coolhandluke121

Good point. After September call-ups, I'm guessing their games got a lot longer on average - even compared to other teams with call-ups in September. They had a lot of bullpen games.

USA today posted in their article that apparently game times went down from 2017 to 2018. They claim teh average game time was 3 hours and 44 seconds. I don't buy that personally. I feel like the average game I attended was closer to 3.5 hours than 3 hours. I wouldn't be surprised if the "average" game actually was a tiny bit shorter, but only because there weren't a lot of teams doing what the Brewers did with their bullpen. If we see more copycats, the average game length is going to go up. Like, a lot. Unless they take serious steps to counteract it. And it may be that Brewer games were longer than average, leading to us having a different perspective. But I admit I'm not looking at those stats right now. Just making educated guesses based on how they used their staff.

I know it doesn't help the Brewers, but honestly I can understand where they're going with that. Right now, teams kind of have to exploit it to compete. I wouldn't call it a "loophole", but it is a strategy that would eventually start to not feel right if it takes over the game and causes even more games to go 4+ hours.

I don't believe that any closer should be in, but I'm okay with Rivera. Just a ridiculous entitlement that they get so much credit though. It's just a circular self-fulfilling prophecy to put them in a position that's tailored specifically to give them an unfair share of the glory. I think it's because people don't have the attention span to pay attention to entire games, so they put excess weight on what happens in the 9th.

I was expecting more contrarian posts and veiled shots at "Stearns apologists" in here.

It was definitely bad luck, but I think it was more than just that. I think they ignored some serious red flags. For example, he said he didn't rehab his knee all summer, because playing was better for his sanity or something like that. He was very fat and out of shape in his second training camp, and his attitude about defense was clear (even if he hadn't openly admitted it yet). Most importantly, the team just rarely played better with him on the court. He was the ultimate empty stats guy (or at least the biggest one since Redd). After he started playing reasonably well in the spring of 2016, Boston offered the #3 pick for him. This was confirmed by respected national news outlets. Regardless of what they could have done with that pick, it was already evident that they didn't need Jabari with Khris and Giannis in the frontcourt, and they were still clearly a few years away from any chance of contention. Utah also offered Favors and the #5 pick (Exum was picked there) to Cleveland for the right to pick Jabari on draft day, but the Cavs picked Wiggins and traded him for Love. After that happened, the Bucks could have taken the same deal from Utah, but they were set on Jabari. The issues in his game were already apparent, as he had benched in the NCAA tournament because he was a defensive liability against Mercer (of all teams) and had already been fat and out of shape several times in his young life. I think the real story here is just that people give scorers so much credit, but a comparable baseball analogy would be thinking Chris Carter was a potential star because he hit so many home runs. They had lots of opportunities to recognize that he wasn't what they needed and trade him for something of value, but they dropped the ball every chance they had.

Scary to thing how Kidd could have ruined this whole damn thing if given a little more time. Looking at his moves when he had more sway over personnel, combined with his schemes and playing time, makes you want to puke. Imagine if they had traded Jabari when they had the chance, too. He was worth something before his second ACL tear. Lots of teams still fall for that PPGZ stuff. By the way, Paul George really is balling out of his mind this year. His offense is obviously good, but his defensive stealth reminds me of Deion Sanders in basketball form. He's just toying with people. Far better than Westbrook IMO.

I'm willing to play 2B. I'm pretty sure I can hit LHP's better than RHP's. (Sample size alert.)

I guess roster spots are the limiting factor here. You can only have so many... projects? Is that the word I'm looking for? You want to get steals in free agency, but you can't get every steal. I can see why the Brewers didn't deem this as an upgrade over what they have.

