coolhandluke121

Yep. I really love the people running this team. I think they could be the San Antonio Spurs of baseball. I wouldn't put Counsell up there with Popovich, but Counsell + Stearns + Johnson et al, as a package deal, could be up there with the Spurs' team. I think Counsell did a great job most of last year but struggled towards the end due to lack of options and desperation. Stearns is obviously money. And they seem to be building around underrated guys who do all the little things well, with the team identity being more important than the individual. For people still resistant to my idea of a little more piggy-backing and long relief, with more starters pulled before their second plate appearance, all I'm saying is that some of what FVBrewerFan mentions above could apply to starters as well. Put it this way: starters need a routine if they're going to throw 100 pitches in 6+ innings. So how did we come to the conclusion that the answer is to always give them that routine, instead of deciding they should throw less than 100 pitches and go ~4-5 innings? Are we so allergic to the concept of long relief that we can't even try it? Are we sure it's not just a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the worst pitchers are long relievers by default and that's why we say it wouldn't work?

But Nelson will probably have to work his way back slowly, while Suter and Woodruff will be on a developmentally-based innings limit and Guerra/Gallardo/Miley will be on a decline-related limit. Before you know it, you'll have September call-ups and be able to do what they did last year. The quality pitching they got last September was a testament for how much you can compensate for pitching deficiencies by getting creative and prolific with your bullpen. Just to add to your reasons the Brewers could do this, don't underestimate the critical role versatile position players and platoons would have in all of this. The Brewers have that in spades. Making double-switches and moving the pitcher's spot in the order is what could allow them to pull a starter for his second plate appearance and use a long reliever for 3 innings without him coming to the plate. That adds up to a much better lineup over the course of the season.

That's the main thing. I would like to see data on swing men and long relievers and try to figure out how much it affects them when they have less regularity. We've seen guys like Suter and Estrada do it very successfully here though. If anything, I'd be willing to be that the data shows them being more effective precisely because they face less batters on a regular basis, even though they can't rely on the same routine as starters. It's like the whole 7th/8th/closer thing. I'm a little skeptical that they need that level of routine to be effective. If anything, I think they'd be a lot better off if their appearances depended on match-ups and rest rather than innings. If you have 3 save situations in a row, why go to your closer for each one? Why stick with your 7th-inning guy even if he's an LHP facing 3 dominant RHB's in the 7th? Roenicke was a player's manager who did that stuff all the time. Remember the Kameron Loe in the 7th era? Remember when K-Rod was dominant before the ASB in 2014 but was pitching nearly every other day and once tried to save a game 4 days in a row? It's* mind-numbingly stupid for relievers IMO, but I think it's questionable for starters too. *ETA: Referring to the dogma on routine. If pitchers won't do it, find someone who will and show how it makes them better than expected. Then the established guys will be under more pressure to do it.

You see a little stuff like that once in a while when a guy misses a turn in the rotation because of a day off or injury. Sometimes you see a team hold off on a guy for a day if there's a better match-up. But not to this extent. The real question is, how necessary is it for most pitchers to have a more predictable schedule? They always say they prefer it, but is it really necessary for preventing injury and maximizing performance? Would they be willing to try it if it looked like it had a chance of improving their stats and the team success? Would you need young guys with something to prove, instead of established veterans with more political clout?

Yeah, protesting that it would be too rigid seems silly considering how inflexible the current dogma is. Almost any of the ideas suggested here have the potential to fix a lot of flaws. What new ones would it create? I don't think swing pitchers and long relievers with irregular schedules have more injury problems, but I could be wrong. It could be that the current practice took shape because it was best for avoiding injury. I doubt it though. Guys pitch on 3 days rest in the playoffs all the time. They come back and pitch in relief after starting a few days earlier. They start on 3 days rest if they didn't throw a lot of pitches in their last start. What's the right balance between appearances and innings per appearance? I know some guys have to be "stretched out" and stuff, but I think it would be hubris to assume the current dogma is correct just because it's tradition. There's tons of evidence that it's flawed. Manipulating match-ups a little more and avoiding a 3rd time through the order is the most important. For example, what's the point of having good left-handed pitchers if you're not taking steps to ensure that they pitch against LHP-dominant lineups more? I always thought pitching a guy like Randy Wolf against a great RHP lineup just because it was his turn in the rotation was the dumbest thing in the world. There has to be a better way. You give Suter 2 ip's in a piggy-back with Guerra on Tuesday and then bring him back Saturday to pitch 4-5 against an LHB-dominant lineup. Stuff like that. It's got a ton of potential. I hope the Brewers try it, and I think they're set up to. They're run by very smart people right now IMO.

