Lathund

Over the last several years, Cubs fans spend the offseason talking about how awful the Brewers are and how much better the Cubs are. When the Cubs finish 10 games behind, they suddenly switch to claiming they saw the weaknesses of their team all along. This year the Cubs did get better, so perhaps this is the one time they'll actually be right. But I don't think their view that they're by far the best team in the division is right. I also find the projections rather head-scratching at time. PECOTA was off by 14 games on the Brewers last year, and it still projects this young team to be significantly worse on defense and on the bases this year. But it's super optimistic about the Cubs defense. Amaya with his -3 DRP last year is projected at +4 DRP. While Contreras, with a +7.5 and +4.8 DRP in his last two years is projected for -0.6 DRP. Dansby Swanson at 31 is going to greatly exceed his average defense, I think defense and baserunning alone is off by a couple of wins. Offensively, PECOTA expects Hoerner and Happ to be much better than their career numbers. In Hoerners case to put up a 7 points higher DRC+ than he ever has in a season before. 40 year old Justin Turner is projected to improve on his last two years. William Contreras in his age 27 season is projected to be worse than his career numbers. Joey Ortiz is projected to regress a ton at 25. Taillon is projected to have his best season since 2019, 34 year old Matthew Boyd is projected to pitch as many innings as he has in the last 3 years combined, and do it at a level only ever matched in 2019. In fact he is projected to match his combined WARP from his 9 previous non-2019 seasons. Obviously, a computer is team-agnostic, it crunches numbers and doesn't know what effect it has on teams, so not like there's some actual bias there. I just look at the projections and see unusually optimistic projections for the Cubs, and when so much of their roster is expected to exceed their career numbers, the smart move is to take the under. The Fangraphs projections are more realistic, with the Cubs just 3 wins ahead (Though an 81 win projection for the Brewers seems really low still). But even that is largely powered by the ridiculously optimistic ZiPS which has many of the same issues I find with PECOTA. Now I'm also biased, but I just think the projections, by their very nature, miss out on many of the things Brewers do well; Defense, baserunning, platooning, aggressive bullpen usage, utilizing depth, in-season moves and adjustments etc. Maybe Counsell brings some of that to the Cubs, but as we saw in 2024 it's not like it was all Counsell (Not that anyone with a brain believed that), but a collaborative effort between Murph, the rest of the coaching staff, the team-facing part of the front office etc. If one was to make the Cubs slight favorites based on having more of a track record, then that's a reasonable take. But the general expectations that Cubs fans have, in line with PECOTA, is going to be way off. Again. As for the very end of the post; Devin Williams pitched only 22 innings in 2024 and the Brewers still had the best bullpen ERA in the NL. Losing him is not the big problem you seem to think.

I think Pratt in AA is an almost sure thing. He wasn't great in A+ but he also didn't really struggle, he could handle it. You'd expect his time there to be brief if he went there, and most of the season spent in AA. In that case I would rather just have him there from the start, facing better opposition for longer, working with the same coaches etc. And I'd imagine prospects themselves like it when they can stay longer in one place.

