important in the process. I won't make grand proclamations about it ruining the game or anything, but, just like with the anti-shift rule, we'll have lost a kind of human freedom that will make the game different. Not necessarily worse, even. But different, and speaking a different language than the one I grew to love. So it goes with getting older. I'll still speak the language. I'll still love doing it. But everyone will be able to hear my accent, and I bet it'll start to sound funny to a lot of people.

My ABS question is: will umpires now make more of an attempt to call the zone as it is electronically? I actually think it's a fascinating question, mainly because "yes" isn't necessarily a good answer. I don't really want everyone sort of conforming to the same zone regardless of context (for example, I've already seen a few of those calls where the pitcher misses his spot by a foot-and-half, but the ball lands in the zone, and it gets called a strike, even though it wouldn't have been in previous years--I don't like that much). Of course, "no" isn't a good answer either. We definitely want umps to consider the input the ABS is giving them. It just shouldn't be as simple as "ABS called this a strike, and I didn't, and I was wrong." The best outcome here is challenges as a useful check on umpires. I personally don't want hitters (or catchers) just saving challenges for late in the game just to challenge borderline leverage pitches. I think, obviously, your certainty level can go down as the game progresses, but if you're 90 percent sure a pitch is wrong in the second inning, you should probably challenge it. The worst outcome is everyone saving challenges until late, players challenging a bunch of borderline pitches, and ABS just becoming a late-game coin flip for pitches that can fairly be called balls OR strikes. I will say that I'm way more into this system than I was at the beginning of the year. It's interesting, adds a strategic element, and mostly has seemed less intrusive as I've managed to get used to it.

Great post. And I'm not going to pretend it was always better back in the old days, either, but you certainly lose something when you sell out to create offense and focus on "product." I really miss those Temple teams, too. Haven't seen a team really commit to the matchup zone in decades. It says something that teams with those signature styles are abandoning them. Badgers don't run the swing. Tony B is retired, and Virginia's less and less a pack-line team. Northwestern and the Princeton-offense coaching tree still runs a lot of backdoor action, but it's more about clearing space for shooters. Heck, Bucky Ball is the closest thing to "40 minutes of hell," and it was a little less Bucky-ish and A&M than it was at Samford. Honestly, part of me wonders if it isn't as much the youth sports structure as it is anything else. Kids play so many GAMES now, and games are actually a pretty bad way to teach basketball. The NBA is selecting for freakish height/athleticism combos, Michigan won a title with that approach, and, more and more games aren't about tactics as they are about personnel. Everyone has 5 guys who can shoot. Everyone's 6-4 or bigger. Roll out the ball and see who can get the rim and make triples, factoring in the whims of the whistle. CBB still has its pockets. I think the style diversity is still there by and large, and that, along with the atmospheres, will carry it a long way provided we don't go to full-on NBA or international rules. Re: the shorter shot clock. Sure, it helps good defensive teams, but it creates a lot more possessions. That means there's less incentive to play slow and defend than there was 15, 20 years ago, just by virtue of the fact that that style now has to succeed over 68 or 70 trips instead of 62 or 64.

Agreed. I think the institutional power of the NCAA makes it a little more egregious than any random player, but I certainly take the point. I'm already resigning myself to the day we move MBB to quarters. Honestly, I still miss the days of the 35-second shot clock. It opened up a whole world of style diversity and made college basketball a unique product. All that said, I will say the quality of play has probably never been better. And there's still a good deal of diversity in terms of tactics and strategy, much more so than the NBA. MBB is in a decent spot, and the tournament is a genuine jewel, which is why it's so frustrating. Watching an institution try to squeeze its main product for marginal extra cash, at risk to a lot of things, is tough.

You don't think a market exists for insuring baseball pitchers with an injury history? How would any pitcher ever get a nine-figure contract?

I don't buy this for a second. The idea that a team as smart as the Brewers are on the hook for the full amount doesn't hold water. I would bet every team is insuring every contract against long-term injury, and, even if not, Woody's contract definitely falls into the category of ones you'd insure. The primary concern here is Woody himself. Obviously hope he's okay. Have to feel, like others, that he might be finished as a big-league pitcher, but you hope that's not the case. Good news is the Brewers have depth for these moments. They'll need it.

It appears the tournament will be expanding to 76 teams next year. This is crappy for a million reasons, but I'm not sure I have the stomach to complain about it. I suspect it'll be choir-preaching here, and this was pretty much going to happen no matter what. I do wish the folks defending it (namely the NCAA and TV people) would just be honest about it. "We know people hate it, and that it will probably diminish the value of the regular season and help mediocre power conference teams, but it will allow us to make money on media rights deals, and that's what we care about." I'd actually respect that instead of the garbage that pretends this is about basketball. It's not. And we'll live with it, but they should at least own their greed and be called out for it.

Might be time to burn these uniforms.

Zerpa's struggled so far, but neither Collins nor Mears are lighting the world on fire. I guess we'll see. Been an extremely weird game so far. In the aggregate, I'd say the Brewers are lucky to be tied, but it's also felt like they should have 8 runs.

True, and the weather in central Illinois, eastern Iowa is importantly better than Wisconsin in April, though quite a bit more uncomfortable in the summer months, especially later on. I think the QC could probably support Double-A if not for the geography. Just not enough viable markets nearby. That might be a problem for Madison as well, though a Triple-A budget would help some and Madison is a decent enough fit in the International League West. Farthest road trip would be Gwinnett.

