BillScottCanRake

I always thought a big reason the Brewers moved was because of the climate and it was better for player development to have teams in southern climates? I know that the facilities in Beloit were an issue, too, but I thought weather was the bigger issue. The fan in me would love to see the Brewers return to the Midwest League, but if the weather is as big a deal as I remember, it's going to take an awful lot to overcome that, no matter how committed the ownership group would be.

I was reading an article on ESPN by Bill Simmons in which a part was devoted to the top five manly plays of all time. A baseball play was his number one: 1. The time Johnny Bench kept getting shaken off by a pitcher who wanted to keep throwing fastballs, so he caught the next fastball with his throwing hand. That will never be topped. That was the sports equivalent of Dalton catching someone's punch at the Double Deuce, then twisting the guy's arm around and breaking his neck. Can anyone provide some additional information on that? That sounds like something straight from Bull Durham.

Parra hasn't reached his innings limit just yet, as he's only gone 127 innings between Huntsville, Nashville and Milwaukee. His limit for the year is about 150, so he should have 20-25 innings left. I can't say why he hasn't pitched lately.

To the guys who PM'd me, I responded to you. Thanks

I have two tickets for Wisconsin's September 15th game against The Citadel. I'll be unable to attend that game, so they are up for sale. The tickets are in Section A, Row 26, Seat 34 and 35. Camp Randall Seating Chart: Section A Face value for each ticket is 39.00, and I'd like to get as close to that as possible. Preferred method of payment is paypal. If you are interested, PM me or send me an e-mail. Thank you

Someone forgot to hit the reset button.

I think as long as your picture is about the size of the one you posted, whatever you have to share would be fine. Especially since most of us living in Wisconsin don't get to WV as often as we went to Beloit several years ago, it's nice to see the guys early in their career.

If there is a player in the pen who maybe should have been handled differently (from a standpoint of usage) it's probably Villanueva. I think part of his struggles lately (August especially) could well be related to making the adjustment from a more regimented routine of a starter to that of a reliever. If Villanueva is a bit worn down, it's from that 4 1/2 months of being a reliever and all that it entails. Otherwise, I think Yost has done ok managing their workload.

From MLB.com: Saves: Rule 10.20 in the Official Rule Book states: Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions: (1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and (2) He is not the winning pitcher; and (3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions: - (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or - (b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces; or - © He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game.

Here's the thing though guys.... was Hall's breakout year in '06 an outlier, or is his mediocre '07 the outlier? I think it's important to note that Hall pre-2005 (and pre-25) was pretty bad. And while those years shouldn't be ignored, I don't think what he did in 2002, 2003 and 2004 are much of an indicator of what he'll do the next couple of years. To try to figure out that, I'd be more inclined to use his 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons, as those give us both a large enough sample and a more relevant sample. 2005 291/342/495 837 OPS 2006 270/345/553 898 OPS 2007 262/323/435 758 OPS The first thing that jumps out at me is just how good his 2005 season was. The second is that while it's clear that Hall is having his worst year since that dreadful 2004 season, he is clearly a much better player. While his BA is down and he's walking less than he did in 2006, he is still walking much more than he did in 2005. And while his home runs have fallen off from last year, they are pretty close to what they were in 2005. If I had to try to predict what Hall would do in 2008, I'd say its probable that he put up a season somewhat similar to his 2005 season, probably with a lower BA but more walks and 20-25 home runs instead of 17. That puts his OPS in the 800-820 range, and I'd take that.

If Fielder leads off the third inning with a double, do you really want to have Braun always hit the ball to the right side? I don't want to neuter the teams best hitter in the third inning and for all practical purposes ruin any chance of a big inning, even if it means not scoring. There is a time and a place for trying to score a single run, but I am not a big fan of it in many instances.

Any changes to the playbook editor? I know that the default playbooks have option routes, but I don't believe in the past those could be used when building a play from scratch.