The benefit of "productive outs" is more or less cancelled out by how very bad double plays are. Moving on to the topic in general: When looking at strikeouts it also matters *why* someone strikes out, or why they don't. Swinging harder, trying to pull the ball, and trying to put it in the air will generally result in more swing and miss. If you successfully do those things, then you'd happily take the extra strikeouts in exchange for the home runs. Hitting the ball hard and swinging and missing kind of go hand in hand after all. Strikeouts become far more problematic in someone who doesn't hit the ball hard, as there is no tradeoff. Strikeouts are sometimes also the result of plate discipline and being selective. And they also go hand in hand with walks. If you don't lay off pitches, you're not getting walks either. Joey Gallo is perhaps the most extreme version of the profile of combining selectiveness with swinging hard. Extreme walk rate, extreme strikeout rate, lots of HRs. So far, I'm just stating the obvious. I think what's interesting is the opposite of this, where we get the Dee Gordon, Juan Pierre, Willians Astudillos, Luis Arraez types of this world. As in miniscule walk rates and strikeout rates, high batting average but no power. Players relying on their great bat control and bat to ball skills to make contact with anything. They are an example of where they'd probably benefit from striking out more. Not because strikeouts are better than other outs, but because of what happens when they don't. Their walk rate is low because they swing on pitches they shouldn't, both early in the count and with full counts. And fairly often putting the ball in play is *not* better than taking a ball. Depending on the location, pitch movement and the count (And the base-out states), it's sometimes not even better than taking a strike. The last part probably sounds unintuitive or just wrong. But think of it how the average BABIP was .291 in 2024. So putting the ball in play, there is a .291 chance of a hit, .015 chance of reaching on an error, .019 chance of a double play, .007 chance of a sac fly, and some chance of an RBI groundout or productive groundout that I don't have the means to calculate here. Anyway, point is that something like 2/3 of the time, the outcome is the same as a strikeout. Sometimes the outs are less bad, sometimes worse. The 1/3 that are hits or errors though are good, and the argument would be that putting the ball in play as often as possible maximizes the chances of that. But we can also see the result of putting pitches in various parts of the zone into play. And the pitches around the edge of the zone (Both inside and outside, i.e the pitches that Gallo lays off and that Astudillo or Arraez put into play) have a very low batting average, and almost zero chance of an XBH. And of course also no chance of a walk/HBP. The calculus is different at 0-2 compared to 3-0 or 0-0, but the point is that putting the ball in play excludes the other outcomes of a plate appearance. If the best you can hope for is a single, and the chances of even that are low, you're sometimes better off taking a strike. The other aspect of being in the "make contact with everything" approach also comes at the pitches you *should* be swinging at. If the swing is too heavily geared towards always making contact, that tends to mean either a lower bat speed, sitting back as opposed to trying to get in front of it, and a flatter bat path. That tends to mean that a player like that will rarely swing and miss at a middle-middle pitch, but they will also punish them with an XBH less often. A Joey Gallo will whiff on some, but will also put more in the seats. Anyway, this was long. Just trying to contrast the obvious downsides of strikeouts with the less obvious ones of not striking out. Not really an argument in favor of either direction, just that there is a balance to be had. Strikeouts aren't really worse than other outs, but they should be a consequence of doing some other things well. And too many is still not good. Likewise, not striking out at all has some real drawbacks as well, that aren't as obvious. TL; DR of this TL;DR: Swing really hard at pitches you can do damage on if you make contact, lay off pitches you can't do anything with, even if some might be strikes.. Easy, I solved baseball.

This also all started because of the claim that Black wasn't playing not because of a minor injury, but because Murphy disliked him. No matter what Murph thought of Black, if he was healthy he would be playing in ST. No matter if he was slated to be the starter, backup, AAA depth or likely to be DFA/traded.

DeJong over the last three years has put up a 205/.263/.372 slash line, good for 76 wRC+. Yes, he does it in a way (power) that our internal options at the position do not, but in the end it's the actual overall output that matters. And I'm pretty sure that among Dunn/Collins/Monasterio/Capra they can work a combined 76 wRC+ or better. And I think Durbin is going to be quite a bit better than that. Like I don't think even a realistic best case scenario is that much above a league average 100 wRC+, but league average offense with above average baserunning and above average defense is a 2-3 WAR player with a full seasons worth of PA. It's less than Adames, and I still would want another infielder to go with Durbin, Turang and Ortiz, but many people on here have decided that he's somehow a black hole, a sub-replacement player, and I don't think it's right. If nothing else, a player who had as many stolen bases as he had strikeouts in his minor league career is something I think I've seen before, and would love to see what that looks like.

How did you get any of that from the post you quoted? They didn't even hint at calling anyone a worse fan, or were passive aggressive, or anything of the kind. I can only hope you quoted the wrong post

He may well be impactful this year, but there is just no reason to have Yoho on the opening day roster. He would need to be added to the 40-man, meaning someone else would have to be dropped. Whereas if he remains in AAA, he doens't take up a spot and will still be available as depth. And you additionally gain a year of team control. See what you have in the guys already on the roster, bring Yoho up if they struggle/get hurt or if he's simply good enough to force it. Almost certainly what they'll do. I also think the likely infield right now is Durbin, Ortiz and Turang in some configuration; I'd argue Turang at SS, but if Durbin is better at 3B than I think he is, that would make sense too. I also think that it's going to be a Dunn over Monasterio for the bench role, but that could go either way. Black will probably see more time at 1B, DH and LF than he will at 3B. If they viewed him as a 3B, he would've played there more with it being a position of need.

