Cool Hand Lucroy

Yeah, I could see the argument that the Cubs (because of great offense, bad bullpen), are set up to have a run differential that outstrips their actual record and maybe makes them look scarier than they are. I just think the spread is so big (they are like +100 on both the Pads and Phils) that they'd have to be a serious historical outlier, or else what is run differential useful for at all? I'm actually not even sure what the conventional wisdom is re: run differential, but I tend to be on the "way more signal than noise" side of things. But it's also true that my preferred avoidance of the Cubs is totally skewed by an irrational fear of losing to them, so [shrugs]. To each their own! Let's just beat everyone!!

We have at least a 5 game lead with 6 to play over the Braves. There are 13 independent events happening (7 for us, 6 for them). All we need are 2 of those to go our way, and it's over and done. Assuming a 50-50 situation per game (obviously, they'll be favorites in theirs, but so will we), the odds of not getting it are essentially 1 in 100. Not getting the bye is not worth worrying about.

I get it, but three things: 1) Steele looks like he's getting close to coming back, which helps them on the pitching side. 2) There's a serious downside to losing in the playoffs to a division rival you've completely owned for the last decade. 3) Run differential has the Cubs as way better than both the Phils and Padres. The Phillies have looked bad lately too. I just think the Phillies and Padres are worse than the Cubs. It might be true that they're also worse matchups for the Brewers (who really knows in baseball?), but the Pythagorean numbers are just not close. All things being equal, I'd rather play the worse team over 162. And, given the emotional downside of losing to the Cubs, all things are not equal (at least not for me).

It's a strange spot for the Cubs. How much do they care about home field in the WC? How much do they care about Braves or Phillies/Padres? Right now, they are in Cincy. Then, they go back to Chicago for three, after an off day Monday. Then, they fly to Boston (who will have nothing at all to play for). Their choices from there are a) go to Philly, b) go San Diego, or c) go back to Chicago. It seems a lot better to try to get games back at Wrigley, but there's only one day off before the WC, and we know how careful they have to be with their bullpen arms. It's just a tough strategic situation, trying to get the best seed and the most preferable travel schedule while also preserving your arms. The good news for them is that their offense can make the pitching choices mostly moot by putting up an 8-spot. The good news for the Brewers is that three teams are going to have to make tough choices in both the last series two series of the season and in the WC round, with the potential of getting an opponent that's had to not only expend a lot of on-field energy, but also travel quite a bit, potentially even to the west coast and back from the east coast. I don't know what I'm HOPING for, exactly, but I think there are more good scenarios than bad ones from a Brewers perspective, and I think it's easiest (and most habitual) to just root for the Cubs to lose.

Man, Joey has this insane ability to go from a difficult pick-up to getting his body in perfect throwing position instantaneously. It's beautiful to watch.

I think you're right in that the results have been bad, or at least not as good as people were hoping (although Romero's been a useful bullpen arm--he had one bad outing and has given up solo homers in two others, but he's done good work in high-leverage bridge spots). The Brewers certainly wanted more from May. So far, that trade hasn't worked out. There's a difference between results and process, though. If folks want to disagree with the whole IDEA of the trade, that's completely legit. Trading a couple of high-ceiling OFers for middling pitching has some issues, and there's a good argument to be made against it. The argument FOR it, though, isn't as bad as these posts have made out for weeks now. You're trading high-variance prospects years away (at positions of great depth for the org, which absolutely matters) for low-variance help now. The only way it really hurts you is Frias and Ragsdale hit a top 10- to 25-percent outcome and May and Romero hit a bottom 10- to 25-percent outcome. Are we there with May and Romero? Maybe. We might get to that exact scenario. But these trades are about make probabilistic bets, not anticipating an exact pattern of future events. We're years away from knowing the other half of the equation. Point being: I think the good anti-trade argument is a process argument (or that the Brewers radically undervalued Frias and Ragsdale, something we won't be able to know for quite some time). This would be true even if May and Romero had been good! Maybe the results would matter if they'd been top 5-percent good or bottom 5-percent bad, but the rest is pretty murky middle, and I think we're stuck on the low-end of that range for now.