I guess the only things that would prevent this season from being the best ever by a Brewer player would be the fact that it wasn't a full 162 games and a rough stretch over the last two months. To date and projected over a full season, I think he's had the greatest season of any Brewer. Here are his updated numbers projected over 590 ABs against Pujols' rookie year: AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Braun 590 111 204 35 8 45 121 43 129 21 6 .348 .392 .666 1.058 Pujols 590 112 194 47 4 37 130 69 93 1 3 .329 .403 .610 1.013 It's hard to find anything to really complain about except that he set the bar so high it's gonna be very, very hard to meet those expectations. He's more than likely not going to be a .330-.340 hitter with 45-55 home runs every year. Which is fine, so long as he hits in the 320s with 35 to 45 home runs. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif If this pace is maintained we might have to ask how Braun's season compares to any in Milwaukee history, Braves or Brewers, instead of just limiting ourselves to the Brewers.

Well, I guess I feel a tiny bit better that the problem isn't even bigger. It's still big enough, though... hope you get everything resolved.

I probably missed this, but, ignoring the bobbles for a second, this guy was able to enter the stadium multiple times with the same ticket, even though it was scanned multiple times? I don't want to diminish the importance of the bobble issue, or the crappy customer service, but that seems like a potentially major problem all by itself. I can't believe the scanning software isn't catching multiple entries into the stadium using the same ticket.

Things have been a bit glum with regard to the Brewers, so I thought I'd try to share some good news. This is from this month's From the Bleachers: July 2007. In case that didn't let you know the kid can hit a little, Braun is having the best rookie campaign since Albert Pujols' 2001 season. Just for fun, let's project Braun's numbers as of July 31 to the 590 ABs that Pujols had in 2001. AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Braun 590 119 204 40 5 44 123 47 140 25 5 .347 .394 .657 1.051 Pujols 590 112 194 47 4 37 130 69 93 1 3 .329 .403 .610 1.013 I really am having trouble finding a comparable season by any Brewer player, much less a rookie. While he has only played 59 games, his batting average is the third highest in Brewer history behind Paul Molitor and Cecil Cooper. Braun's current home run pace is 36, which would break Prince Fielder's rookie record and be the 9th highest single season total in Brewer history. His full season projection of 44 home runs would be second only to Richie Sexson and Gorman Thomas (depending on what Fielder does the rest of the year). That's one heck of a rookie season. Brewer fans can only hope Braun continues to hit like that for the next 10-15 years.

That, my friend, is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks a million!

Actually, I am looking more for something like this: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l68/cthawkinson/stats.jpg I want the whole roster, if possible, with totals at the bottom.

Does anyone know a place where I can get year-to-date stats by date for a player? What I'd like to get is something like the stats presented on ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/Statistics/Team/playerstats?team=mil What I'd like to be able to do, however, is enter an ending date and get the stats through that date. Thanks!

Your post made me wonder... are those numbers out of line? While I don't remember so many heart-breaking losses, either, I suspect that is in part because better teams lead more games, and therefore have more chances to blow games big time. While the 2001 team was bad, those late 70s/early 80s teams lead a lot of games. If that is the case, the Brewers getting good could result in more of these types of losses. What follows is incredibly simplistic and could well be flawed because: - I have no idea how many greater than 90% and less than 10% games the Brewers have had this year. - Nor do I have time to break them up so that I don't treat a 90% chance of a win the same as a 99% chance (I'd probably group them something like 90% to 94%, 95% and above, less than 5% and 6-10%). With that said, if a team has 50 leads that they have a 90% chance of holding and 30 games in which they had a 10% chance of winning (with the other 82 games falling in the middle), one would expect that team to lose 4.5 games they should have won (winning 45.5) while winning 3 they should have lost (and losing 27). If that team went 41-41 in their other 82 games, that team would be 90-72. At first glance, those numbers don't seem too far out of whack. They might be, especially if the Brewers are 31-6 in games in which they have a 95% chance of winning or something, but I think it might be a function of just being better and having more chances to blow it than in the past.