That's debatable. You know how some neighborhoods hold their value even in the most depressed housing markets? When there's not many people with money looking to buy, they still want the best house within their means. Cain is the equivalent of a nice house in that neighborhood. Guys like him are always very valuable if healthy. I do think it's a good value signing that they couldn't pass up. Compared to guys like Hosmer or Martinez or the deals some of these pitchers will get, I like the deal even in this depressed market.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Why? Seems like he's using the word exactly as he intends. As you wish.

By the way, I'm not advocating a strict, rigid piggyback. That's the same inflexibility that in my opinion makes the current dogma in desperate need of a reboot. But just imagine how much you could manipulate match-ups and pitcher at-bats with more long relievers. It actually kind of boggles my mind that nobody has done it, but I guess you need to have the rep of a LaRussa or Maddon to survive the set-in-their-ways, walked-uphill-to-school-both-ways, knee-jerk reactions you'd get.

Saying you can't pull a guy after 4.2 good innings is a bit like singing a guy who's 32 because he had a good year last year. It flies in the face of all evidence. The best argument for shorter starts and longer relievers is avoiding 3 times through the order. That's an established liability. Pretty much everything else is speculation. You don't run out of pitchers anymore than you did before. You can easily reduce pa's by pitchers - maybe not every game, but definitely over the course of a season. For example, you can PH for your starter in the top of the 5th, do a double switch to move the pitcher down a few spots, and then PH for your first reliever after 2 ip's. That's what it really comes down to. The worst relievers in baseball are often failed starters, yet manage to have respectable e.r.a.'s because they only face a few guys. You could definitely get 2 more innings out of them. This idea that there's no in between, that you can basically either have guys throw 6 innings every 5 days, with ~32 starts a year, or you can give your best relievers 60+ appearances but no more than an inning at a time, is probably just dogma. That can't possibly be the most efficient way to divvy up innings. You could also easily start guys on 3 days rest more often if they're routinely throwing 60-70 pitches. People do that already all the time. Again, what's the evidence for the current dogma? Is there injury data on it? Do pitchers really need that much of a routine? If, so then why do they break the routine in the playoffs? Even travel and the occasional switch between day games and night games would wreak havoc on their routines if they were that susceptible to it. It's a little like the 7th/set-up/closer argument, which is just blatant simple-mindedness and being set in your ways.

Speculation, but circumstantial evidence comes from them already saying they want 13 pitchers, the fact that they have a lot of guys who project to be long relievers or short starters, and the way they used the bullpen last September - admittedly with the benefit of call-ups, but nevertheless significant evidence of how you can compensate for lacking true starters by using your bullpen more if your roster make-up permits it.

Bullpens are arguably much more vulnerable now when starters bomb. It's the rigidity of rotations and the lack of adequate long relievers that makes it so. With shorter starts and longer relief assignments, you could have more flexibility to use more of your staff when you need them or when they have the best match-ups. Also, look at it this way: if what I'm proposing was already established orthopraxy, and someone proposed 5 starters with longer starts and less long relief, people would also raise objections based on how vulnerable staffs would be. Logically, if what I'm implying is true and pitchers don't need as much of a fixed routine as they have now, then those objections would actually be valid, whereas similar objections to my proposal just feel like resistance to trying something new. There are logical reasons to why it might work. It just redistributes the workload so fewer pitchers go 3 times through the order. The limited data we have on long relievers shows that they can handle variability in their work schedule, and they're usually the least talented pitchers on a staff. Starters can also handle more variability, as evidenced by how the best starters can give some relief innings a few days after their playoff starts and stuff like that. I'm not asking for playoff-type use, but the baseline definitely needs to be moved a little. Tradition is not always based on a long process of figuring out what works best. Sometimes it's just inertia. Imagine how much people criticized the first teams to stop using their starters 50-60 times year.

