Lathund

The reason that the 5-man rotation has stuck around, and won't die completely any time soon, is that with limited roster space it's the most efficient way to eat innings over a 162-game season. Pretty much any other setup requires more arms to get the job done. Using the 40-man more fully can help with this. But I don't think it'll be a strategy that reduces the total number of pitchers much, if at all. Another thing that will delay this transition is that you need to find those 12 guys who can pitch in this role. Consider that most pitchers have been trained for, and used in, either the typical starter role or a more typical 1-inning reliever role. How big of an issue this'll be remains to be seen, but I don't think every reliever out there can transition as easily as we'd like. Another issue I see is the workload. It's not just a matter of total innings or total pitches, but also the amount of rest inbetween. Consider that 1-inning relievers rarely go much beyond 70 innings, and extremely rarely go 80, and seem to have fatigue issues if they go further. Going 2 innings every 3 days would likely allow more innings, but I think that 150 innings when going every 3rd game would result in more injuries than 200 innings going every 5th game, so if you're using the every 3rd game schedule, you'd need to stick to the lower end of the outing lengths to get any benefit when it comes to injuries. Also consider the pitching staff in the OP. 12 guys pitching every 3 days need to go 2 1/3 inning each on average to cover the full game. Whether the 13th man is an elite 1-inning guy used situationally, or a multi-inning guy to cover for days when the three designated guys get chased early. Now the problem with this comes on those days; there's no real margin of error, and you'd immediately have to send someone down and get a fresh arm. Anyway, all that being said I think there are benefits to be had in terms of durability and performance in having relievers on more of a schedule rather than irregular use, and that not pitching on consecutive days can have big positive effects. The main drawback of it all though, is that having every reliever scheduled like this means you can't choose which reliever to use when. You'd end up "wasting" your best pitchers in blowouts fairly often. And this is a big, big drawback. All this is not to say that I disagree with the fact that pitcher usage is changing, nor that it shouldn't. Just that there is at least some ways in which the traditional rotation actually makes sense, and that a straight up dismantling of it into a system like above has plenty of drawbacks. What will happen, and already is happening in Milwaukee, Tampa and Oakland and elsewhere to a lesser extent, is to not try to shoehorn pitchers into these moulds. If you have pitchers that fit the traditional starter usage, you should still use them that way; it's how you get the most out of them. But if you don't, then logic would dictate that you should adapt to that. Which the Brewers are doing. I think that the first step would be to replace one or two spots in the rotation with some alternative setup. There aren't 150 starter-calibre pitchers in the league at any one time, so why pretend there are? What I think will become very common is to eliminate the 5th starter. He already gets skipped around off days by many teams, and it's not a huge step to instead bullpen or use some piggyback type of situations on the days where a 5th starter is needed. So now you only really need to find 4 starters. Some teams will go further of course, but I think that it's worth keeping in mind that if you have starters who can go deep into games and perform well, those outings will only make your other outings stronger. You'll better be able to control reliever availability, have them less fatigued when you need them the most and such. I'd imagine starts getting shorter overall, but the Scherzers of the world will still keep doing pretty much the same thing they're doing. Teams just won't have mediocre starters trying to replicate that, but instead adapt. And multi-inning relievers will most definitely become more common again.

Twitter is great for following specific people, but the comments/replies are truly, truly awful. I lose IQ every time I try to read baseball twitter fandom. Same with facebook. Places like these are good, baseball reddit has some of the twitter element, but plenty of knowledgeable and good posters as well that make up for it. And most of all, it has the up/downvote function so you can avoid the dumbest takes.

A good preview of the series from Fangraphs: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-nlcs-will-be-a-study-in-contrasts/

I have no idea what Stearns long term goals are, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to think that he has an interest in seeing this current project through. If it's a matter of money or title that's the allure, then I hope we can offer him that. If it's genuinely a desire for change, for something new, then that's perhaps a different story. I also don't believe this is a one-man operation. Matt Arnold would surely be one of the prime candidates to take over should Stearns leave, and I wouldn't expect a radical change in how the club operates. I hope, anyway...

You need to experience something to know whether you enjoy it or not. Some bandwagon fans will undoubtedly move on when the bandwagon slows down or grinds to a halt. But among those who came aboard the bandwagon will also be some bitten by the Brewers/Baseball bug, who will become devoted fans for life. Bandwagon fans, as annoying as they may sometimes be, is a good thing. Both in itself, and for what it means; that the team is having success.

