tmwiese55

Braun and Shaw have 19 RBI's which would put them on pace for 83 each for a 162 games just based on the number of games we have played so far, not their individual games played. Thames had 13 RBI's in 22 games and if you put that over a full season, it would be about 96 RBI's. Santana, on the other hand, has 8 RBI's and would be about 35 total for an entire 162 game season. He needs to heat up and stay how to make up for his horrendous start. 83 RBIs is pathetic for a 3/4 hitter playing 162 games with two guys above them on base like Cain and Yelich. Key point missed there for Braun. He won't play 162 games. 83 is pretty good for the 125 games he's probably on about pace for. I think someone else said his BA with RISP is like .360 or .380. That's about the one area we can't complain about him much so far (thus the game winning hits).

I'd say I'm a bit surprised Pina hasn't done better. I know he's not a great hitter or anything, but I expected better than this at least in the ballpark of last year. It didn't seem fluky to me, he made a lot of hard contact imo. Basically, I thought he'd be competent/ok rather than terrible like he's been. More or less the same for Arcia, but this doesn't surprise me much as I thought his hot spell last year was fluky and inflated by lucky bloopers. Still, thought he'd improve to make up some of that. Change those two from terrible to serviceable and it does make a significant difference to the depth of the offense.

Perfectly stated. We jump to too many conclusions on players. Agree. And remember at the end of last year he did get hot again for awhile. Then he kept getting benched again right around when he lost that game by messing up the fly ball in CF. I posted it a few days ago, he's around 299/340 vs righties this year. Something like that, and not sure how much it's changed since that day. Eye test on it hasn't been good, I assume thing like hard hit % aren't great. But those results are fine, give him a few weeks of straight play. See if he sinks or swims.

I generally agree with the last few posts. I agree last year was fluky and it was proven with how bad the offense cratered at the end. I was glad they didn't blow their load at the deadline since there really wasn't a great option to add. Turns out Verlander had a ton left in the tank, but who would have guess that and he likely declines the trade anyway. I was also completely fine with not spending the money on Darvish/Arrieta/Cobb. The one year type thing thrown at Cobb, sure I'd do stuff like that I suppose. It's also why I was generally down on a 5 year deal to a 32 yr old outfielder. Though I love him as a player right now. Yelich, made great sense to me and don't think we overpaid (I was likely less high on Brinson than most) and he's so young and controlled that he's kind of the perfect guy to get if you're the Brewers, so I get pouncing on that. No way I wanted to give up our young SP prospects who are so close to MLB for Archer, I would have understood one and hoped it was Ortiz. And of course I'd have rooted for the best if they did go that route. But glad they played the long game with the SP prospects, small market like MKE needs to hold those guys like grim death. Basically unless you're in clear 'win the title' mode, which with LAD/WAS/CHC looking like juggernauts going into the season this wasn't the time. My involvement in this whole talk was trotting out known crappy guys, generally having the idea of throw something else against the wall and see if it sticks rather Franklin types. I would've taken the same attitude on Drake. Grand scheme, this is obviously a very small thing and a blip on the radar. I'm fine with the overall approach they're taking for long term building and happy with the progress.

Good point, there really are no great options here. What's that phrase, 'pick the least worst option'. Which seems to me is clearly just playing Villar vs all righties, that takes care of 80% of games. Give it 3-4 weeks so there is a legit sample, re-assess.

I know you've brought it up before on Villar being better as a rightie. The coach's clearly don't believe that and the scouting report views him as better as lefty. I know those stats you're using, but this is a case where the coach's clearly view him as better as a lefty and it's been that way since we've had him. It is what it is, he'll be looked to be platooned when a lefty pitches. Therefore you need a righty to pair with him. Good point Jericho, of course overall they've done a great job since taking over as GM and this is nothing like the Bucks. But in these specific roster moves they've consistently failed and the offense has been really bad since May last year. And just because they're good overall doesn't mean they can't be wrong sometimes, see Oliver Drake and several other pitchers trotted out last year.

