Lathund

Fangraphs WAR is based off of FIP, while Baseball-Reference uses a system based on RA/9, while Baseball Prospectus uses DRA (Deserved Run Average). Fangraphs does calculate a RA/9 version of their WAR as well, but even that differs quite a bit for Archer; 2.7 WAR.

Underwhelming, but it's only been little over a season as a professional so far so I'm not writing him off. Haven't seen much of him this season so beyond the stats I don't know much about what's up with him. I'll happily wait until this time next year before really forming an opinion.

Jimmy has pitched 611 innings, while Chase was around 420 at this point last year. That, combined with the fact that while the overall body of work matters, the latest season carries more weight (And Jimmy had a fantastic season in 2017) and I think they're fairly close. They've been quite accurate with their predictions in the past.

I don't disagree with the overall point about the trade, I wanted us to take the deal as well, but you're exaggerating how bad Braun was this season. From where do you get that he didn't accrue even 1 WAR? BBref has him at 1.2, Fangraphs at 1.5 and BP at 1.7.

I would think it's the home runs. In his first two full seasons in 2014 and 2015 he had a 0.6 and 0.8 HR/9 respectively. In 2016 and 2017 it's been 1.2 and 1.3. So take the average of that, 0.7 and 1.25, and that's a differency 0f 0.55 HR/9. A HR averages rougly 1.55 runs scored. So, 0.55 * 1.55 = 0.775 R/9. Now if some of those HRs were other types of hits that'd contribute to more than 0 runs, and there could be a difference between R/9 and ERA. But overall, it accounts fairly well for most of the difference between his 3.2-3.3 ERA in his first seasons, and the 4 ERA these last two years. As you say, his other numbers are really good, and haven't changed much. Just that more of his fly balls go for HRs. A victim of the juiced ball? A change in his repertoire? Something else? I don't know. If we're looking at a trade for a SP, him and Nola (If either one is even available) are two of my favourites. Not that I want to make that type of trade right now mind you, but if.

Has the list been updated for the postseason? (EDIT: Looks like it'll next be updated in January). Looks to me like it's the the midseason list, but with players bumped up due to players above them losing their eligibility. The order of the Brewers prospects is the same. Hiura and Diaz who are close to eachother near the bottom have climbed the same amount of spots, Ortiz and Woodruff ahead of them have climbed 10 and 11 spots respectively etc. I remember reading at the time in a prospect chat that Burnes was just outside the initial 100 too so that makes sense as well. So with it being a midseason list I get why Phillips isn't there. His 2016 season wasn't very good, and it's understandable to want to see more than half a season in Colorado Springs before moving a prospect up the list. As for Ray, again the midseason bit would play into it. Seems to me like prospect evaluators will be patient with toolsy prospects, and they'll have to struggle a lot to be dropped. In midseason it was roughly one injury-shortened season (Some 450-500 at bats or so). By now it's 773, and I expect him to drop in the offseason rankings, out of the top 100. But probably not as far as one might expect.

I don't see why you'd get killed for that, as I suspect that's actually what they prefer to do, was there to be a choice between them. Bat-only corner outfielders don't seem to command a lot recently, but within that specific market I'm sure Santana would be among the most desired players available. Especially to an AL club. Looking at the type of outfielders the Brewers have drafted or otherwise acquired for the farm system in recent years there's a focus on speed/power type of players who play good defense. Most of them are CF types, and the ones who aren't are plus defenders in LF/RF and could probably do a decent job in CF too. Santana isn't really that type. So taking speed, defense, versatility (Or lack thereof) into account, I definitely think it's something they'd consider. I don't think it's something they'll actively be pursuing and try to make happen, but I'm sure they'd listen to offers. I think it basically comes down to how you view Santana going forward. Some players develop early and essentially remain the same player for most of their career. Some continually, or erratically, develop through their 20s or even later. And everything inbetween. Where does Santana fit? Do the Brewers (Who will know a lot about what kind of person he is, how he responds to instruction, baseball IQ etc etc) believe he will get better, or is this peak Santana? You can obviously never be certain either way, but if you believe this is the peak there's a good argument that you trade him to someone who is willing to pay for what he might still become and not just what he is. If you think he'll get better, keep him and either have a star for the next 4 years or someone who could command even more at a later date.

