coolhandluke121

What's crazy about this team is that you could almost divide it in half and still have probably one winning team and another team that's not terrible: 1B: Aguilar/Thames 2B: Schoop/Perez SS: Arcia/Saladino 3B: Shaw/Moustakas LF: Yelich/Braun CF: Cain/Broxton RF: Granderson/Santana C: Pina/Kratz Then if the starters stayed healthy, you would have Chacin, Anderson, Davies, Nelson, Peralta, Guerra, Miley, Gonzalez, Woodruff, and Suter to form two serviceable 5-man rotations. The bullpens would lack depth but you could still divide the current pen in half and have two bullpens that were better than what they had before Swarzak and Hader last year. Obviously not all those guys are healthy and they didn't have everyone all year, but it's a testament to the kind of depth they acquired that it's something you can even suggest with a straight face.

Still prefer the Rockies no matter what pitchers the Dodgers use this weekend and how hot the Rockies look. The Rockies are just flat-out the inferior team, and no hot streak can change that. Now the neither of them can realistically catch the Brewers, I find it incredibly easy to root for the Dodgers to win. It's a little tricky because I want the Rockies to stay ahead of the Cardinals, but neither one of them is nearly as talented as the Dodgers in my opinion.

No, he doesn't. I still don't see how "# of hall-of-famers" is such a big deal though. In '98, the Mariners had Griffey Jr., A-Rod, and Randy Johnson in their primes and won 76 games. In 2001 all 3 of them were gone, and they set the all-time record with 116 games. As noted before, the Brewers still had 3 of the 4 hall-of-famers from 1982 (not counting Molitor, who was hurt all year) and a lot of other members of the '82 team and won 67 games. ETA: Not saying I'd put 2018 ahead of '82; just saying HOFers is a terrible measuring stick. I'd put '82 first but right now I have 2018 ahead of 2011, a fatally flawed paper tiger that played an easy schedule, and 1992, a good team that played a tough schedule but still felt like a total fluke - with Listach and Eldred being poster boys for the flash-in-the-pan nature of that squad.

Good point. Thanks for catching that. I do think the Brewers have an advantage in a tiebreaker game, so in a way I'm actually giving them close to a 50% chance (26% to win the division outright plus a little more than half of the 40 percentage points in the case of a tie).

The Brewers' pen looked atrocious too when they were overused. Granted, the Cubs might not get the rest they need this week, in which case I would expect recent trends to continue, but I think people are underestimating their talent because of a slump. They looked pretty mediocre when they fell ~5 games behind the Brewers for extended stretches each of the last two season, and we all know what happened there. I'm not buying into their recent slump against good teams as much as a lot of people seem to be. It's no different than when the Brewers were slumping against the Pirates, Cubs, and Cardinals and I kept defending them. The Cubs are a really talented team that controls their own destiny, and as much as I want the Brewers to win the division, I would need better than 2:1 odds to bet on it.* *ETA: Win it outright, I mean.

The Brewers looked a lot worse than them when their bullpen was gassed in July. I didn't jump on the "Brewers are gonna choke" bandwagon then and I'm not gonna say that about the Cubs now. It doesn't "feel" like they're going to win the division, but all they need is 7-inning starts from Lester and Hendricks to turn things around. Context is everything. You're always hot, until all of a sudden you're not. You're always in a slump, until all of a sudden you're not. The Cubs still control their destiny but I think the Brewers have a great chance to gain one game due to strength of schedule. I'd say a tie for the division is the most likely, with the Brewers having the edge in a tiebreaker game because Chacin will have 4 days rest and the Brewers' bullpen will be more rested as well. Right now I'd say these are the approximate odds: Tie (40%) Cubs by 1 (25%) Brewers by 1 (20%) Cubs by 2 (8%) Brewers by 2 (6%) Someone by 3 (1%)

The '84 team had the same 4 guys and won 67 games. Granted, Molitor was hurt, but they still had 3. This might be a worthy way to summarize a team's talent in the NBA, but it's all but irrelevant in baseball. Besides, closers in the hall are kind of a joke. You could literally have had thousands of different guys who could have accomplished the same thing as some of those guys if they had been fortunate enough to suck at starting and end up in the bullpen with a closer gig.

2011 had an easier schedule and much better injury luck. They didn't have the depth to do what this team is doing with pinch-hitters and double switches. I think relying on the same player every single day at a given position can lead to a little fatigue. Wolf and Marcum were good overall, but were running on fumes by the end of the year. Guys like Morgan, Wolf, and Narveson in particular really benefited from the easy schedule. The defense was so-so. Yuni and McGehee were awful. Lucroy wasn't good yet. Hairston was no better than Hernan. Guys like Hart and Weeks were a little overrated IMO. Kotsay and Counsell were bad. Baseball is more about depth than superstars, although 2018 has both. Obviously I didn't like that team as much, but I agree with the people that said they felt like a pretender. Greinke and Gallardo made a big difference, but this team is using its bullpen depth to achieve similar results. Management is a huge advantage for 2018 as well. It just seemed like the Brewers were completely exposed when they faced a team with similar talent that was, for lack of a better word, more professional. Those Cardinals had some regular season issues that were addressed in time for the playoffs, just like the Brewers this year. If this Brewers team was as healthy as 2011 and together almost all year, they would be chasing 100 wins against a tougher schedule. I don't know how much "replicability" is a factor in this discussion, but I guess I would say it should be a factor in the sense that it helps predict how well a team's success will continue in the postseason, and I think 2018 has the edge there. 1982 was probably better, but I was 3 years old so....

