OnTheBlack

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make. I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated. That being said, I can't fault the Dodgers for pitching their lights out closer two innings. If you lose the lead with your rested, best pitcher in the pen, so be it. I totally agree with you. There are ALWAYS going to be Joe Morgan, Dusty Baker(though he seems to have gotten at least a little better in some area's) or now Steve Garvey types. More knowledge is almost always a good thing. I DO think some have turned a little bit too much the advanced metrics that the Great Bill James pioneered, and I think people too often get bogged down in that minutia...especially when discussing how good a pitcher has been over 25 starts because his FIP or xFIP is 4.0 and his ERA is 3.2, so he's lucky, but I digress. In the post-season, players perform differently for a number of reasons. Managers manage the game differently. I hate sac bunts, not a big fan of hitting and running either, and don't care about strikeouts...generally. An argument that I've just stopped having at the bar or elsewhere with those who insist a team is struggling because of them. But there is still a place for a manager--and I know some people are gonna hate this--but using his gut during a game. Going against the odds. Or in close games of that magnitude, putting the ball on the ground. For instance, Bellinger...he looked awful all series. He wasn't just in a funk, that beautiful left handed stroke was just ugly and he was lunging at pitches, he was suddenly front footing pitches, he was even doing the old pitcher, read out, all arm swing in a 2-1 count. So you don't bunt with him in the regular season...you let him work it out. But perhaps you sac bunt with him... But none of that led to any losses so far as I could tell. Young players struggling, putting more pressure on themselves, and more importantly, two really great teams coming up with some big hits(one more than the other) was the difference in the world series. Oh...and I hate this "millennial" nonsense. I don't believe I'm a Millennial..I'm on the backend of the age apparently, but I'm so sick of hearing how bad they are. Every single generation complains about the next one...which is that much dumber when you really think about it, because do you think that these kids raised themselves? No. So if the next generation is worse, then it's the last generations fault. Of course that's not true, millennial are more engaged in activism and involved in various groups that frankly Gen X or whatever the last one was. Old guys just want to complain about something and now there are phones and that's the problem. Way back when it was heavy metal music, and before that it was "boomboxes" and rap music and....etc...etc... But what I'm REALLY getting sick of...regardless of the generation is hearing or reading people write in calling athletes soft because Nolan Ryan threw 500 innings and could throw 200 pitches in a game and we have to baby these guys and take them out after only 150 innings and 100 pitches...who cares if he's a 23 year old prized pitching prospect you have 5 years invested into developing and an ENORMOUS amount of information to back up how tired arms turned into injured arms. I swear, I'll take 6 hours of JUST Joe Morgan-Dusty Baker-Willie Mays talking about baseball today and the 1st and 3rd telling everyone how great they were on a loop than listen to the "players today are soft" nonsense. Sorry, a lot of that should have been in the "what's bothering you thread."

I think that's the thing that ALWAYS stands out when I go back and look at any draft...in any sport really or any prospect list. How many guys that I really thought were gonna be good ended up doing nothing. How the Zack Braddock-Angel Salome combo was going to be so dominant and people would have dismissed Khris Davis and pointed out all the reasons he'd NEVER be one of the top 5 players from the prospects we had at that time(just for example, not trying to line the exact players up perfectly). But even that AA team that had LaPorta and was talked about being the most talented team in the minors, the most prospect laden team in the minors at that time by some. How many impact players did we get out of that? I would suspect not many would have said Luc would easily be the most valuable player 10 years later from that group. Most draft classes, if you get a guy who ends up with 10 career WAR you probably had more productive picks in that round....which is why it always amuses me when people say, "he won't ever get playing time ahead of Phillips and player A, B and C." Phillips looked really good this year for the Brewers....and Mat Gamel looked like he was gonna be a poor mans Braun. As for what Garrett Cooper has to do with this thread...it's almost comically ridiculous how hard it seems like some people are trying to make their point(though I almost never know what point that is). He appears to be a fringe major leaguer who I OTHERWISE would root for(like a certain 2nd basemen that the Brewers logically moved on from)...yet now I can't help but wait until they both almost inevitably fail to take enjoyment in it....not that I'll work it into virtually every unrelated thread when they do so.

Is this guy just snaking my theme? I posted the other two. Please....keep doing so. I like them. What...should there just be a thread labeled "what do we think about prospects?" I like the individiual thoughts on individual players...and I reject the idea he's just organizational depth, but that's beside the point.