And the last Netflix just wasn't good. Supposedly this should be better since they've been able to get the whole cast together to do it, rather than having to film stuff separately like last time. We'll see. Someone also told me they're going to go back and recut the previous Netflix season so it flows better, not sure if there is legs to that or not.

I actually despised Sogard being on the roster and getting so many chances and ditto on Drake. I have no affinity for Franklin. I'm OK trying something different (I'd like to get creative going out-of-house). I just am totally fine with a guy like Orf not really getting a chance because I tend to agree with them that he's very likely to be worse than the other options. If they want to give Orf a shot, go ahead. It can't be much worse, that's for sure. And yeah, go with Villar for the bulk of starts for now. More or less what I've been saying, haha, glad we could sing kumbaya. And yea it's not like I'm some Orf proponent, basically all I know of him is what has been said by ya'll here and the numbers thrown out. Heck, even the guy brought up today I'd rather have than Franklin. I suppose partly because at least it's new to me. Though it seems he has had his chances already. But beyond that 'fandom' type view, he just seems better at IF D based on what ya'll say. Like you said, there has to be a better option sitting somewhere outside of the organization. But in the meantime, Villar vs righties and Perez vs lefities should just be ran out for a few weeks. Villar's last chance to sink or swim.

Braun since April 17 so I think 18 games is 18/60 with 4 walks, site I was on didn't have HBP if there has been any for him. But without that's 300/343. He has been bad in May so far so shorten that up and it's bad. But pretty much since the first couple weeks of atrociousness he's been 'fine'. Just like Santana has been of late. What's killing them is often having 44% of their ABs coming from near free outs. Even the good guys not doing as good as we all hoped, they've been ok or at least not what's killing you lately. Along with what seems to my eye test poor average with RISP (not sure if it's backed up by stats, but seems reminiscent of last year).

I'm fine with you guys saying you'd rather just keep trying guys who we already know suck. I'd rather try something else. Sometimes guys beat projections, but you don't know if you don't try. That said, I hope we can all agree that whoever this 25th guy is he better not be starting 3-5 times a week like Sogard was...

That's different. Houser and Williams are projected major league talent. It lays out the logic perfectly though. Our coaches/scouts said Drake projected better so why would you question it? They should go that route then. Turns out they were wrong. Again, I'm just saying the logic of knowing who sucks and trying something else rather than repeating the same thing and hoping it'll be different this time. Is it just a bit of fandom and stuff you can only really say because we don't have all the info/scouting/expertise. Yea probably, but that's the whole point of the board. But in a lot of cases, it's true in all kinds of things in life and in many sports. Basically, sometimes just gotta try something new. And sometimes guys just continue to beat projections/expectations in all sports if given shots.

We knew Drake sucked right? Would you have preferred giving him a month like we did or going with Houser/Williams or literally anyone else on the fring of MLB right away? I know which I would have done.

Sigh... carry on.

Haven't Franklin and Sogard been cut and passed over several times too. Chances are they're all AAAA players. I merely stated the logic as to why some would rather give a new guy a shot vs trotting out guys who've had 4 shots and failed every time. I get both ways, generally lean towards trying a new guy. But you're basically saying they're right and that's it, don't question it. Which would kill all discussion here because you could say it about everything. Chances are you're ending up with next to no hitting from any of them. For this specific example, from what I read here is that Orf would be better at IF D and can play SS better. If I'm getting that scouting report wrong, I apologize. Plus IMO, being righty should be an advantage to because it's opposite of what Villar is good at. So those things combined with what I said about trying something new while knowing none are likely to hit well I'd have gone that route.

That was exactly my extreme example I gave him, but it was written off. It sounds like a stupid example to give, but it's still relevant. The idea that "we don't know, these other guys stink so try something new" could be applied on everyone. And so clearly refuted already in another post. These guys are all about the same thing. You're not comparing or choosing them between me or you. But continue to be that obtuse on it to try and be funny. It contributes a lot. Thanks.