^^^Great post. Hill is a very steady veteran and he's played a ton of playoff basketball. The idea of letting him walk to save the owners money, when saving money does nothing to help them improve the team in other ways, is kind of crazy to me. I'm sure his on/off stats are terrific. There are times they look better with him out there than with Bledsoe, who can be over-aggressive to the point of being a liability on offense. Also, they were in a bad slump (by their standards) right before acquiring him. They started 7-0 on a ridiculously unsustainable hot shooting streak, then went 10-8 (including some embarrassing losses and disturbingly close games against bottom-feeders like Phoenix, NYK, and Chicago), and are now 17-4 since Hill started playing for them - the difference being, this latest run is sustainable and they don't need to hit 50% of their 3's to be the best regular-season team in the league, like when they started 7-0.

But you can have DDV, Snell, and Hill. You don't have to make any trades. You don't have to play anyone out of position. You don't have to rely on a totally unproven young player on what may be a finals team. All you can do if you let Hill walk is sign veterans to minimum contracts (unless you let everyone else walk to pursue Kyrie or Durant, which would be incredibly foolish). That makes you significantly worse. Why let a good player go just to save the owners money? It makes the team worse for no reason. It's not like baseball, where you can say you'd rather spend the money on 3 solid role players.

I disagree. I know where they're all playing, but the math is much simpler than that. There's not enough roster spots to platoon nearly every position, and there's way too many RHP's to justify prioritizing the RHB side of a platoon over a guy like Moustakas. Most LHB's struggle against LHP's. It's still easily worth the trade-off to hit so much better against RHP's though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having Shaw or Moustakas in a lineup against LHP's. The benefits of having so many good LHB's would more than offset that. ETA: If they could just sign Gonzalez, that would take care of all of this, but I have my doubts about the value there.

You still need capable pg's in an offense like this. Just because you don't run a pg-centric offense doesn't mean you don't need one for routine ball-handling and to keep defenses honest. Even the Heatles knew they needed pg's, despite Lebron being one of the greatest pg's of all time in his own unique way. More importantly, you just need the best players. Waiving Hill is just a total loss. It does not open any opportunities except saving the owners money, which in this situation would be a disgrace considering this could be the city's first major title in nearly 50 years. It's hard to fathom why you're worried about them not wanting to pay the luxury tax when it has absolutely no benefits except allowing you to use a slightly bigger MLE salary slot in 2020. Hill is a 38% career 3-point shooter who was over 40% each of his last 3 seasons. He's 32 and is just two years removed from scoring 17 ppg on an incredible 60% ts while nearly being an all-star in the very deep West. If defense was taken into account, he probably would have been an all-star. I think you're grossly understating how much having a starting-quality combo guard on the bench is helping the Bucks. It would leave a big hole in their rotation if he was gone. Don't you remember how they were playing before they acquired him? If it was a matter of letting him go so you could find other ways to improve the team, I could understand it, but it does absolutely nothing to that end. I'm not sure you understand that. How do you plan to replace him for less? You are not allowed to spend the money you save if you don't pick up his option. Please try to account for that.

I'm 98% certain they would completely lose their free agent rights by not picking up the option. They'd have to use the MLE to sign him or Brook, but not both. He's not worth $18m in free agency, but he's worth a lot more than what you would be allowed to pay someone to replace him and he's a lot better than some rookie or some role-playing, garbage guy sg would be. It's really beyond me how people think you can just fill the position with some scrub. They have to limit Bledsoe's minutes because of his knees. We've seen bad players at pg for years now, and it's like some people haven't even noticed how much better they are with Hill there. They were falling apart (relative to what they're clearly capable of) before they got him. Looked like a 5 seed at best for a month there. Now they're back on top. Giannis is not a pg. That died years ago. He draws double-teams and kicks the ball out, but he can't run a half-court offense and control pacing or tempo to save his life and he has zero patience. Nor should he, because it's a waste of his time and energy considering how well he does other things. Brogdon is way too slow to be a pg, and he's a head-down driver like Giannis and a wide-open shooter like Snell. Possessions are stagnant with him running the offense. We saw a huge improvement when they got Bledsoe, and another huge improvement when they got Hill, but people still argue that pg is something you can patch together like 2b in baseball. Doesn't work that way, sorry. Again, the main thing is the CBA though. They're a better team with Hill, period. And all it would cost to keep him is the owners paying some luxury tax. Lots of other small-market owners have done it, and they're not exactly losing a lot of money by doing so. It just cuts into their profits, but their investment in the team more than makes up for that. The equity is ridiculous, especially when you get a taxpayer-funded arena out of it. I'm not sure people are fully grasping how that works.