I don't know that I agree with you there. I've been to just about 15 NBA arena's(none for an actual NBA game other than the BC to your point about identifying it with a single team though). They're so much nicer than the BC. A lot of them have really cool designs...especially when walking up. Baseball stadiums are definitely more unique, but that's primarily because you can make the playing field however you'd like. Can't do that with basketball so the seating and the floor is more paint by numbers I guess. But I think there is as much diversity between Football Stadiums and NBA Arena's. It's really just Baseball where you have the unique designs...in MY opinion.

I am 100 pct in agreement with you on this post and feel the exact same way. I saw Yount get his 3000th, Ryan get his 300th...actually got Yount's 500th double ball(ground ruled double that bounced down the walk way..I ran to it first...I went to 20 games a year with my Dad. It was where my love of baseball began and how I was introduced to Molly and Yount. With the Bucks, I went to some games when I was younger..mostly with my Grandpa. They had season tickets..awesome tickets right behind Herb Kohl and it was always kinda fun, but I still loved going and sitting in the bleachers watching the Brewers more at County Stadium than I ever did watching from good seats watching the Bucks. County Stadium was so much more of an eye sore and a dump than the Bradley Center is from a fans perspective...but I feel the exact same way you do. Other than seeing the game at the old Arena the other night, I'm not even sure if I'll go to a Bucks game this year.

I get the joke, and it did make me chuckle. That being said, there is truth to the fact that his value today is higher than it was yesterday based on this contract. Add this extension to list of the calculated moves made by this front office that are tough not to like. And there's also absolutely no guarantee that the Brewers have begun their "competitive stage" quite yet just because they vastly exceeded expectations this year. They succeeded this year without really relying on their young talent for the most part...so they don't really know what they've got in Brinson/Phillips and everyone else other than raw talent, but rather they won with a lot of younger veterans having breakout years. So it's foolish to not consider that this makes him that much more valuable. Love the signing. Pretty surprised with how cheap they were able to get him for. He was almost guaranteed to make 12 million the next two years unless he had some type of catastrophic injury and the other two years are option years. Really hope he can continue to be an effective #2 starter over the next few years though and that there's no reason to shop him around! I wonder if the Brewers even approached Nelson about a similar type deal. I know there's uncertainty about his future, but I'd definitely be betting on him right now and this could be a chance to lock him up for the near future for a advantageous deal for the team as well. He doesn't strike me as a guy who's ever gonna take his foot off the pedal regardless of his contract or financial security either.

Tanaka had a terrible May for some reason, but otherwise was his same old self. He has an opt-out this year that I wouldn't be completely shocked if he took. He might be able to do better than 3/$60 on this market. Maybe 5/$100 with another opt-out in 2 years. Point being, if Tanaka does not opt out, I think it would cost far too many prospects for our liking. The contract doesn't scare me, but the injury listed in the post above does. I feel like this has been the case with him since he came over. I think this is the perfect year for the Brewers to go and spend big on a legit ace...there just doesn't seem to be one that I would trust to even get those first couple years out of before the inevitable final couple years where you know you're paying for decreased production.

You're saying "my issue is" but then not saying what your "issue" with it actually is. And this "nonsense" is him picking from all the top programs in the country and trying to find the one that gives him the best chance to go into a profession in which he'll make more in 2-3 years than most of us will make is a lifetime and he can have a whole other career and start collecting...70K or whatever it is exactly at age 50(plus health which is like another 30K a year)...and that's if he just hangs around and doesn't do anything in the league. And since that's kinda the whole point of college...to improve your future potential earnings...I can't see how you could in good conscious advise him to do anything but that. Duke...Kentucky, UNC, Nova, Arizona...all schools who have clearly done a better job of developing and showcasing NBA talent than Wisconsin. It's not like Wisconsin doesn't and can't produce NBA talent....it's just that they don't nearly as much as those other programs. I actually think Gard's system will end up showcasing guys moreso than Ryan did, but they still operate in a much different fashion. I would obviously rather see him become a Badger because I have a rooting interest of the team. But if a kid wanted to go into Law, wouldn't you recommend he go to school that is going to be the most advantageous for him? I don't see why this would be any different. The one thing I do wish these leagues could/would do is try to find some way to help these kids invest their money more wisely...but that's impossible to do other than just telling them and pointing them in the right direction. At least the NBA has a great pension plan(they should all be thanking Bob Cousey for founding the NBAPA). But I digress.

