BillScottCanRake

I've worked for a software company the past 12 years, and the only recommendation we make when customers ask what kind of computer they should buy is "Whatever you buy, make sure it comes with a good warranty." Having seen top-of-the line computers from the best manufactures fail within weeks of being purchased, you'll never be able to ensure your computer will last as long as it should. Having a good warranty at least protects you from expensive repairs or premature replacements. HTH

Scott: Welcome to BF.net. It's nice to have you. Having a Reds fan stop by brings up two memories from the past- one in Cincinnati and one in Milwaukee. Back in July 2002, my wife and I and two friends took a baseball trip. We took in a single A game in Beloit, drove to Louisville to tour the Louisville Slugger factory, and then on to Cincinnati. We also saw a game in Indy to watch the AAA affiliate. Anyways, we spent July 4 at Cinergy to watch the Brewer-Reds game had a great time. That was Milwaukee's 56-win team (or 106 loss team, depending on how you look at it), so our odds of seeing a good win were slight. For those Brewer fans who need a reminder of how good we have it today, check out this box score, but only if you haven't eaten in the last hour: July 4, 2002 Box Score A few memories from that game: Riverfront/Cinergy was pretty worn when we saw it. Tho that might have been skewed by seeing Marge Schott wandering the concourse, as she was pretty worn too. During our pre-game walk around the stadium, one of the guys with us (Madbad2000) caught a BP home run off Austin Kearns. Speaking of home runs, that Reds team had four guys with awesome pure power: Jr Griffey, Dunn, Branyan and Will Mo Pena. The fans were great even tho we were the "enemy". Maybe the felt sorry for us. Eric Young had a 2-out, 2-rbi double off Reds closer Denny Graves, scoring all-time Brewer greats Paul Bako and Alex Sanchez. EY's double gave the Brewers a 5-4 lead, allowing another all-time Brewer great, Mike DeJean, to get the save. With the win, the Brewers improved their record to 32-53 and pulled within 4 games of 5th place Chicago and 16.5 games of first place St. Louis. My other memory is from May of 2003 at Miller Park, the Brewerfan.net FanFest "Sea Biscut" game. Sea Biscut Walk Off- May 17, 2003 Box Score My only real memory from that game was Eddie Perez's walk-off three run homer. Probably because that was another 95+ loss team. Ah, the good ole days http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Welcome again to BF.net. And thanks for spurring my and tolerating my walk down memory lane.

IIAY, I think most of the stories I wrote before were on EZBoard, so they are gone forever. I did search the forum and found something from 2007, but I think the others are gone. Thanks for the compliments everyone.

MILWAUKEE (AP)—Cardinals manager Tony La Russa told reporters after Thursday's 10-5 loss to the Milwaukee Brewers that Milwaukee fans distracted him into leaving newly acquired Edwin Jackson in the game "about 12 hitters too long." "I'll tell you what, these fans are a bunch of idiots," La Russa said after the game. "It took a lot more time than I expected to educate them, and, as a consequence, I let (Jackson) face a few too many hitters. But the fans of Milwaukee are better for it, even though my team might have suffered a bit today. Well, at least the fans I could yell at behind the dugout are smarter... I don't know about those other morons in the stadium." "Between the scoreboard, stealing signs, taking candy from babies and fans distracting the manager during the game, it's no wonder this team wins so many games at home," La Russa continued. "I've never seen anything like it in all my years as a manager. And I've been the best manager in baseball for the last quarter century." "And you call Big Mac a cheater for 'roiding up?" La Russa said. In a game that didn't go as expected, La Russa appeared agitated on a number of occasions during the game- most notably when Brewer third baseman Casey McGehee hit his sixth, seventh and eighth home runs of the year. The Cardinal overlord called McGehee's actions "unconscionable" and "bush", and challenged the player to "learn about the history of baseball. You don't do things like hit three home runs against the St. Louis Cardinals. Especially when you have hit as poorly as (McGehee) has all year." La Russa also hinted that McGehee might be in for a bit of payback. "He needs to be careful when he starts his car tonight. That's all I'm gonna say." Approached after the game, McGehee wasn't too bothered by La Russa's comments. "That's how Tony rolls," McGehee said. "We just have to keep playing our game and keep grinding things out. Besides, I took a cab to the game today." La Russa did admit to his first ever mistake as a manger, saying he "might have been a bit distracted" during the bottom of the 7th, an inning that he spend on the phone with Milwaukee color man Bill Schroeder. "Did I forget about Jackson in the bottom of the seventh?" La Russa asked aloud. "I might have, but (Jackson) understands how important it is that I educate the fans of Milwaukee, and the fans of America. It was only one game and it was only ten runs... but more than that, Brewer fans will have a better understanding of baseball now than they had before today. That's bigger than wins and losses." "It was very cordial" La Russa said of the phone call with Schroeder. "As the keepers of baseball etiquette, we have a greater responsibility than any other team in baseball. Bill understands that now." Asked if he'd change anything about today, La Russa thought for a minute. Then, in typical La Russa fashion... "Yep, I'd have drilled that jerk McGehee after his second home run." With today's win Milwaukee moves to 3.5 games ahead of the Cardinals in the NL Central. -- End story --