Always surprised Madison doesn't have a stronger history with minor league baseball, especially when you see places like Peoria, Cedar Rapids, and the QC doing a strong job keeping up teams and traditions. If the Fox Cities were a little more compact, that Green Bay to Oshkosh/Fondy stretch is a nice population center. T-Rats seem to do pretty well at High-A (I'm a Midwest League fan, I guess), but that's a big jump to AAA. Honestly? I almost wonder if somewhere in the western Chicago suburbs would be a good fit. Kane County used to play High-A. Lots of population growth out that way. Heart of Cubs country, obviously, so that'd be weird, but...maybe the Cubs move there eventually, and Des Moines is open. Typing that out it sounds crazy. Gary, IN had a robust triple A situation for a while. Just throwing out off day ideas at this point. Hard when so much of the population growth is in the Sun Belt. I think you're right. Madison is the obvious choice and by a long, long way. Hope it happens eventually. I do think it would be the kind of competitive advantage the Brewers are built to capitalize on..

I think this is right on. And one of the things about being a Brewer fan over the last ten years is that the whole organization is built to win on depth, basically. Sometimes it's bullpen depth. Sometimes it's having a bunch of "out-getters" who can all throw 3-4 innings. Sometimes it's having 9 guys who grind out ABs and all wear down the opposing starter. Sometimes it's taking every advantage of the Nashville shuttle (the Brewers would so love to be the Twins and have a AAA affiliate the next town over--you just know these nerds in the FO would salivate over shuttling guys while saving travel costs, both financial and physical, and I love them for it). The good thing about that approach is that it works. The bad part is that it works in ways that are really, really difficult to see. Perkins looks bad. Matos looks bad. Who is Greg Jones? I think my answer is: he's probably better than the guy in that spot on just about every other roster in baseball. The Brewers care about the difference between a guy OPSing .625 and one OPSing .640. For most teams, both those guys are worthless. But, for this team, the thinking is like "I'm going to have a below average player taking a lot of ABs this year; I might as well make them a little closer to average." We find out who most teams are in July and August. That goes double for the Brewers because that's when spreading out ABs and innings starts to add up on the margins. It's not great to watch sometimes, but it gets the job done.

Rodriguez did a nice job finishing this one. Felt to me like one of those you're just going to lose over the course of the year. Agree about Hamilton's error being the biggest play of the game. After 21 games, being 12-9 is fine. Would we have liked to get one or two more, especially given the Red Sox and Nats series? Yeah. But we haven't played anyone from the Central yet, we're still banged up (missing probably our best player and best veteran). I've been a big believer in the "you can't win a pennant in April, but you can lose it" idea, and we haven't lost it. Mixed reviews. Holes in the bullpen and in the bottom of the lineup. Not always sharp defensively. But getting some good starting pitching, scrapping out a few big innings, hitting the long ball at home, and generally playing tough and staying afloat. I'll take it, on balance.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the benefit of pitching to Sanoja is, but I guess it didn't much look like Hall was going to get anyone out. Great piece of hitting by Sanoja too. Hopefully the bats can make this interesting. Never gonna complain about winning 2 of 3 on the road. Now we can get back to playing the AL after an off day.

Was just thinking this. The swings of baseball are crazy. Brewers go from only scoring on home runs during the Nationals series to bunting 3x in a row for a run. Anti-moneyball is the new moneyball.

Good post. I think it's right on. We all want the 80th or 90th percentile outcome on every trade. This one feels more like the 50th, though folks can think it's slightly better or slightly worse, and I won't argue one bit. Ortiz has been a serviceable infielder, often at the premium position, for 2+ years. It's a shame he hasn't been able to come close to 2024's 102 OPS+. Even an 85 there changes everyone's evaluation. I think he'll probably have to turn it around soon to keep earning PAs over Pratt, but I'll be rooting for him quite a bit over the next month or so. I've genuinely liked the guy since we acquired him. Edit: And I forgot about Blake Burke, so thanks to the folks who pointed that out.

Chad Patrick feels like a starting pitcher to me too. We've got quite a few fringe types in the system, as well as some decent relievers on the IL. Patrick was awesome in the playoffs last year. He's earned his spot.

Hey, 9-8 feels a lot better than 8-9 (even though there's no real difference). You definitely take the Brewers giving up a run in the first and then the whole staff getting 24 scoreless outs. Huge credit to Chad Patrick, but not sleeping on any of the contributors tonight. Had some batted ball luck, but this is a nice win when everyone admits (or should admit) that this team is just trying to hang around right now. Win a series tomorrow, and you're turning in a reasonable homestand.

I definitely think the FO was hoping for more. The comp pick may well swing this in the Os direction, but there's also still time, for Hall especially. For me, I'm with you in terms of being underwhelmed by how that trade has gone down so far. I respect the underlying process (and, again, reasonable folks can disagree on that process), and I think it was just a case of the Crew took shots on a couple of guys with team control, hoping one of them became really good, and it just didn't happen.

Not disagreeing, but it's fascinating to me that, right now, bRef WAR has this trade dead even. To date: Hall + Ortiz = 3.9 WAR. Burnes with the O's? 3.9 WAR. By the Brewers way of thinking, that trade was just fine. We can debate whether or not that's the right way to think, but they're committed to it.

However this one turns out, it has solidified my love for Chad Patrick. Just a really fun guy to watch pitch. You can tell he loves it.

Oof. That Rengifo AB was disturbing. Not much better from Sal, and we're really going to regret these last couple innings if we can't hold on.

Sconnie?

I actually kind of like these new uniforms, but I preferred last year's version. The powder blue with white always looks nice. The salmon piping is a cool feature. My biggest gripe is that these aren't really weird enough to be City Connects, nor are they traditional enough to be good daily uniforms. It's a little bit uncanny valley for me.