Not them alone, agreed. You would still need to improve the pitching and especially the bullpen. You'd still need the younger players to take another step forward. But it gets you a heckuva lot closer than the lineup we had in 2017. I'll play devil's advocate: Say you sign Cozart and put him at 2B and lock him up for 3-4 seasons a decent clip of money and produces similar to what a Perez could give you there. I mean Cozart's career numbers are .254/.305/.411/.716 Okay and now say you sign Hosmer to an even bigger deal ($100 million+) and he hits closer to his career line .284/.342/.439/.781 Production you could have had out of Thames at a much cheaper clip. Now you have hamstrung this team into two players that might not (and most likely are not) as good as their 2017 numbers indicate. So now, anything you want to do in the future is really in question because you have two guys who should have never been given the contracts that they were. Exactly this. And even if you take a more positive outlook and they perform closer to their 2017 levels rather than their career numbers, it likely still wouldn't get us to a WS in the next couple of years, so what would be the point? We'd be locked in to maybe 5 more years of Hosmer at that point and have nothing to show for it. Which is fine if he's a healthy productive 30 year old at that point (And he very well might be). But that's a big risk to take when we don't absolutely need to. We have a very promising farm system. Some of the top prospects will never make it to the majors, some will never be more than role players at this level. But some will, and will be productive MLB starters.. And we need to find out who among them that is. If it's Gatewood (or Erceg, with Shaw at first) then we don't need to spend $20m per year on Hosmer. If it's two of Arcia/Dubon/Diaz/Hiura then no need for Cozart or another middle infielder. If it's Ortiz or Hader or Burnes or Peralta or Derby or some other pitchers we don't need to commit to 6 seasons of Lynn or Cobb or whoever else will be on the free agent market this year. Like I said, not all the holes on the roster will be filled by our current prospects (Unless we get really lucky...). But it's when we know which of them won't that the (long term) money should be shelled out for free agents (Or trades) in the positions of greatest need. Mind you, I'm a lot less opposed to the idea of a Cozart than I am a Hosmer. Not because of their individual qualities, but because Cozart could possibly be had for a 2 year deal. I'm fine with spending money short term, it doesn't limit the club going forward, and while I think our chances of winning the WS are minimal in 2018 and 2019, there could still be a fun playoff run if things go our way. It's committing something like 7/140 on Hosmer that I'm worried about. Yes we need to spend money if we ever want to win. But the vast majority of our runs scored and runs prevented will need to come from players not on free agent money. There isn't space for many big FA deals on the roster, so they need to be limited to areas where we can't get that production another way. So wait and see what those areas are. In the mean time, spend money on short-term deals that won't hurt us even if they don't work out.

And that's why you make sure he gets to play more than that, you're the only one who has proposed that low a number of starts. Can easily get him 110-120 starts, maybe more. Doesn't seem like a waste to me. I'd prefer to trade prospects further from the majors for pitching. If we're trading for someone who can help us now (As in 2018 and 2019), I'd rather not trade away someone who can also help us now. So you'd rather have 110-120 starts out of Brinson (many of which won't even be in CF), than a starter the caliber of Nelson or Gray when we already have Phillips? I get it, 6 years of Brinson value is nothing to sneeze at as far as value if he becomes who we hope. But I would bet very heavily that my plan is far more likely to see us in the playoffs in 2018. It's also risk management. Just because Brinson is close to the majors doesn't eliminate the possibility that he'll flame out especially with his injuries. Whereas Phillips has already been successful vs. MLB pitching, albeit in limited time. But it's not a matter of Brinson or a starter. It's a matter of Brinson + Ortiz/Burnes and likely more for a starter. And Brinson isn't the only trade chip we have, so it could be both Brinson and a starter for all we know. For 2018 you're probably right. For 2019, 2020, 2021? That's a different story. If we're talking injuries, you also have to factor in that we won't have Braun, Phillips and Santana playing every game. Far from it; both Santana and Braun have a history of injuries. That means .299 OBP Keon Broxton getting signficant playing time. Hernan Perez and Eric Thames in the OF. Whoever the 2018 versions of Nick Franklin or Kirk Nieuwenhuis are. I'm not sure we get much further here. It's clear we value Brinson very differently, and seemingly place different emphasis on depth. Time will tell how it pans out.

Villar, Ortiz and Brinson might get Nola. If they're even entertaining offers for him which I don't think they are. All 3? No way.