I´ve traveled quite a bit myself, and I´ve never found my nights in hotels to be any less restful than nights in my own bed. I think, if anything, spending your night in your house rather than a hotel is more emotionally satisfying, going back to emotions. That's interesting, because in my experience the opposite is true. I've done a fair amount of traveling and it almost always takes me a night or two in a hotel room (or staying with relatives, for that matter) before I sleep nearly as well as I do at home. I have always found sleeping in my own bed one of the more enjoyable parts of returning from a trip. If I had to guess I'd say that there are a decent number of players who don't have any problems with staying in hotels, a fair number like me who do, and plenty who fall in the middle.

Is a walk as valuable when you have a pitcher lurking with a bat in his hands? I think it is important to note that a .250 hitter isn't a .250 hitter when he swings at pitchers pitches. He got to be a .250 hitter by hitting mistakes and pitches in his zone along with the occasional tough pitch. A .250 hitter can easily become a .150 hitter if they start swing at balls 6 inches off the plate- in other words, a pitcher. Additionally, I think there is a difference between going to the plate and looking to walk as opposed to taking a walk. A player looking to walk might take a couple of pitches down the middle, whereas a hitter who accepts a walk will swing at them. With those two things in mind, I want the number 8 hitter to be aggressive within the hitting zone, just like I want all hitters to be. That said, I have no problem with the number eight hitter taking a walk if the alternative is swinging at pitchers pitches. A walk is always better than making an out, regardless of who follows. A walk preserves an out, clears the pitchers spot in the order, gives a hitter (no matter how weak) the chance to drive in runs, increases pitch counts, causes pitchers to work from the stretch, etc. And if the pitcher does make an out, I'd like to think my lead-off hitter can start a rally next inning. A teams odds of scoring a run are better with one on and no outs than they are with one on and one out.

Sorry, but there is no way that over an entire season that putting the ball in play will not yield more baserunners than striking out. Yes, there are scenarios where it is a better outcome, but the larger the sample, the more baserunners will result from putting the ball in play. End of discussion. Thank goodness we finally have definitive word on the subject. We can all simply refer back to this post anytime the discussion crops up again! If a ball is put in play, there is a 1.6% chance that it will result in an error and a 25.4% chance that it will result in a hit (otherwise known as batting average). Thus there is a 27% chance that there will not be an out; there is much less than a 27% chance that there will be a double play. Thus, over the long run, putting the ball in play statistically will result in more net baserunners than striking out. I have two problems in general with this line of thinking, and none of them are related to double-plays or the value of a strike out vs other outs. My biggest problem with this is most people only see a change in approach affecting the at-bats in which a player strikes out, and they forget about the other 2-strike at bats and what happens to them. Ryan Braun, for example, has hit 15 doubles, 3 triples and 18 home runs this year with a 2-strike count- that's 36 extra base hits with two strikes. How many of those extra base hits would he have produced if he took a "just put it in play" approach? Half? A third? Heck, how many of those just plain singles might turn into weak ground outs or pop outs? Personally, I'd rather Braun strike out 130-140 times a year and continue to have the ability to hit a home run at any time, regardless of the count, than have him try to become a slap-hitter with two strikes. The other issue I have is the assumption that a strike out will turn into something positive (i.e. a hit) at a reasonable rate. I'm pretty sure that JJ Hardy, circa April-May 2005 proved that is definitely not always the case. Hardy's statistics all took an upturn when he lost the "put it in play" swing and started taking a normal hack and striking out more often. Regardless, I doubt that using a "put it in play" swing with two strikes will result in hits 25% of the time. I guess there appears to still be room for discussion here after all.