Because most pitchers are RHP's and the Brewers already have enough guys who hit RHP's better. I still don't understand why many are obsessed with getting better against LHP's at the expense of getting worse against RHP's, who are the overwhelming majority. Braun, Aguilar, Perez, Pina, Cain, and Arcia are better against LHP's. Shaw, Gamel (barely), Thames, Yelich, Grandal, and Spangenberg are better against RHP's. Yelich and Grandal are very effective against LHP's, despite it not being their preferred split. Both groups have a balanced mix of dangerous hitters and role players, and they have defensive versatility. The roster is almost perfectly balanced in regard to facing LHP's and RHP's, but should probably tilt more towards facing RHP's because that's about 75-80% of plate appearances. It seems reactionary to want more mediocre RHB's just so you can throw 7 of them in the lineup every time an opponent starts an LHP. They did have a slump against LHP's last year, but I firmly believe that was a fluke. They have plenty of guys who can hit LHP's. Moustakas is a much better option than guys like Cabrera or Davidson.

Woah. Sterling Brown as the back-up pg? That's not good. You need a real pg. Brown would be terrible in that role. He's not a very reliable player in terms of positioning or reads, even in his current garbage-man role. I like him a lot in the right role going forward, but that's like saying Braun or Aguilar can be the back-up SS. We have seen how much damage a bad pg can do. Look at Delly, Jennings, and Brogdon in that role the last few years. It made my eyes bleed, and those guys actually had some experience at pg. And we desperately need legit Bledsoe insurance because of those knees.

There are lots of other viable explanations in his case. He had constant nagging injuries early in his career, and the bad habits you alluded to also probably had a negative impact on his performance. Also, "2nd through 5th best years" still isn't as improbably as"7 best years" like Edgar. Those good years also clearly started before the big PED influx. Yeah, there are outliers. I'm not dying on this hill. It's just a little suspicious to me. I guess Martinez had some injuries that moved him to DH as well. But he wasn't as great as Molitor early in his career, and he was a DH for longer if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, totally. I looked it up, and from age 32-38 he exceeded his best OPS before age 32 (not counting his 46 p.a. rookie year) every single year. And he turned 32 in 1995. Hmmm....

I think the Nets were "repeat offenders" and also were way over (KG, Pierce, Deron Williams, Lopez, and Joe Johnson all had huge salaries for that era). I don't think the Bucks would have to go that far over to keep the team together, and they'd only be over for a year because Hill and Ersan have expiring contracts next year. You're right, it would still cost a lot, but it's not like they would have 2 super-max contracts like some teams. They don't even have 75% of one super-max deal right now. Another drawback is not being able to use your full salary exception slot in the following year. Basically the slot would go down from roughly 8-ish million to 5-ish. Repeat offenders are limited to even less than that, but that wouldn't apply to the Bucks. The reduced exception would be worth keeping Hill IMO. I think he's been a key to how the Bucks have returned to dominating after a bit of a mediocre stretch. Poor pg play can kill you. They didn't have a respectable option before the trade, and might be hard-pressed to find one if they let Hill walk. I just want them to field the best team the collective bargaining agreement will allow. Also, you are right. Hill does make $18m next year, with a $1m buyout. I had it confused because I had $18m as the extra cost of keeping him, not the total cost. It would cost $17m extra. All depends on their other free agents, but I think they could do it.