I guess I'm using the term "piggyback" differently. I didnt think it means having the same pair together all the time. I thought it just meant blurring the lines between starters and long relievers. Suter and Guerra could "piggyback" on Tuesday and then Woodruff and Suter could go on Saturday, with the lineup they're facing and the nature of ph opportunities determining the innings. It wouldn't even have to be the first guy out of the pen who piggybacks. Get a loogy in there and then a true long reliever, for example. Whatever term is correct, it is LONG past time to have fewer starters go 3 times through the order and have more relievers go once through the order, give or take a few batters.

Yup ... I'm all for throwing ideas out there, but this one is way out there. Every great new innovation was once some idea that people dismissed because nobody had tried it. La Russa's use of the bullpen against the Brewers in the 2011 playoffs flew in the face of convention, but now heavier bullpen use is the norm and is showing no signs of slowing down. Consider the following points as reasons to try more long relief and piggy-backing: - 3rd time through the order is terrible compared to first 2 times - historical (weak) justification for leaving starters in was always about how well they did in the first 4-5 innings, not reasonable projections about what they would do in 6 or 7 - relievers are clearly under-utilized; most are failed starters, and yet many have lower e.r.a.'s than superior pitchers because they face less batters - relievers can throw harder and don't need as many pitches - 8-man pens are becoming more common - analytics might finally be catching up to the value of defensive versatility and more flexible double-switch options, allowing you to have 12 position players - you will often to be able to have one less plate appearance from your starting pitcher, which would add up to a significant advantage over the course of a season - you can manipulate appearances more to have your LHP long relievers/short starters throw more against LHB-dominant lineups, and the same for RHP's - after 60-70 pitches, guys could probably go on 3 days rest more often when you need them This is the inevitable progression of bullpen use. Someone is going to do it because it makes too much sense, and I hope it's the Brewers. I do believe they're deliberately setting themselves up for it, based on such an early commitment to an 8-man pen, a high priority on versatile position players, and their use of the pen late last season. I think a whole lot of people are gonna be saying "why didn't anyone think of this before"? You can't just dismiss things because they haven't happened in the past. The past could just be a bad case of group-think and being scared to try anything new. Every new idea is by definition something you could dismiss because "this is the Major Leagues" and you don't do that here.

Of course. There will also be regression guys and unexpected surprises. But this is still very different from last year. Last year was all rejects and cast-offs and they weren't even pretending they were trying to contend until they were still in first place at the ASB and made some upgrades. This year there's not likely to be as many total duds.

End of March, eh? I'm guessing he's not getting nearly what he wants and figures Screw them; I'm at least skipping spring training if I'm not getting paid anyway. It is probably a drag for experienced players. Or it could be total b.s. that he's waiting until the end of March.

Villar's career numbers are still noticeably better as an RHB, despite last year's dramatic deviation. He only had 126 PA's against LHP's last year and it would be unwise to draw any conclusions from that.

Also: https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-milwaukee-brewers

I agree that Williams looked very good. Just seemed like people would have a lot of trouble hitting him, especially in a relief role after seeing a slow cheese starter like Suter or Davies.

I think some people are reading too much into the Gallardo and Miley signings. Others are trying a little too hard to talk themselves into it. Every team invites a bunch of cast-offs to spring training without any expectation of them making the team. Just because Stearns thinks these cast-offs were a little better than the others doesn't mean he they're anything more than long shots. I continue to hope that Suter, Woodruff, and eventually Burnes are the top choices, and if anything they'll try to sign a starter to replace one of them. I also hope Williams and maybe Houser get thrown into the fire, but I can see the logic to keeping Gallardo and Guerra for long relief. That said, scouting is everything. If a guy looks really good in a spring training, he'll get a chance. Woodruff, Williams, and Houser have options and it doesn't hurt to save them for later if you're not sure they're better than the alternatives. I think they will be though.