I'd be curious to know from BCR if they have been made privy to the details of Yo's upcoming start. Is it a start only in name (i.e. he goes two innings and he's lifted for a pinch hitter?), or is it a real-live, ML start in which he can go 75 pitches, hit and run the bases? If Gallardo only goes two innings, while technically a "start", it falls in line with the Journal-Sentinel reporting he's available to go a couple of innings. I'm just trying to decide how excited I should get, and whether or not I should be worried.

It would be impossible to finish the playoffs, 8-1. Losing only 1 game would mean making the World Series, yet, you can't win the World Series by winning only 8 games. Keep dancing fellas...keep dancing around the subject. I don't really care about the bet, or whether or not BCU keeps follows thru with the bet. In other words, I don't have a stake in this. With that said, it would be possible for the Brewers to finish the playoffs on a 8-1 run. That wouldn't be their record for the entire playoffs, just the last 9 games. After all, I don't think thought BCU was predicing the Brewers were going to go 8-1 over the course of a 162-game regular season, were they?

They do i[give away at bats] every time Sheets takes the ball. I'm sure you meant that in jest, but Sheets does attempt to hit, even tho he does it poorly. That's different than ordering a guy to stand at the plate and take pitches until he's out or walks. Heck, I might be tempted to intentionally walk him if he can't run the bases just to see if they'd pinch run for him.

Jim Powell (as mentioned in Mass Haas' post), he isn't getting his body ready to hit. He's got to bat, and as much as the Brewers might want his arm on the mound, they can't give away two or three outs a game. I mean, if he were ready to hit and he went 0-3, that's one thing. But from the accounts we are seeing he isn't ready. The other hindrance to him starting is what his pitch limit will be. Anything under 75 pitches and his starts are going to end up being awful short. If he can give you an inning or two twice a week, with Riske headed for the DL and Gange throwing BP, it would be nice to have another bullpen arm, even if he can't start.

FIRE SVEUM. Always on the cutting edge. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Curious timing, to say the least. While I'm not a big Yost fan, and I'm not upset by the timing, I never thought he'd get fired with 12 games to go.

I use AVG Free at home and Professional (or whatever the pay version is called) at work and have had good results with both.

Jim, I wanted to take a few seconds to say how much I really appreciate all the hard work you put into the Minor League Forum this season, from the Link Report to the Transaction threads to Diaries and Alumni threads. Hopefully the Brewers can right the ship and make the last half of September an enjoyable playoff run. Thanks again!

I guess I don't really understand the notion of JJ losing money by playing 3B for the Crew. He's been a SS his whole career, you think by playing a year or two of 3B he'll all of a sudden forget how to play SS so much that a team looking for a SS when the Brewers are ready to move him won't be at all interested? Will Hardy "forget" how to play shortstop? I doubt it. He probably won't lose the physical tools that allow him to play the position (a more likely, tho less clever eventuality), either. But, what if Hardy goes to arbitration after the 2009 season, after having played third base? What if Hardy spends the first two months of the season doing his best Bill Hall 2007-impersonation? The Brewers would be smart to point out that JJ is only the 9th best offensive third basemen in the league (and not the 3rd best shortstop he was in 2008), and an arbitrator might just agree with the team on that. And, if they do, that has will cost JJ some money. What if, after the 2010 season, JJ becomes a FA after spending two years at third (or second)? Will GMs understand he can probably still play short? Yeah, of course they will- they won't forget his 2007-08 seasons any more than JJ will forget how to play the position. At the same time, GMs have to take into consideration the fact that he hasn't played the position in two years. A GM is going to ask himself "What if he can't play short anymore? Is that why the Brewers moved him? We haven't seen him there, so we think he can, but what if he can't? We know that this other guy can because we've watched him do it the last three years." I understand that anytime you try to project how a player will play in the future there is always doubt, and there is always a margin for error, but isn't there a little more doubt when Hardy a player is stuck at another position for two years? The more a sure-thing a player is, the less doubt about his ability to produce, the more money that player is worth. Heck, maybe none of that will really be an issue. It could well be that Hardy sees what happened to Hall and tells the Brewers he doesn't want any part of it.