Ahem. Just tell me who to reverse jinx next and I'm on it. No way you should let Santana/Thames hit here. Gio is 1 for 2 with a clutch RBI, and you need him against Carpenter.

Whenever I watch Molina play, I wonder how he's not regular a 950 OPS guy. Friggin' pain in the butt.

Ahem. Just tell me who to reverse jinx next and I'm on it. Also, thanks for not being needlessly sarcastic about a perfectly reasonable stance that by chance would not have been correct in this instance.

I'm gonna beat my own dead horse and again bring up pitchers batting when you have multiple long relief options. This could have been a huge inning. Now Gio will probably give up runs in the bottom of the inning. It always seems pitchers give up more runs in the inning after they hit.

Sucks that they couldn't get a guy on base in the top of the inning. Not ideal to have Gio lead off but you gotta leave him in to face Carpenter in the bottom of the 3rd.

Wow, Perez hitting ahead of Schoop. I get that Perez has pretty good splits, but Schoop was not supposed to be the type of guy who hits 7th against an LHP unless the first 6 are a murderer's row.

But Gio will almost surely get his first at-bat before Carpenter gets his 2nd, and that would be a waste of offense. They will wait and see what happens, but I guarantee that's a strong consideration. Gio is not enough of an advantage against Carpenter to justify a plate appearance and a bunch of extra at-bats against RHB's. I let Gio hit if he looks good on the mound and if there is nobody on with 2 outs. Obviously I let him hit if the Brewers jump out to a big early lead, too. That's basically it though.

I was asking about this in the Anderson thread. Gio can get a few innings, but he shouldn't hit. It depends a little on the Cardinals' lineup, but I would PH for Gio even if it's the top of the 2nd. Then Anderson and Woodruff are obvious choices for about 4 innings of relief, with neither of them hitting and with Jennings or Cedeno each facing Carpenter. Anderson would still be available for a start against the Tigers, so I see no issue with this approach.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/gVoBC0SuaHStq/giphy.gif I give up. How the heck do you insert a simple gif here? "Edited 3 times" my butt. This is at least my 7th try. Mod edit: Like that?

I was hoping he'd go a few innings against the Cards' many RHB's today. I don't think there's any excuse for having a pitcher bat at this time of year, as rested as they are, when the Brewers' starters aren't any better than the long relievers anyway. So they might need a long reliever early. Gonzalez will obviously get more batters than Jennings did, but I see no reason he should bat unless maybe there's 2 outs and nobody on. Look how Peralta batted yesterday and then the next guy got a hit with 2 outs and nobody on. Maybe someone could have been on base when Cain got a hit, giving Yelich and Aguilar both a chance to bat with runners on. Then Peralta gave up a run in the bottom of the inning anyway.

Somebody get JJ a buckwheat pillow asap. http://originalbuckwheatpillows.com/

Any word on their plans for Anderson? I've never been a big believer in him, but you don't just bench him completely... do you? I do like the fact that everyone has to constantly earn their spot. Everyone except Chacin is pretty comparable, and they have to establish a precedent that you do what's best for the team no matter what your credentials are - like Braun learning 1B, for example. Yet another reason to love this team.

Man. When you've got a good plan, you should probably stick to it. Wasted an at-bat with the top of the order coming up, only to let a rookie RHP pitch to Carpenter with a runner on. It's all a guessing game, but I think you have to trust data more than "he looks good tonight".

Big dilemma. I thought Jennings would get the full first inning and then they would bat the pitcher 6th or 7th to PH for him before the bottom of the 2nd and maximize their chances of getting more than 2 innings from an actual starter, but their plan was good. Do you deviate on a hunch that Peralta is good tonight?

Pitcher's spot still 9th. Probably not getting a lot of innings from that first reliever unless the Brewers get several baserunners in the first two innings. I think I would have put the pitcher 7th to give Peralta or whomever a better chance at a couple innings before being pulled for a PH.

Drake is back?! Thank God I kept his jersey. Now there's a LOOGY you can set your watch to!

Jennings has been fine against LHP's. It is selective memory to suggest otherwise. I'd just give him one batter. Then bring in another short reliever. But the most important thing is to keep any pitcher from batting. That's why I love this move. No excuse for wasting a plate appearance when you expanded rosters with just 7 games in the next 10 days. I think the pitcher's spot should be higher up than usual. Make sure you get a PH in the 2nd inning and then settle in to a long reliever like Anderson, Woodruff, or Guerra until the pitcher's spot comes up again.