Cubs would have to go 2-6 if that happened. I think we'd all love it. Won't happen, but at least falling to 6 is entirely in the realm of possibility. I just enjoy having a straightforward rubric for these last 8 games (for now). I want the Brewers to win and the Cubs to lose! Being in the camp that wants the Crew to avoid the Cubs for personal stress reasons, it's nice to have a path for us to get the 1 and still avoid CHC.

Impressive work from Drohan last night. That bullpen chart is a little ugly at the moment. Imagine Gordon gets a few innings this afternoon. Romero. Ashby for the save? We could use some length out of Gasser, although I'm not sure it really matters too much, with off days each Monday, the last week likely being mostly meaningless, and then a full week of rest pre-NLDS. In other playoff news, I have to admit to feeling a little bad for the O's last night. I know that team isn't good enough. But I've lived through a few of those hanging on the edge of the playoffs seasons, and losses like the one they suffered last night really sting. Over in the NL, it's mostly about seeding, but the Cubs could legitimately be 4, 5, or 6. I'm not sure how much those teams care about which spot they end up (I imagine the Phillies would prefer to avoid the Braves), but that'll make the Brewers side interesting anyway.

Gotta love Yeli making some takes look bad. (I know it's only one AB, but you know it feels good for him to get that hit).

Lowe was ready; Henderson knew it. I kind of like the creepy old-school SCUBA (? Robot?) mask the Pirates give to homer hitters.

We've now poured champagne all over every clubhouse in the NL Central. Please tell that to 2002 me.

THERE IT IS!!!

What this team has done is incredible. On the verge of a 4th division title in a row. 5 in 6 years. 6 in the last 9. That's an NL Central dynasty beyond all doubt. I know everyone wants that playoff success, but this is really what it's all about. The best-run franchise in the game. Years of not just meaningful but winning baseball.

6-3 Braves now!

Braves tiebreaker watch: we're currently level in terms of intradivision record, having played two fewer games. We have 2 vs the Pirates and 3 vs. the Cardinals to end the year. Braves have 3 vs. the Marlins to end the year. I think we're ahead far enough that it shouldn't matter (magic number is 6 with 22 games left, 11 for each team), but for those keeping track...

It's a true win-win.

Agree completely. And the Hall voters seemed to agree. First-ballot inductee with 95% of the vote.

Here we go! 9 outs in Chicago away (I know we're kind of hoping the Braves lose too, so this win is fun no matter what!).

Rickey might be one of the most underrated baseball players of all-time. Like, JAWS says he's the 3rd best left fielder ever, behind Teddy Ball Game and Bonds. Depending on how you feel about the roids, the fact that there's zero evidence linking him to PEDs might matter too. He probably like somewhere between the 26th and 30th man on the all-time MLB 26-man roster. I'm not sure people talk about him that way, but they should.

It's cool. 1 in 100 still seems way low, though. Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems to me that if a random guy gets to first, his odds of trying to steal are way higher than 1 percent.

I'm sure this is part of it. Maybe the biggest part. I could definitely be convinced that the vast majority of it is the idea that an automatic ball is a bad thing, and it far outweighs the odds of guessing right on a pitch out, and then executing that pitchout correctly significantly more often than you would throwing on a normal pitch.

This can't be true. .1% is one in a thousand. WAY more guys than that are running.

So, the theory is: teams don't pitch out because they don't need to? That's a good theory! My question is: WHY don't they need to? Especially since it's theoretically easier for baserunners with bigger bases and limited number of disengagements. I would guess it has to do with catcher and middle infielder mechanics and positioning. But I'd love to hear other theories.

I think your question is a really good one. In fact, it sure looks to me like SBs are up league-wide. The last three years saw more stolen bases than in the mid-90s, for example. I don't think it's about fewer stolen bases, or even fewer guys stealing. I wonder if it's actually about teams not wanting to give away a ball, maybe combined with catchers getting better at the throw to second and middle infielders getting better at swipe tags. Also, with guys playing closer to second, maybe you can get them to cover quickly without having to call it ahead of time. I appreciate your post because it's good fodder for detailed baseball questions and theories. Good stuff.

Unlucky inning there, compounded by Sal making a silly decision.