And that's why you make sure he gets to play more than that, you're the only one who has proposed that low a number of starts. Can easily get him 110-120 starts, maybe more. Doesn't seem like a waste to me. I'd prefer to trade prospects further from the majors for pitching. If we're trading for someone who can help us now (As in 2018 and 2019), I'd rather not trade away someone who can also help us now.

Play him? Braun, Santana, Phillips, Brinson. If you spread time evenly that's 120 starts each. In addition to that there will inevitably be injuries during the season. Braun will need his off days. Pinch hitting. Defensive substituations. Double switches. 10 DH games. Plenty of playing time to go around.

Probably had a lot to do with why he was on Roids in the 1st Place. Incredible genetics for playing Baseball. Not so great genetics for durability. Not to derail the thread, but obligatory need to point out the greatest fallacy of the steroid debate - systemic steroids absolutely do not help you heal from injury. In fact, they have the exact opposite effect. Yes, a local injection can decrease inflammation which is why it's useful to control pain in a specific location (like a joint or tendon), but systemic steroids suppress your entire immune system, which is the singular critical element in healing. One thing steroids have been scientifically shown to do is make you stronger, faster, more powerful. This, and this alone, is the reason athletes take them. But people seem to think the healing thing is a legit reason, which is why athletes that get caught use it as an excuse. It sounds better than "oh I did it to gain a competitive advantage over other players," which is the truth. Honestly I don't care much when athletes use them, but for some reason I get annoyed that they get away with this excuse. If anything Braun's injury issues are far more likely because of long-term steroid use rather than no longer using. The type of steroids you inject to reduce inflammation are Corticosteroids (Such as Cortisone), which are a type of Catabolic Steroid. And those are indeed not any good for systemic use. Look up what someone with Cushing's Syndrome looks like to see what body type you end up with. It's not what an athlete wants. Whereas the type of steroids used as PEDs are Anabolic Steroids. HGH isn't a steroid, but it's an Anabolic hormone nonetheless. They do have an effect on recovery, but not so much in terms of healing an injury itself. Rather they help regain strength and build muscle mass faster. In any sport where there's little time for recovery that can certainly enhance performance towards the end of a long season. In baseball it's still the strength aspect that matters most I would think. Regardless of whether it's strength or recovery it's used for, it's still performance enhancing. I agree that the healing aspect shouldn't be a legit reason, and it isn't. Anyone caught with high levels of synthetic anabolic steroids took them knowingly and in order to gain an unfair advantage, and should be suspended accordingly.

That's a good shout. Can't say I know much about him, but from a statistical point of view it looks really good. Very consistent numbers between 2016 and 2017 too. Little power, but with a lineup otherwise full of HRs and K's he'd provide some balance. I would imagine that the Phillies might be reluctant to trade him though, he's certainly a player they could use going forward.

When evaluating Braun and his production you can look either at the production itself (And as related to the rest of the league) or in relation to his salary. The latter will show that he underperformed his contract; i.e for the money we're paying Braun we could find a FA who will perform better. Or we could find a FA to produce what Braun did for less money. That may or may not change going forward, but it was the case this year. However one can ask how relevant is that? It would be very relevant if Braun had a team option for next year. It would be very relevant if the Brewers were considering signing him (if a FA) or extending him. It would be relevant if there was a realistic trade proposal in front of us. But Braun has full no-trade rights, with realistically only a couple of teams he'd accept trades to. One of those teams have had Cody Bellinger emerge since they last showed serious interest (that we know of). The chances of trading him are very, very slim. And so, if we're stuck with him, and the options are to either play him, release him, or eat nearly all his salary in a trade, does the salary really matter? The expense will be there no matter what. 112 OPS+ is poor by Braun's standards, but it's certainly not a burden on the team. If the team as a whole averages anywhere near that you're in the playoffs. So perhaps the most relevant comparison is simply what we'd replace him with, and at this point we don't have three OFs who provide more value to the team. I agree with the school of thought that what makes the most sense is to keep Braun as fit as possible, even if it means less appearances. Maximize his skillset for when he's out there, and give development time to the younger guys when he's not 100%. Basically, barring an unlikely trade opportunity, Braun's contract is a sunk cost. We just have to make the most of it. As for Brinson; I agree that the injury record at such a young age is a concern (Although I don't know the nature of the injuries, other than the most recent one. Some types of injuries would be more worrysome than others), and the (seeming) emergence of Phillips makes him somewhat more expendable. However I don't agree with the suggestion to trade him now. The ceiling is simply too high for me, and the trade value isn't high enough to compensate for that IMO. There is some risk for sure, but even if Brinson's ability to hit for average (The only of his tools that's there's any real doubt about) struggles to develop the way we hope I still believe he'll be a better player than Keon Broxton. And if it does develop, he's an all-star. Braun is going to miss some time, Santana stayed healthy in 2017, but has had injury problems in the past. Whoever will be on the roster beyond Braun, Santana and Phillips will play a lot. I'd much prefer to have that be Brinson than Broxton (Or Perez. Or Thames. Or the 2018 versions of Franklin or Nieuwenhuis). Brewers are at the point where you take the chance on the potential upside every time IMO.