So since the Nationals could only spend $300K in international signings, is that the amount they traded away? Seems like a steal for a decent chance to get a valuable reliever. They can only sign any individual player for $300k or less, but they still have their full pool to use or trade away, according to this Baseball America article. I would presume the deal was for more than $300k. The move is made in order to secure the signing of Victor Victor "So good they named him twice" Mesa, so in a way it could be worth it even for very little cash if that's enough to beat the Orioles to him. But it does seem a bit desperate; they surely could have gotten a lot more for him in the offseason despite his poor 2018.

One of the issues with Murphy is that he's an awful defender; much worse than Shaw is at 2B. Which is fine if he's hitting like he did in 2016 and 2017, but he was considerably worse than that this year. Would need to be fairly confident that was due to something either temporary or fixable (he did have some injury problems) if Brewers are to take a chance there. If Moustakas stays, then I'm all over the Schoop-Gray deal though (Even if it's just a writer speculating at this point). Aguilar-Shaw-Arcia-Moustakas in the infield, with Dubon and/or Perez to play 2B/SS/3B against tough lefties or to solidify defense. I'm also all for it if a decent FA deal can be had at 2B, but I have concerns over most of the 2B options on the market. Most of the good players would be looking for multi-year deals of varying size, and Brewers are mostly looking for a short term solution or insurance. Not sure enough quality can be had for that role.

Cedeño should be a definite yes IMO.

Looking at the statcast stats, it's quite interesting to see that Miley has been in the top 20 (Among 300-odd pitchers with 150 batted ball events recorded) in lowest exit velocity against. It gets even better when you look at the exit velocity on line drives and fly balls, where he is second. The leader in that category FWIW is Joakim Soria. So when he does give up hard hit balls, they're usually grounders, which he induces 50% of the time. And 50% of the balls put into play are pulled, which is 5th in MLB among pitchers with 60+ IP. Those ground balls are pulled, by RHH, to one of the better defensive SS-3B combos in the league in Arcia + Moose/Shaw. So I do think there are reasons to believe that Miley is "for real" in a sense, and might be one of those guys who outperforms their peripherals as long as the team plays to his strengths. To do it by as much as he has this season, however, is probably unrealistic. The low HR run, with a HR/FB% of 5.2%, the 11th lowest in the majors, is in all likelyhood not sustainable. I'd like to see one lefty in the rotaiton next year (Helps make the RH relievers better too), and I wouldn't mind if that was Miley. But I also wouldn't want to commit too much; Even if he has made real changes, and even if he certanily looks to be a better pitcher, it's still a very small sample size to go on. That K-BB% or K:BB ratio is rather worrisome in that the margins for error are very small.

I'm not so sure Schoop/Thames/Anderson/Davies gets us much. They are good players and would have value in general, but consider which teams might be looking to trade away a starting pitcher and what they'd look to get in return. It'd most likely be a team that's rebuilding, and not looking to be competitive for the remaining year(s) of team control of said pitcher. What would they then need Schoop (1 year), Thames (2 years), Anderson (3 years) or Davies (3 years) for? I'm not saying it's out of the question, perhaps there is a team that is contending, has a starter with only one year remaining that they won't/can't extend and are in need of a bat, and would be willing to accept a downgrade in the rotation for that. But it'd take a very specific set of circumstances for that, as generally the teams who would be interested in the abovementioned players don't want to give up top quality starters, and the teams that would make those guys available wouldn't be interested in short-term talent. Perhaps the way to acquire pitching via trade would be indirectly, to trade our surplus for prospects, and trade prospects (Not necessarily the same ones) for pitching. That being said, I 'm not so sure there is much in the way of big upgrades on the trade market, at least not ones that won't cost us Burnes/Ray/Hiura. Maybe not even then. I'd be more interested in trying to find a buy low candidate with upside, that could be acquired for very little. Some possible candidates for that would be the Grays; Sonny and Jon. Jon Gray is only 26, has 3 or 4 years of team control remaining, and his peripherals are better than the ERA would suggest. Whether he's actually better than he appears is something I'll leave up to DS and his team, but he might be. Come to think of it, it would also be one of the few situations where a Schoop/Thames package would be of interest; Rockies have a very good rotation already, but they trot out Ian Desmond at first base, they struggle against RHP, and DJ LeMahieu is a free agent. Sonny Gray looks likely to be done in NY, and only has 1 year remaining. There's the DJ connection, and he probably won't be all that expensive. Not as good a match for the actual trade though; they seem to have found a 1B they like in Voit for now, but perhaps some other deal can be struck. Thinking even further outside the box; Alex Cobb has a much better second half (2.56 ERA) after a disastrous first half; if there's something that suggests a real improvement there (I have no idea, haven't seen him), and Orioles are willing to eat some of the salary, that's another possibility (Well, not for a Schoop/Thames trade of course, but some other trade) Anyway, those might not necessarily be the targets we'd be after, just a few names that came to mind, and more represents the general type of trade I'd be after. I want us to keep our young MLB-ready starting pitching (Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff in particular, guys like Brown too ideally), as well as Hiura and Ray who are close to MLB, have a high potential upside and in addition to that play in position/roles of need (2B is obvious, but a lefty RF/CF is also a very good fit). So I'd be willing to accept not going after the top-level trades if it means keeping those guys, and instead try to see what we can get for the guys we're hoping the above mentioned prospects would replace. Which means, naturally, players who for one reason or another will be available relatively cheaply.