It's not that. It's how the CBA works. Hill vs. DDV at pg could be the difference between a title and a 2nd-round exit. It's not $19m for Hill. It's $19m for a small but crucial improvement in your odds of a title. Under the collective bargaining agreement, you have the right to pay Hill $19m a year to be your backup combo guard. You don't have the right to pay any outside free agents more than $3m though, because you will be over the cap. In the NBA, you use the allowances of the CBA to keep a contender together, period, unless you're cheap. Value is not evaluated on a case-by-case basis like in baseball or football. It's all about context. I think you're missing the point of my post. They can afford it, and they have a chance at a title. It's not going to hurt them long-term. They don't have to let anyone else walk to keep Hill. They can't sign anyone else worth more than the veteran minimum even if they do let Hill walk (unless they waive their Bird Rights to Bledsoe and Khris, which would be a terrible decision because two birds in the hand is better than two in the bush). They would just lose profits for a year. Why would we care about that? Other small market owners like Cleveland and OKC have paid tons of luxury tax to keep contenders together. If the Bucks don't do the same right after getting a new arena at taxpayer expense, and in an MVP favorite's prime, I'm going to be pissed.

All 4 of them can be brought back. The Bucks should definitely pay the luxury tax and do so, unless offers get absurd. The Bucks do have some bargaining power because they have so much depth, so nobody except maybe Bledsoe can hold them hostage. They shouldn't get insane offers. Smart teams will note how guys like Bledsoe, Khris, and Lopez are sacrificing touches and numbers to be part of a winning formula, but there's still not many smart teams out there, and smart teams don't throw huge offers at guys like that anyway. The way the CBA works, you really have to bring guys back if you're competing for a title. You can't just say "we'll spend $20m on someone else." You either spend it on Bledsoe, or you lose the right to spend it. I don't think they have full Bird Rights for Lopez, but they can use the exception salary slot to keep him if he'll accept it. They've arguably done as much for his image as he's done for them, so hopefully he stays. I'd even go so far as to say they should just keep Snell and Hill. The owners got a lot of money for their stadium, and should invest in the luxury tax to keep a contender together. It's either pay Hill $19m or find a pg (who can also play sg and has a ton of playoff experience) on a minimum contract. The latter is a dangerous option for a contender. Using the luxury tax compromises the ability to use the full exception the following year, but they're going to pay the tax anyway so they may as well go all-in on it. Zach Lowe has a really terrific piece on ESPN on why Bledsoe should be one of the last all-stars in the East. He made a slight case for Middleton, but Bledsoe has brought his top-flight skill (defense) more consistently than Khris has brought his (shooting). No mention of Brogdon at all, and I don't think there should be. Lopez could have a borderline case over, say, Lowry or Sabonis.

I'm okay with that group. Someone pointed out that Halladay and Martinez peaking in their 30's during the PED era was a little suspicious, but I guess there's no confirmed rumors of them juicing. Mussina is deserving if Jack Morris is. He was obviously clean and might have had much better numbers if so many hitters weren't juicing. That's the kind of thing you have to take into account.

I'm sure lots of people are still going to call it Miller Park. Maybe that's why Miller doesn't want to pay sponsorship fees anymore. They've already got their brand imprinted on the franchise, regardless of official status. Wish there was a craft beer guild with a cool name to get the rights. You guys need to drink more craft beer so they have more money! I live in NYC, so I can't do much to help.

Bumping this. Fascinating vote this year. So many borderline cases, plus the Bonds/Clemens issue. Bonds had trouble with the media from his playoff collapses in Pittsburgh. The media in general were brutal to him, but he was terrible in the playoffs before leaving Pittsburgh. I think that's where it started. He was one of the greatest players ever before his ridiculous home run numbers, but he got overshadowed by Sosa and McGwire despite being far better than them when they were hitting 60+. So while I can't excuse what he did and would prefer for him to be left out, I can't help but place some blame on all the slobberers who helped make the home run chase the spectacle that it was.

Fine by me. Didn't want the Brewers in on that. The Central is deep as hell but nobody is truly scary unless all the Cubs duds from last year bounce back. And they're all making marginal upgrades at bad value prices, whether in terms of assets, salary, or both. The Brewers are the reigning champions, and the more their rivals make short-term upgrades, the more I'm convinced the Brewers have the brightest long-term future in the division as well. I just think these teams are buying tickets to nowhereville.