Brewers rank 3rd on Baseball Prospectus' farm system ranking; Cubs 14th, Cardinals 17th, Reds 18th, Pirates 23rd. A point of emphasis is the depth of the system which they call "astounding". Not sure whether it needs a subscription, or just a free account, or nothing to view, but here it is regardless: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/article/96524/2025-prospects-organizational-prospect-rankings/

I don't consider Quero blocked by Contreras. Contreras has 3 years remaining, seeing as how he is unlikely (IMO anyway) to sign an extension, he might very well get traded after 2. Quero in all likelyhood starts 2025 in AAA and won't get a full year of service time. Meaning he'll have 6 years of team control after 2025. Having them share duties for a year or two isn't a problem, it's in fact a great situation to be in. A backup catcher is needed far more often than other backups, and the combination of an elite defender (Who might be a good bat too, remains to be seen) and an elite hitter in a DH league makes it easy to get them playing time in a way that benefits the team. And injuries happen, another reason why you want a strong backup catcher. Whatever his role, Quero is someone who will likely contribute already this year, and definitely in the next couple. What makes more sense to me when trading for rentals is to trade away players further from the majors, not players who can help you while you have the rental. Or more generally, don't trade top prospects for rentals, however tempting it may be. For good players with multiple years of control (Like the Adames, Yelich, Contreras trades) you could include them, but for rentals it's just so weakening.

Spring training is for players on the 40-man roster and non roster invites. Gasser is on the 40-man since there is no IL currently. He's automatically included, but he won't actually throw a single pitch in game action in ST. Brent Suter had one of the fastest comebacks from TJS I've ever seen. But firstly the Raptor isn't human, and secondly he returned in relief which shaves some time off. But even if Gasser matches or even beats Suter's timeline, we're still talking late May at best. Still not going to be pitching in ST. July is the earliest somewhat realistic timeline. It could be September without it being unexcpected or having been a setback.

There's a long way to go for Made, but I think the two posters above who are only walking about stats are missing the point. There are absolutely gaudy stat lines in the DSL every year that don't amount to much in the end. They're usually not *this* good, but still. You can usually see strong signs of unsustainable performances even in basic stats though. Inflated BABIP, sky high HR/FB rate, subpar K/BB numbers. Made has none of that. In those basic stats alone you can tell a few things. Most importantly that he walked significantly more than he struck out. Yes it's the DSL, the pitching isn't very good. But walking 18% of the time and striking out only 13% of the time signals a great eye at the plate. Plate discipline stats support that. Chase rate, whiff rate etc. A seriously mature approach. And it's not like he's overly passive either. Now the real kicker in all this is when we also factor in batted ball data. Alongside that low whiff rate, low strikeout rate and ability to make contact he also hits for a ton of power. EV90 above the MLB average, as a 17 year old. Scouts like his mechanics and love his tools too. He's also a switch hitter who plays SS (Even if he might end up at 3B) pretty well and runs well. The reason there is a lot of skepticism about DSL is that people pay far too much attention to stats like raw OPS and nothing else, and then naturally the failure rate among those players is sky high. It can't really be emphasized enough how strongly Made's performances are supported by the underlying data. Another reason prospects fail is that their prospect rankings and evaluations are based on projection. There is a lot of "If he can cut the strikeout rate/increase launch angle/find more power as he matures" etc. That's in addition to needing to prove it at higher levels. Made on the other hand has all the tools and skills he needs. He "just" needs to prove it at a higher level. Which is no mean feat, far from guaranteed. But if there was ever a DSL prospect to be excited about, this is it. Prospect evaluators almost never go gaga for a DSL prospect this way. They're skeptics, cynics, conservative. And they all put him in the top 100, or in one case even top 20.