The extra position player over a lefty specialist like Cedeño is the only thing I'm a bit surprised by.

Schoop 100% depends on what the market looks like, and if any of the better options out there are interested in a short term deal. Because while ~$10m for Schoop is steep, it's also only a 1 year commitment. Others may be interested at a lower AAV, but more money total. And if things pan out with Dubon and/or Hiura a short term deal is all we're looking for.

One interesting thing about DRA is that it can explain Oliver Drake, or more specifically why he was kept around. Now I don't imagine Brewers use DRA itself, but whatever they are using might spit out similar results. Because by DRA Drake has been good, and the team probably expected that to translate to results at some point. Guys like Soria, Cedeño and Gio also rate better at DRA than they do FIP, for instance. Jacob Barnes is another one. Now there are pitchers who don't fit into that, like Jhoulys Chacin or Wade Miley, so obviously Brewers use more than one method to evaluate pitchers. But I wouldn't be surprised to see decisions on future pitching moves correlating fairly well with DRA. It'll be interesting to follow at least.

I don't think Stearns ever wanted a strikeout-prone team, I think it was largely a result of those being the players available in the bargain bin, that perhaps other teams were devaluing those players too much. Or maybe they didn't, and he was simply looking at the upside if they did get it under control. I mean it's easy to see in a guy like Keon Broxton; If he ever became even a .250-.260 hitter he'd be a star, with that power, speed and defense. It may have been highly unlikely that ever happened, but with where the Brewers were at the time, there was no downside to taking that chance. That being said, I don't think the Brewers will ever be among the lowest K% teams in the league. They do value power a lot still. Power and patience, so not really the free-swinging type of power, but that does come with a fair amount of strikeouts. And there's a difference between striking out swinging at three pitches outside the zone, and striking out due to being selective with what you swing at. The latter will also draw walks, the former won't. With regards to the OP; Cubs fans really don't like Chili Davis, their new hitting coach. But for quite the opposite reason you're suggesting; Their K rate has actually gone down, which is good. But with that, so has their power. Davis is (From what I've gathered from Cubs fans and articles about the Cubs etc) a proponent of situational hitting, making contact, hitting to all fields etc. Cubs fans believe this isn't really suited to todays game, or perhaps rather that it isn't suited to their current players. Their issue as an offense also hasn't been that it's bad, but that it's wildly inconsistent, with only the Orioles scoring 0-1 runs more times than the Cubs, yet the Cubs having a good total # of runs scored. It'd be interesting to see more on what makes an offense inconsistent; I, and from discussions on here many others too, usually associate it with HR-reliant offenses. No HRs = no runs, basically. But I'm perhaps beginning to reconsider that a bit, simply for the reason that a HR isn't reliant on anything but itself. I mean you can have 9 singles in a game; if they all happen in one inning, you score like 7-8 runs. If they happen one in each inning, you likely score nothing. An offense based on putting the ball in play and just making contact relies on sequencing, a HR offense doesn't. If you hit a HR you score at least one run. There's also the correlation between power and getting on base. A HR threat gets fewer pitches to hit, and thus walks more, which can in turn set up the contact-oriented play when needed. And plays well with base-stealing abilities. Anyway, I don't really think it's an either/or situation. You obviously want both, finding the right balance between the two is the challenge.

So, so happy. When we were 5 games back I couldn't see us winning the division, but I'm delighted to be wrong. The team really stepped it up the last month or two. And it wasn't just Yelich, Hader, Jeffress, Cain and the other guys who get the headlines. Corbin Burnes and Brandon Woodruff pitched key innings. Even Jordan Lyles and Junior Guerra stepped up when needed from the bullpen. I had never even heard of Erik Kratz before he was picked up. Broxton has barely played, but made some key plays when he has. Santana has been brilliant as a pinch hitter. Curtis Granderson has stepped up in limited playing time. And today, Orlando Arcia of all people has 4 hits! Jhoulys Chacin was fantastic just when we needed him to. Hader recovered from a bad outing for a 2-inning save. David Stearns assembled a roster made for September with a ton of depth, and deserves a ton of credit. I'm so thankful our GDT crew don't run things, or CC would've been out a long time ago and we probably wouldn't be here. Not just the results, but the solid and patient approach from (most of) our batters might even earn Darnell Coles some goodwill here, though that might be pushing it.