I disagree. I don't think he'll ever be an elite fielder, whether he plays short or third or second. Of those positions, short is considered the more important defensively, so one could argue that being average defensively at short is more valuable than being slightly above average at second or third. I'm sure being a top-three (but not elite) defensive player does not carry near the same weight that being a top-three offensive player carries when it comes time to negotiate a contract, as only the truly elite defensive players get paid significantly for their glove. That said, it is his glove that will allow Hardy to maximize his earnings over the next several years (assuming he continues to hit as he has). So long as he's good enough to remain a shortstop, he's going to be a top-3 to top-5 offensive shortstop, and those guys get paid a lot more money than a top-10 second or third basement. So, the only way his glove makes him money is if he plays short, and even then his glove is only allowing him play a position that maximize the amount of money his bat will make him. If a team wants to sign Hardy long-term and play him someplace other than short, I think they'll have to pay him like a top-hitting shortstop instead of an average hitting second or third baseman.

Found an article on CNN about this topic. I don't think it adds anything new, but it does confirm this is a growing trend.

This comes from my co-worker friend. Here are the things I think you should consider: FEEL I would suggest trying a bunch of different guitars to find out which ones feel comfortable to play. Try them on with a guitar strap. I love the sound of Fender Stratocasters, but I find them uncomfortable and awkward to play, so I rarely played the one I used to own. PICKUPS/TONE There are basically two types of electric guitar pickups: single-coils and humbuckers. Single-coils are the types of pickups you would see on a Fender Stratocaster. They sound thin, twangy, airy, brighter. They also pickup noise. For example if you played your guitar in front of a television screen, the guitar would pickup a lot of hum. Example of single-coil tone: most country music, Dire Straits, the Police, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Hendrix, Tom Petty, early REM. Humbucker Humbuckers have two coils and are designed to "buck" the hum that you get when using single-coils. But this tends to make the tone fatter and darker. These are the types of pickups you would see on a Gibson Les Paul. Examples of humbucker tone: most hard rock, most jazz. Personally, I like single-coil for clean sounds and humbuckers for distorted sounds. Figure out what type of music you would like to play, and find out what kind of guitars those bands use. PRICE/QUALITY Usually, on cheaper guitars they skimp on the electronics (pickups, switches, knobs) and hardware (tuning pegs, etc). Expensive guitars may have more decoration. Expensive guitars may have a body made of one piece of wood as opposed to multiple pieces of wood glued together. I don't know if the difference in tone is noticeable. And if there is a difference, is it enough to justify the extra money? Some people buy a cheaper guitar and change the pickups later when they get the money. Fenders cost a lot of money, especially if they're made in the USA. Gibsons are very expensive, except for some lower end Gibson SGs. Paul Reed Smiths are very expensive, except for some cheaper "Santana" models. So you may want to avoid the above. Here are some decent lower-end guitars: Epiphone - they mostly are clones of the Gibson guitars. Fender Squier - they are mostly clones of the Fender guitars Greg Bennett (Samick) - they are pretty much clones of Gibsons and Fenders. Actually, I think Samick makes the Epiphone guitars. Peavey Washburn Ibanez I would make sure that you don't get too much string buzz when your fretting notes or bending strings. I would make sure the tuning pegs turn smoothly. Also, you may want to have a music store "setup" the guitar so it plays nice. I try to buy used guitars if possible to save money. AMP If I was buying a guitar and amp, I would spend more money on the amp than the guitar. A lot of people feel (myself included) that a cheap guitar through an expensive amp sounds better than an expensive guitar through a cheap amp. I think Peavey and Crate tube amps sound pretty decent for the money.

Like Jamie, I had never had one before, and I'm 35. It even surprised my wife when I told her that yesterday. So, today I broke down, leaving Jamie the only person in the world to have never tried a Big Mac. I even saved the receipt and took a picture of it with my phone, so I'll be able to remember it forever. The verdict? I thought it was good (far beyond my low expectations for it), but I don't think I couldn't eat them more than once or twice a month, much less twice a day.

I've got a co-worker who has played in a band for 10+ years. When I asked him about your question, the first question he had is what sort of sound are you going for? No sense getting a Strat if you aren't looking for that type of sound.