It was the same main catcher both years, so I don't think a change in philosophy has anything to do with it. And I don't think it's a conscious focus from defense to offense for Contreras. It's not a sport like soccer or hockey where offense involves risk and sacrificing defense, a catcher can do both. Sure his practice time isn't unlimited, but I don't believe their was anything intentional in this. Robo umps are coming, which can impact how Brewers look at catchers in the lower minors or the draft. But in 2024, 2025 and perhaps 2026, Brewers aren't just going to give up a huge edge like this.

Projections are really underselling the Brewers defense, expecting just about everyone to regress. Which, I feel fairly confident saying, won't happen. There's also all the things that projections can't account for even if they get the player projections right. That is the in-season additions, promotions and demotions. Bullpen usage, platoons etc, things the Brewers do well. But fundamentally I think the projections themselves are missing something with the Brewers. Perhaps it's the defense. Perhaps it relates to DRC+ and contact hitters. I remember the very early versions couldn't understand hitters like Ichiro, and viewed their performance as just luck. Adjustments over the years has made it somewhat better, but it would still treat a bunch of young speed+contact type hitters very conservatively. There's also the bullpen which PECOTA is pretty down on. To be hoenst, they're really down on most things. Normally when I look at a preseason projection there's a mix of players I think the projections overrate, and underrate. With my bias as a fan, naturally I find more projections I'd bet the over on than vice versa. But looking at the Brewers PECOTA projections the only optimistic one I see is Woodruff, and that's injury related. Last year it was 79 wins at this stage, and ended up with 93. I think it'll be off by a similar margin again. At the very least I'd wait until opening day to take projections more seriously. I think another infield move (Which I expect to happen) will have a big effect, even if it's not an amazing player. Currently BP are predicting the Brewers will spread a lot of playing time between various poorly performing players there. I expect reality to be quite different.

This thread coincides with my attitude towards the 2025 (And onwards) Brewers.

I'm sure Chourio would be a very good CF, but at the same time you can't really compare the defensive metrics from a CF to a LF/RF straight up like this. Firstly because, as another poster pointed out, these are mostly counting stats, so playing time matters. The other is that they're all stats compared to other players at the position, and that CF is harder position. A higher DRS/OAA/FRV at RF compared to someone else at CF doesn't tell you much. I expect Mitchell to play CF most days (Perkins against some lefties) and to have a very good season if healthy. The only uncertainty is the infield. We know 2/3 guys who will play there for sure, and I think/hope there is yet one more move coming, most likely a trade. Even if they really like Durbin, you'd still want a better 4th option than Dunn/Monasterio IMO. But with the current roster, I think it'll be Ortiz at SS with Dunn and Durbin not in a strict platoon, but with elements thereof at 3B. I suspect Durbin is better at 2B than 3B and so I would probably go with Turang at SS instead, but that's just me guessing. I know many people are hesitant to move Turang due to the platinum glove at 2B, but if it gets the most out of everyone there I'd be fine with it.

Made is ranked a lot higher by BA, BP, Pipeline. But reading Keith Law's blurb on him, I wouldn't even say he's "low" on him. He basically says that he'll have to do it at a higher level first. Sounds like he thinks he will, and that he'll then be one of the absolute top prospects in the game. But that until he has, he'll be a tad lower.

Pipeline generally feels like the safest, most conservative of the various prospect outlets. They'll tend to slot in the draft picks in more or less draft order, and they'll generally be slow to make changes. Jesus Made at 56 is pretty aggressive for them; I honestly wouldn't have been shocked had they not ranked him. The above is pretty easy to see. And it's not necessarily a bad thing; having different philosophies between the various publications is useful, gives additional perspectives. And while this is about the Brewers, it's interesting to see that the other major publications has seemingly seen sense (IMO) about the Cubs prospects, while Pipeline still has 7 of them in the top 100. Generally at the lower end though (except, rightfully, Shaw). I just don't see this generation of Cubs having a big impact. Partly because there's not going to be a ton of playing time for them. Due to both having a lot of established players already in place, but also because there's not a lot of positional flexibility, and a lack of well-rounded guys who contribute in all phases. Ballesteros can hit, but he's not a catcher, and probably not a 1B, and offers nothing on the bases. He *really* has to hit to make it, and the only lineup spot he can feature in (DH) has a 129 wRC+ incumbent under contract for two more years. Triantos and Caissie have lesser, but similar, issues. Not just strictly looking at the farm, a top 5 (Or even top 3) revenue team that rebuilds for 4 years should be in a better position by now.