Nope, it's that the other guys haven't had a chance yet therefor you don't know what will happen whereas the other guys have had 3-4 cracks already so you know what you have. And your point is to say you don't know that, anything can happen, the other guys could be good too. While ignoring the main point that they've already had multiple chances, and the repeating same thing different result saying... No, my point is that if you asked many scouts or GMs, they'd probably project Nate Orf to be no better than Sogard, Franklin, Saladino and be pretty confident about it. So potentially knowing that you have a .650 OPS hitter with slight, slight upside and positional flexibility is better than having a guy that you are extremely certain will cap out as a .650 OPS hitter and has less positional flexibility. Which I acknowledged too. Some of it you do have some of it where you just have to trust the experts as it's their job. Even though so far that expertise has been very bad for a while now here. Yet you're arguing. I'm merely saying the logic of why people are saying give Orf a crack is the reason I'm saying, and you're somehow arguing it. Is it right, who knows, but that's the logic. You know what you have in those older castoffs, you don't in these other guys, give it a shot. Now repeat the same thing and that the old guys might do better, we don't know, which we don't because none of this exact. Even though I said the same thing. I mean, I don't know why we bother on a site like this if you're stance is the team is smarter than us and just accept. Generally speaking of course that's true, but the whole point of the site is to have a little discussion and you're apparent point is that they're the scout so they're right so what are we talking about. Welp, might as well just fold up the site.

Your point is literally "anything could happen." Nope, it's that the other guys haven't had a chance yet therefor you don't know what will happen whereas the other guys have had 3-4 cracks already so you know what you have. And your point is to say you don't know that, anything can happen, the other guys could be good too and none of this is known for sure. While ignoring the main point that they've already had multiple chances, the repeating same thing different result etc...

It's like you're literally ignoring the whole point and everything I said just to argue and basically say anything could happen, of course. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you're really arguing. It's all a risk/chance type game to a degree so nothing is for sure. So saying not always a greater chance, of course, nothing of this is an exact science. Here's the logic and I don't know it's that arguable really: Guy 1: given 3-4 chances and already failed each time. Chances are he is what he is. Usually that guy is older too so again, not much chance of improvement or 'late bloomer' Guy 2: Hasn't been given a chance yet. So, you never know. Roll the dice, see what happens, chances are he ends up lust like the other guy but who knows maybe you catch lightning in a bottle. And in this case, these guys are all roughly the same level, scouted about the same, etc. There isn't a clear gap like there would be comparing Orf vs you or me sitting at our desk. That's all it is. And sure it's their job to scout and use their expertise. But lately that expertise sure hasn't been good...

Velocity has been there though. Positive vs last year.

Sure, could happen that way too. But the logic would be that the unknown would have a higher chance of that than the one who's already tried multiple times. Kind of like the do the same but expect different results saying. But yea, like you said, it's their job to scout this stuff so kind of have to trust them a bit on it. That said, it's tough to trust them as guy after does poorly at hitting.

Some of it is just simply that you know what you have in the retread types, whereas Orf you don't. So, yea chances are it's more of hte same but at least the small % that he's Scott Podsednik. And if not, you're in the same spot. Kind of like what do you have to lose? Yea, good post Adam

Villar is 299/341 vs righties this year. Sure he hasn't looked great even with those results, but I don't know why they're overthinking this so much. Just play him every time vs righties and see how it goes the next few weeks. Throw in Perez vs most lefties. Seems pretty simple to me.

And with all the depth this year, if you're going to carry this guy. He literally should never start. I see an argument of wanting the young guy playing every day in the minors. So you'd rather this guy be the 25th man, fine whatever, but don't fricking start him. That said, he'll have two hits tonight.

I really can't believe we have another Nick Franklin sighting. Shocked, thought we'd get to see a young guy