Why wouldn't he though? I guess I don't get it, would his value not be as high if not higher as a 2B with his power? He won't do it that is fine, as long as Escobar would. I brought this up in this post. Basically, he goes from the third best offensive SS to the sixth best offensive 2B or 3B. That, when combined with SS being a premium defensive position (even tho he's not an elite defensive SS), and JJ could end up losing a lot of money moving to another position.

With regard to the SS situation, this seems to be the perfect place to re-state this post from ILuvDaBush made in the Hardy for Cain thread. Also, today on the Fan in Green Bay, Dougie talked about how JJ wouldn't be amenable to [moving from short stop to some other position], and I can't blame him. He's been an All-Star at short and plays a very good SS, though not Escobar-quality. While the Brewers could move him to another position against his wish, I feel like they'd be better off trading him if they don't feel he is the long-term answer at short. I think it's short in Milwaukee or short for another team for Hardy. Moving on to third, I'd be OK with a Branyan/Hall platoon next year if it is a pretty strict platoon if Branyan is healthy. I don't think we have to worry about Yost sticking to the platoon, tho, because I don't think Branyan will be back next year (note I am not saying he shouldn't be back, just that I don't feel like he will be). If that happens, I think Hall will be made the everyday third baseman in 2009.

Any true Brewers fan will be watching the Brewers. I am Jets fan and I was mostly watching the Brewers today until Billy Hall decided to make himself known. The Packers have had tons of success and this is just the first game while the Brewers are in a real playoff race for the second time since 82. Got to watch the Brewers. I certainly don't mind anyone watching the Brewers tonight over the Packers. It is a personal choice that each person has to make on their own. But I think it's a bit over-the-top to say someone choosing to watch the Packers isn't a "true Brewer fan". I've got two kids who are heavily involved in sports, and there are times when they are both scheduled to play at the same time. If I go to my son's game instead of my daughters, does that mean I'm not a "true fan" of my daughter? There are two games being played tonight by two teams I love. They are both teams are playing historic and important games- the Brewers are going for their first playoff appearance since 1982, and the Packers are opening their season and have a new starting QB for the first time since 1992. I am choosing to watch the Packers live, not because I'm not a true Brewer fan, but because I choose to watch that game live and follow the Brewers some other way.

BSCR what you said has merit but don't discount the defensive side of things. He's an average shortstop range wise and steady but unspectacular with the glove over all. He'd be a very good second baseman and his lack of speed wouldn't be a problem at third like it can be at short. I'm not os sure there is that big a difference between an A+ defender at second or third who would still put up the sixth best OPS offensively and a B defensive shortstop who has the 3rd best OPS. I think an 825-850 OPS-type player earns more as a B defensive shortstop than a gold glove second basemen or third basemen. Unless you are an elite defender playing a premium defensive position, I don't think your defensive prowess earns you much money. And second and third aren't nearly as important as short or CF or catcher. A lot of people bring up the assumption that because Hardy would move to 3B, he would somehow forget how to play SS and lose any and all value he had while he did play that position. I don't see any reason why Hardy wouldn't be able to make the switch back to SS if he were ever traded, thus putting in to question any loss of value a position switch would portend. I don't think he'd forget how to play the position. And he wouldn't lose all his value, but I think it's far to say he'd lose some of it. If Hardy moved to second for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, I would tend to think teams would be less certain of how he'd play SS in 2011 than they would be had he played there all along. If Bill Hall were moved back to short for the 2009 season I'd be worried he be less effective there than he was in 2006. Any doubts about his ability to play the position would probably affect his value.

From all reports, Escobar figures to be a game changer with the glove immediately, and his stats show he's starting to click offensively. 3B is probably the Brewers' biggest hole, and JJ fits in nicely there. I have seen a lot of posts that talk about Hardy moving from short to another position. I wouldn't assume that Hardy will be OK with a move to third base or second base. Much of Hardy's offensive value (as well as his monetary and trade value) comes in large part because he plays short. While one might argue that Hardy's an elite hitter for a shortstop, he's not an elite hitter as, say, a LFer, like Braun was last year when he played third base. Right now Hardy's 826 OPS is third in MLB for shortstops, behind only Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes. That same 826 OPS would be the sixth best for MLB third basemen and sixth best for MLB second basemen. When Braun moved to LF, it didn't really cost him anything. Hardy moving from short could cost him quite a bit of money down the road. And while he might well be OK with that, I think there is an equal chance he won't be.