If (and it’s a big if) Kyrie had been willing to re-sign with the Bucks, I would have made everyone available but Giannis. I think you have to do whatever you can to add elite players and backfill later. A realistic offer would have been Brogdon plus Thon or Wilson plus an unprotected future 1st. Truthfully, that’s a bit on the low side, but the Cavs were motivated sellers. The Brooklyn pick is a great asset, but I don’t see how Thomas (damaged goods) helps them win in a win-now year. Edit: I forgot salaries have to match ... the trade would likely have to have included Henson or Middleton. They got more back for Thomas than the Bucks probably were capable of offering without Giannis. They got Crowder back, one of the best values in the NBA, they got the NBA scoring champ from last year, an unprotected 1st from the worst team in the NBA in case LeBron leaves after this year, a 2nd in 2020...and they threw in an extremely talented 1st rounder from 2016 who has a high cieling(again, particularly helpful if LeBron does leave). The Cavs got incredibly lucky they were able to get back the package they did for Irving. I can't even work out how the Bucks could match that. ESPECIALLY if the Cavs end up in a position to pick up Porter or Bagley next year with that unprotected 1st they got. This could be a trade that actually keeps LeBron in Cleveland and helps them win another couple titles before he's done...and I think it makes the Celts worse in the short term and definitely in the long term. Conversely, I don't think you have to have 3 superstars to win. Not with Giannis. I think you can build a team the way the Bucks are and contend. They need guys like Maker and Brogdon to make big jumps, they need Parker to stay healthy and be the player he looked like he was becoming last year and they need Middleton to take just one more small step. But I don't think emptying the cupboards to get Irvin would have made us contenders. I think it would have just been trying to copy what other teams have done and that's not how the Bucks got themselves back into a competitive position in the 1st place.

I think Bledsoe is a more talented and a better player than Brogdon...but I also think Brogdon is a better fit for this team. He fits pretty well with what the Bucks are trying to put together. He can defend, he can shoot and he doesn't have the first step that Bledsoe does but I don't think he needs it. 3 years ago I thought Bledsoe was going to be an elite point guard. Now...I think he's a luxury 6th man. Someone who can give you a boost off the bench. Brogdon is also just in his 2nd year. I realize most seem to think he's reached his potential, but he's got sneaky athletic ability and I think we're going to see him improve quite a bit yet.

Ok, first of all, using the most durable tackle in NFL history as a barometer is insanely unfair. But more importantly, you're just wrong on Bahktari in particular. He'd missed 2 games in his NFL career, both in '15...and we didn't have a tackle miss a start last year. So not only should nobody be held to the standard of Joe Thomas...I'm really not seeing the durability of our tackles as a pervasive problem for the Packers over the year. Bulaga's been banged up, but even there he's missed 0, 4, 1 games the previous 3 years. We definitely seem to deal with more injuries than most contenders but normally it's on the defensive side of the ball where we have players who are perpetually getting hurt. The secondary has been hit hard. I don't know what the cause of that is...other than it's an extremely violent game and guys get injured...but the Packers are dealing with more than the average team. Especially the last couple years. And I would have agreed it was because the Packers are overly conservative, but last year they tried to play guys who were still injured with Randall and Rollins. They just weren't good enough to be effective while injured. Sitton and Lang on the other hand were able to get by and still be effective with injuries..as has Rodgers, Nelson, Adams and Cobb. So perhaps it's not just guys getting hurt, it's that the guys who are getting hurt aren't good enough to still be effective at less than 100 pct. Charles Woodson was another guy who was consistently banged up with the Packers but still played well. Of course he missed a ton of time in Oakland before coming to GB. I'll also be shocked if the Packers don't win another game this year. In fact I'd be shocked if Hundley doesn't at least keep them in playoff contention during the 8 weeks that Rodgers is definitively going to miss. The bye combined with a weaker schedule and I think the season will come down to the last few games of the season again this year just as it did in '13.

I think he's just not articulating his point very well. Playoff series come down to just a handful of sequences(not breaking news). Runs are usually harder to come by, guys don't give away at bats...and to the point about the Astro's manufacturing runs or having productive outs, yes, they have a great offense and that's clearly the reason their here, but being able to manufacture runs, get a guy, having him steal or moving him over and it does make a difference. Playoff series with elite pitching is the only time I can stomach the "productive out" talk.

But isn't that what it always looks like just a few years after the draft? You see guys who make it to the big leagues or who put up good numbers in the minors and look promising all the time. Baez has under 6 career WAR and I could see his career going a few different ways. A down year and he could be moved and then kinda bounce around, Happ I like a lot, but then Manning...a prep arm one year in? It's always a huge risk with those guys.