This is loosely related to starters, but I can't understand why people leave Drake off every single time they make a roster. I don't think I've ever seen him on anyone's list since joining this forum after the season, but he has a career 3.60 FIP and 10K/9, and he's dominant against lefties. In this era of relief specialists, it would be nice to have another LOOGY so you can regularly use Hader and Suter in longer situations. He's frankly been better than Jeffress for his career, though admittedly under more favorable usage situations. But the way Jeffress bombed last year, I can't see why it's considered a foregone conclusion that he's ahead of Drake. I suspect it's because Drake had a few really bad outings in memorable situations, but it's dangerous to use narrative data over more comprehensive stats when projecting a pitcher's performance. I think Suter is involved in the rotation on some level almost no matter what, even if just because of injuries and in piggy-back situations. I think that puts Drake ahead of Jeffress in the bullpen. We shall see though.

As someone else mentioned, the lack of market for Walker and Phillips has everything to do with teams wising up on the likely decline of aging players, and not a surplus of quality 2b's. Villar was a ~4 WAR player in 2016 and he doesn't have to duplicate that to become a valuable young asset again. More importantly, he doesn't have to repeat that to have a great chance of being better this year than Walker. With Walker, it's not about the money. It's about having confidence that he will actually be better than Villar/Sogard, which teams rightly doubt given Walker's age and declining range. Bottom line, free agency is often bad value because in general there's really not that much of a likely productivity gap between huge clusters of players, so you just end up paying based on what a guy did last year. Just sit it out unless you're going after a potential bounce-back steal like Chacin or a terrific player like Cain, who truly is head-and-shoulders above so many of the alternatives.

Great thread. I agree with the people saying the Brewers' staff isn't that bad. They do lack an ace to start 3 games in a 7-game playoff series, but getting to the playoffs in the first place is all about having quality depth and not having to start guys like Peralta, Espino, or Blazek. Surprised at some of the projections for Nelson. He does have good stuff though. Despite Anderson's numbers, Nelson is the only true potential #1 on the staff. Anderson still gives up a lot of fly balls and is probably due for significant regression. Nelson just needed better coaching (Derek Johnson if you're reading this I love you MUAH).

From guys currently on the team, I want: OF: Yelich/Cain/Phillips(Perez) IF: Braun/Villar/Arcia/Shaw(Sogard/Thames) C: Pina/??? SP: Anderson/Davies/Chacin/Woodruff/Suter RP: Knebel/Hader/Albers/Boone/Barnes/Williams/Drake/Jeffress Minors: Gallardo/Guerra/Wilkerson/Broxton/Houser Trade:Santana Acquire: Catcher X With certain roles obviously being fluid. I expect: OF: Yelich/Cain/Santana(Perez) IF: Braun/Villar/Arcia/Shaw (Sogard/Thames) C: Pina/Vogt SP: Anderson/Davies/Chacin/Suter/Guerra RP: Knebel/Hader/Albers/Boone/Barnes/Gallardo/Drake/Jeffress Minors: Williams/Woodruff/Wilkerson/Broxton/Phillips/Houser Basically I think it comes down to taking advantage of some options on young guys to ease the roster crunch. I can understand the logic of it, but I'd rather just throw the guys who could be here a long time right into the fire. RHP1-----RHP2------LHP Cain------ Cain------Cain Yelich---- Yelich-----Santana/Yelich Braun---- Santana---Braun Shaw-----Shaw------Shaw/Santana Santana--Thames---Arcia Arcia------Arcia------Perez Pina-------Vogt------Pina (pitcher) Villar------Sogard----Villar With a lot left to be determined re: Braun and Thames sharing 1b, and with Perez occasionally giving Shaw a day off instead of Yelich against LHP's.

Get bent?? I don't think that means what you think it means. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer the guy who's been a Brewer for a while, all else being equal.

That's the old regime. They've been pretty good about giving young guys chances. They don't pull the hook on guys like Garza and Guerra as impulsively as fans would, but they do it. They were trying to start Woodruff when they were in first place, but he got hurt. They were using Suter most of the year. I'm not worried about them being too biased in favor of veterans.