You donn't have to have a designated 4th OF. No, you don't. However when all those guys are healthy someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Making Brinson/Phillips ride the bench for lengthy times or just not getting consistent playing time is questionable at best. Unless you instill a rotation between them where they all play consistently I wouldn't really want an inexperienced guy at #4. Hence my whole suggestion of not having that 4th OF, not letting anyone ride the bench for lengthy stretches, and instead having that kind of rotation. Phillips is our only LH outfield bat, and can play excellent defense in all three spots, and to me Brinson has too high a ceiling to trade at this point. Neither has anything left to prove in AAA. It's easy to accomodate four "starters" in the outfield without hurting the development of any of them.

You donn't have to have a designated 4th OF. Four OFs splitting time somewhat evenly will still get 120 starts each. There will inevitably be some injuries, Platoon situations. Braun isn't going to play every game. There are some DH games. There will be double switches, there will be defensive substitutions for Santana. Pinch hit appearances. Lack of playing time won't be an issue with a Braun/Brinson/Phillips/Santana outfield IMO.

I was looking at 78-79 wins. Anything from 75-81 or so wouldn't have surprised me, but I did not for even a second think the Brewers would be agonizingly close to the playoffs.

There were a lot of things that went right in 2017. Looking at run differentials the Brewers could have expected fewer wins than they had, while the Cardinals and Cubs could have expected more. One could make the argument that the team isn't, talent-wise, an 86 win team yet. And I can buy into that. I don't think the Brewers are playoff-bound in 2018, and will miss it by more than this year. I think .500 or slightly above is what we can expect. And to me that's not necessarily regression, that's where we are right now. 2018 should be about starting to really transition to the next wave of players coming through, to truly set up the core of young players with many years of team control remaining. At the same time, players who seemingly had career years in 2017 (Never mind that most of our players were inexperienced enough for there to be no baseline to compare to) may simply be on an upwards trajectory. You never know. But these are very early days. Who knows what the offseason will bring. If there's another Travis Shaw type of trade to be made, or some big free agent signing can be had for a reasonable salary and contract length, then that could have a major impact without changing the overall path. Certainly going to be an interesting offseason!

Pointless but mildly interesting stat: Padres' pitcher Luis Perdomo has 5 hits this season. 4 triples and 1 double. That's the record for most hits in a season without a single.

I'd be fine with him just playing C for one inning, and 3B or whereever the rest of the game. He has played the other 8 already. Also does seems like he'll play all 9, after moving from 3B to SS this inning.

I certainly hope so! No reason not to really. Back in that game where Manny was out already and Vogt looked close to having to leave the game, I was almost disappointed that Hernan didn't get his chance then. Would then have played all 9 positions due to actual need, and not as a gimmick.

Shaw reaches 100 RBIs and Santana with 30 HRs, back to back.

I know what this is but what does it MEAN? Our attacking style is used against us in later innings but benefits us early? Why we're good early I really couldn't say. But I've seen a few suggestions as to why we're bad late. One is platoon splits; teams play matchups later on which hurts us. But the one I buy into the most is a rather simple one. It's a strikeout-prone team. That gets exploited even more by a high strikeout pitcher, which is what late-inning relievers tend to be.

Yeah I'm wondering the same. Who else is stretched out and available? Wilkerson? Jungmann? Garza? If those are the options I'm fine with Guerra (though I dont understand why Jungmann wasnt called up, even if his role would have been limited) Guerra has looked good in relief recently. And this is likely somewhat of a bullpen game anyway, i doubt Guerra goes more than twice through the order. If even that.