The funny thing is he doesn't get hurt from taking shots in the pocket with inept offensive lines. Even going back to when we have Barclay coming off a ACL playing tackle vs Seattle and Minnesota and Rodgers was getting sacked 7 times, he wasn't allowing them to get good hits. He's usually has such incredible body control and footwork that he either shrugs off linemen or he kinda goes down without exposing himself. If Barr...one of my favorite LB'ers prior to this game doesn't take an extra step in order to drive Rodgers into the turn he's fine. Looking at the Packers though...they really need to get some things figured out. I think Hundley's a good QB..a really good young QB actually. I just can't pick out another part of this team that's an elite unit. Maybe the DL will become that with Daniels, Clark coming on and Lowry looks like he could be a good player. But we just don't have difference makers. Rodgers injury and what looks like it'll be a lost year hopefully will push Thompson to be more aggressive, ala, McKenzie in Oakland or Schnieder or even Dorsey in KC. WR'er we have an aging #1 WR'er in Nelson, Cobb who's paid like a #1 but clearly isn't(though a very good slot WR'er) and now we'll likely be paying Adams big bucks. A Super Bowl contender shouldn't look THIS terrible after losing their starting QB.

I would think we would be able to hold onto him for...3-4 years at least. Then maybe he makes a Dave Doren like move to an NC State type school. The Badgers can't compete with the SEC schools when it comes to assistant coaches salaries, but coaching at his alma mater in his home state should buy us some time. And he wasn't even the best freshmen named Taylor on this team(just based on recruiting rankings). Amazing how the Badgers are constantly able to get the most out of all their talent...or more importantly able to identify talent that fits their scheme and players with the academic ability to make it at Wisconsin.

No, it doesn't. He's in the process of being tackled, forward progress is the furthest point the ball reached before going down. He reached the ball out, he didn't move backward, so the furthest point is where it should be spotted. The only problem with that play is you're ignoring every view point except for the overhead shot that was presumably from the LOS, so at an angle. Doesn't really matter now though. Rest of the season is about building up Hundley's value and trying to figure out how to actually reload the talent level on this team so that we're not counting on Rodgers and so we don't go from a 12-13 win team to a 4-5 win team without Rodgers in there.

Minor League RBI's are far worse. It's one thing when you're talking about a guy like Carlos Lee who is a productive hitter but also puts the ball in play and doesn't strike out. But a 22 year old prospect? I really don't care how many RBI's he has. I care about him being able to make good contact and drawing walks.

Yea, every team in every pro sport does this. Attendance is announced based on tickets sold, regardless of how many actually show up. Given the Brewers are the smallest market in baseball, their attendance numbers for almost a decade now are pretty amazing and a credit to the fan base in the Milwaukee area. Amazing in 2007 thru 2012ish...... not now. Ticket sold does not equal an actual person off the street buying it, a ticket for actual person. The mainstream perception is that there must be many no shows (individuals/families with tickets bought in hand who decide not to come) up thru ten thousands people to explain the difference. Seems obviously false, in my opinion, with no real explanation on why tickets sold and actual attendance is so different. I would guess at attendance each game I go to before the four choices of attendance are revealed in the 8th inning. I usually guessed that Miller Park was in the 20,000 to 25,000 range, and the choices would be in the 30,000 to 35,000 range. Huge differences. BP gas tickets also are free, but are they counting all the tickets BP gave out to customers or every last ticket BP got for the promotion, regardless of distribution? It probably is better business for the team (or sponsor) to buy a bunch of their own tickets at a $1 a pop, throw them to the curb, announce higher attendance numbers, give off a perception of a 30,000 plus avg game attendance, and take in the benefits of future sales/income. And of course the perception of higher attendance matters. People want to be where the action is, especially young adults with cash to burn. Sponsors will then pony up more $ for ads/ad space/signage when they believe a higher number of potential customer is there. Suites are sold better when the perception is that space is limited in the park. All I'm saying is that the support of the team was not at 2.5 million or even 2 million fans in the ballpark. No one in the this thread argued against this point. I'm also saying that the amount of paid attendance versus in the park attendance had less to do with no shows. The gap in paid attendance vs actual attendance was way too large to offer as the only reason. We had very solid support again this year, but 30,000 avg strong in paid attendance? No shows up in the five figures range in thrifty Wisconsin? All tickets sold at adverised pricing rates? Too many questions to not ask more questions. Inflated numbers can be expected everywhere. This year, especially, numbers seemed inflated to the point of questioning our intelligence. You realize you are describing a crime, right? Lying about customers in order to defraud your sponsors. And you're doing this because of the few games you went to, you didn't believe the number on the screen? I did find this line funny though... I think we need a Warren Commission like report on this! Seriously though, I have season tickets...missed a lot of games this year, but of the games I went to, attendance looked strong. I didn't do a head count, but it looked close enough for me to not accuse the Brewers of fraud. I could certainly be wrong though. I also wasn't all that upset with the letter by the Brewers in which they thanked me for the support