It's on the pitching side they have a roster crunch. They will have 13 position players on the roster, and they have a total of 15 on the 40-man. If anything they'd probably want to add more for depth rather than get rid of them. They'll need to free up a spot or two soon (Yates, Kershaw) but most of their roster space will come when they can put their recovering pitchers (4-5 of them) on the 60-day IL. I think if they trade away anyone, it'll be pitchers who are out of options but don't have a lock on a roster spot. Ryan Brasier seems like the prime candidate. Anthony Banda or even Dustin May could be candidates too. They *could* trade/release position player depth too, but then they'd need to replace them once the 60-day IL opens anyway, and it's quite a risky situation to absolutely *need* to make signings/trades that late.

I like JB a lot, but he has no options left and there are too many good relievers for him to make the roster. Makes sense to replace him with someone with options. I think it's unlikely JB clears waivers and remains in AAA (Not sure if he's been outrighted before), but perhaps some minor trade gets worked out. Plenty of bad bullpens out there that he'd improve.

If he can be had for a reasonable 1-year deal, sure. A 3B would be a better fit, but I think the most important consideration for the infield search should be to find the best player. The current FA crop doesn't excite me much, and he's one of the better options. I think, ulimately, the additional infielder on the roster will arrive via trade.

Terrific director. Only slight issue I could see is that he's been dead for 15 years. Even if the pitching lab resurrects him, he'd be well over 100. Though he also wouldn't have been putting any strain on his shoulder or UCL ligaments during his time in the grave, so that could be a plus.

The only glaring need to me is an infielder. 3B/SS ideally, but 2B works too in a pinch. Maybe they like Durbin a lot, and maybe they are right to. Regardless, should still aim to get a 4th starting quality guy to the 2B/3B/SS mix, as in addition to replacing Adames you want to upgrade on Monasterio/Dunn too as the primary backup. Now I personally don't care if it's a power hitter or not. I just care that they put up offense, not how.

The money is spent no matter what, should do what gives the best results. Hoskins is significantly better against LHP than RHP, both in 2024 and for his career. They won't use him in a strict platoon, but even something like every start against LHP and half the starts against RHP is ~2/3 of the games, leaving 50+ 1B starts to someone else. Consider that Hoskins would also at least sometimes DH too. Not talking about Black getting 600+ PAs, but finding 300-400 should be doable if he's healthy even if they prioritize Hoskins more than they should. He's taking Jake Bauers spot on the roster, and he got 346 last year. Take his usage as a starting point, and carve out a start here and there. Yelich will still play a decent amount of LF, Contreras should probably get some more full days off than he did last year. There will be a decent amount of days where Contreras is at C and Yelich in LF, or either has a day off (or is injured). Assume 4 PA/start. 50 starts at 1B, 20 at DH, 10 other (LF, RF, 2B, 3B), and one PH PA in 50% of the games he starts on the bench gets you to ~360 PA. This is easily doable without really prioritizing him highly, or by expecting significant injuries to others. And injuries will happen. If Black himself is healthy, he'll have opportunities.

What to do with Tyler Black is simply to let him play. Seems like they don't believe in him as a 3B, though that'd be ideal if he could handle it. So Black should get most of the PAs at 1B vs RHP, with Hoskins playing mostly against LHP, with his quite severe platoon splits. Between 1B, DH, some corner OF there should be a decent amount of PAs.

Exactly. Brewers have done this in the past; sign some players early on in the offseason to have a passable roster already. Not what they *want* to go into the new season with, but something they *could* do so with. And then spend the offseason trying to find something better for good value, without needing to make a bad deal because they have no other option.