I think you try not to use Hader today unless the situation really calls for it. If Chacin goes relatively deep, then Jeffress, Knebel, Soria and Cedeno can finish it out. Hader seems to do best on a lot of rest, and it would be fantastic to have him and Burnes ready for tomorrow when a weaker starter (Or even a bullpen game) is on the mound. But that being said, if the situation calls for Hader, then go to Hader.

I wasn't nervous at all for the past week, since the WC was pretty much secured barring a complete collapse, and I saw winning the division as so unlikely that I wasn't too concerned with it; great if it happens, but I didn't really get my hopes up. That, and a faith in this team I've never had before. Much of it Christian Yelich, but whenever the team was in need of a big inning I felt that they'd pull it off. And they usually did. But today I can barely sit still. The division hope is so real and palpable. And the difference between winning today (and going to the NLDS with home field advantage through the NLDS and NLCS) and losing (WC game with likely a depleted bullpen, and no home field advantage until an eventual WS against the Indians) is so big. So going with Chacin is 100% correct. Keep tomorrow in mind to some extent, try not to blow the entire bullpen of course, and keep a couple late-inning guys and a Woodruff/Peralta/Burnes or two ready, but essentially focus on today and for the most part worry about tomorrow tomorrow. One can also either look at Quintana being good vs the Brewers and Yelich not being great against the Cubs as something to worry about, or to say that's due to change, or chalk it down to randomness. I alternate between the three constantly.

I think it's a shame that Baez plays for the Cubs. As a player, he's someone I really should like and find fun to watch. Yet I don't, and I wish I did.

Tigers' hits: 73, 65, 57, 73, 89 mph exit velocity Brewers: 97, 110, 107 mph Baseball.

Mookie Betts and Mike Trout are having seasons that are comparable to some of the all-time great seasons. Missed ~25 games each, and still 10+ WAR. It feels unfair that one of them won't be the MVP, I can't see how you'd even consider anyone besides those two. As for the NL; It depends on how you view pitchers winning MVP. If you're going with a position player I don't see how it can possibly be anyone but Yelich. Some national writers are still trying to manufacture reasons for Baez, like "intangibles" or "making his teammates better" or how he creates chaos on the bases by just being there etc, but they're becoming fewer by the day. I'm a bit iffy about pitchers winning MVP until when/if the Hank Aaron award gets the same kind of status as the Cy Young. But he's having a remarkable season, and I won't be upset if he wins. But no position player can hold a candle to Yelich.

Christian Yelich sticks out a bit during this launch angle movement, the "flyball revolution" and all that in that he hits a ton of grounders and is still the frontrunner for MVP. But the real anti-TTO (Three True Outcomes, i.e BB/K/HR) poster child is Willians Astudillo. The most he has ever struck out in his professional career was a 4.8% rate in rookie ball in 2009, and 4.6% in AAA this year. In 2011, in 220 PAs, he had a 0.9% strikeout rate. He's carried this into the majors, with a 1.2% BB rate and 2.4% strikeout rate. He hasn't struck out in almost 60 PAs in september. And while the sample size is ridiculously small still at only 80-odd PAs, he's doing really well: .350/.366/.513. That he really doesn't look like a baseball player either makes it all even better. Big fan of this guy already, and looking forward to following his career.

Can't maintain a 3.06 ERA very long with a 1.36 WHIP. That WHIP would rate 58th our of 63 qualified starters. The 5 pitchers with a worse WHIP range from 4.26 ERA (Gio Gonzalez) to 5.81 ERA (Lucas Giolito).

If the Yankees are moving on, and the acquisition cost would be in line with a team dumping a player who underperformed for the past year, then I'd absolutely be for the idea. Won't go as far as to suggest specific deals, but considering he has only one year left I don't think his value is all that high. Regardless, Santana is out of options and the Yankees have Stanton, Judge, Hicks and Gardner (Plus the injured Ellsbury) already, they hardly need outfielders.

Worth noting though that it's not made by their prospect writers. Their most recent work can be found on THE BOARD. I'd expect that writeups will come at some point after the season.

It doesn't really matter what the players traded away do, as long as Yelich does what we acquired him to do. And he certainly is doing that, and more, so far. Also, when talking about "winning" trades, that tends to ignore the fact that it's not a zero-sum game, and that both teams can "win" a trade. One team needs production now and gets it, one needs it later and gets it. I hope the guys we sent to Miami make it big, and that 2018 won't be Yelich's last MVP. It's not an either/or situation.