Some of us don't wait until the season is over to question decisions. I predicted the day it happened that letting Gennett go would come back and bite them, and that letting the Cubs fix their rotation coming out of the break by nabbing a guy the Brewers were interested in was a fatal mistake. I agree with the sentiment that when you miss by one game it's a major disappointment. We have no idea when things will fall into place and give the Brewers the kind of opportunity they had in 2017. Stearns made some small moves that helped but he hesitated on the big move they needed. Wait....you wanted us to keep Gennett? I hadn't seen this take from you before....in every single thread for the last 200 days... For what it's worth, keeping Gennett likely means that Aguilar is not on the opening day roster. Unlikely we keep a backup at 1st AND at 2nd who can't really play elsewhere in the field...so we would have lost out on a young guy like Aguilar in order to keep a guy who had done nothing to suggest he was anything more than a .265/.320 type hitter before the Reds MIF'ers BOTH had career years. Still....really fresh take on the whole Gennett situation here.

They also said that they weren't "afraid" to trade a mainstay like Belt or Panik for an OF bat. The "they" in this instance being their CEO and one of their owners, so not Bochy or Sabean, but still. Don't know what they have at the MIF spots, but I could see them moving Panik and plugging in some unknown 2nd basemen in favor of upgrading the OF. It's always kinda a crap shoot as to what the Giants are gonna do though.

Yeah, trading a future HOF QB--not that I personally think he's that good, but 2 Super Bowls and the stats he's accumulated,I'll guess he gets in-- seems a bit far fetched. Especially since he's struggled so badly and been so turnover prone even when he had good recievers. Can't imagine he'd have any success switching teams mid-season and having to learn how to play with a new set of skill players, let alone learn the playbook. Cousins would make a whole lot of sense for them next year assuming Washington doesn't pick up his 35-40 million dollar tag next year.

The Jags are almost exactly like the Rams...they've had high picks year after year, they're loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, they just don't have that QB that can help the D go from talented to dominant by helping them stay off the field and can get the ball to their skill players. I don't think Bortles will ever be more than a backup, but I would have taken him 100 times out of 100 over Geoff coming into the season and really thought Geoff was awful. But I think you're right, they're probably one more Rosen or a Sam Darnold away from being good(I think there's a guy from Wyoming stuck in there as well in the QB rankings).

Seems like an awfully big conclusion to leap to. The guy has a lot of money. Just because he didn't take all the money he could have on the way out doesn't mean that it was because the University was threatening him. And actually after reading about it, it kinda sounds like he was frustrated with some of the same obstacles he ran into at Wisconsin. http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2017/10/canzano_gary_andersens_exit_ro.html

I agree. I was yelling at the tv "he pulled it back!?". Its a good thing those calls didnt cost us the game but they could have easily. I don't think the fact that he pulled it back matters. I believe it's supposed to be awarded at the furthest position before you're ruled down or your forward momentum was stopped. He was on the pile, trying to dive over it when he reached the ball out. That should be a 1st down....IF you can conclusively rule that the refs were wrong and that he actually reached the yard to gain there(it was the 19th I believe). The refs ruled him short, the replays IMO didn't show conclusively he got the 19. You certainly can't see anything other than when you use the overhead angle and that didn't appear to be directly over the top. It looked like the overhead cam was from behind him a bit. So not conclusive. At least IMO.

There is zero chance that villar is non-tendered. It baffles me that the idea even found it's way to the table. I Don't think there's any circumstance in which we wouldn't tender him at this stage with the team control remaining, but especially given our payroll flexibility. I don't quite understand it either. I also don't agree that arbitration panels are using the antiquated metrics that were suggested and I believe their impact is overstated. A handful of cases go to arbitration each year...so I'm not sure the panel is to blame for Carter potentially earning more money coming off a 41 HR season with an .820 OPS. Either way, Villar is too good and too young and 3 million or even 4 million is just not enough money to give up on him after his poor year this past season. If he has another bad year I could certainly see him getting non-tendered, but I can't even see this being on the table after this year.