The primary reason for trying to keep similar discussion in a single thread is so that all the discussion that has taken place in the recent past can be included in a thread. It makes for easier reading (especially for those who only visit here once or twice a day- no one wants to read multiple threads about the same thing when they can read one), and it ensures that good discussion won't be lost in multiple threads or repeated multiple times. The tough part from a moderators point of view is deciding when two threads are better off being combined into one discussion. The true duplicates are easy; it's that grey area when there is a Yost thread and a bullpen management thread that becomes harder. And, I don't really think it has anything to do with whether a thread is positive or negative. My best advice is try to make use of the search feature before posting a new topic. I haven't really tried it too much since the Yuku switch over, so I am not sure how well it works, but if it works well that should help you find threads that may talk about what you want to talk about. And, if you do post a new thread that gets locked, try not to take it personally. Everyone, from the newest new contributer to the poster with the most posts, will get a thread locked because it's already being discussed. If you do get a thread locked, just blame it on the search feature not finding the thread. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

The primary reason for trying to keep similar discussion in a single thread is so that all the discussion that has taken place in the recent past can be included in a thread. It makes for easier reading (especially for those who only visit here once or twice a day- no one wants to read multiple threads about the same thing when they can read one), and it ensures that good discussion won't be lost in multiple threads or repeated multiple times. The tough part from a moderators point of view is deciding when two threads are better off being combined into one discussion. The true duplicates are easy; it's that grey area when there is a Yost thread and a bullpen management thread that becomes harder. And, I don't really think it has anything to do with whether a thread is positive or negative. My best advice is try to make use of the search feature before posting a new topic. I haven't really tried it too much since the Yuku switch over, so I am not sure how well it works, but if it works well that should help you find threads that may talk about what you want to talk about. And, if you do post a new thread that gets locked, try not to take it personally. Everyone, from the newest new contributer to the poster with the most posts, will get a thread locked because it's already being discussed. If you do get a thread locked, just blame it on the search feature not finding the thread. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

A gold glove right fielder. An OPS over 1.000 since July 1st. Would have been a huge spark. On July 1, Dye was hitting .230/.286/.422 with an OPS of 708. In 2004, Dye put up a .265/.329/.464/.793 season, and followed that up in 2005 with a .274/.333/.512/.845 season. So, while Dye was very good in 2006, he had what amounted to a career year in 2006. Add to that the fact that he is 33 and was playing very poorly this year, who could have really predicted his July and August so far? Yes, it seemed likely he'd rebound, but to what level? His 2004 level, or maybe 2005? Could the Brewers have counted on him returning to his 2006 level of play? I think the answer to that is no, that while possible, it couldn't be counted on. So, yes, it might be nice to have Dye, in hindsight. Just like the acquisition of Linebrink might well turn out great beyond our wildest dreams. But, looking at things as they were at the time and I think those results are far less certain.

I can't really argue with your points Chris, but I brought that up to point out that Melvin still places a big priority on player development. Draft picks may be a heck of a lot more uncertain than relatively established prospects, but again, extra early draft picks add more talent to a system that has suddenly graduated and traded away a significant amount of talent. Yeah, I understand why Melvin thinks why those extra picks are an important consideration, and I hope I didn't appear to downplay them too much. This team is always going to need to draft well, either to build from within or use prospects to add talent from outside the organization. Two extra top 80 picks should make the 2008 draft class a potential monster. Like most things, this trade was a compromise on a number of different levels, probably on levels that I haven't even considered. Which is why Melvin is GM of a first place team and I'm not. I guess I'd probably would be more OK with it if I were more OK with Linebrink. The way it looks now is they traded three prospects for two months of a good but not great reliever and two picks. If Linebrink is better than I expect, I'll be able to look back with more fondness for the trade. Chris, your outlook is a bit more harsh than my own in this case, but that was well-written. Trading prospects is playing with fire, but at times, so is not trading prospects. I hope we never look back on a trade and see that Wickman scenario you presented. Thanks for your effort on this. Did it come off as harsh? I hope it didn't, because that wasn't my intention, but rather to show that Melvin really did take a risk in making this move and express some concern over the probability it will help the team this year. I like Linebrink as an additional 7th or 8th inning guy, more so than an improvement over the guys currently getting those innings (Turnbow, Villy and Wise). If that is the case, I think that's a high price to pay. I suppose we probably should limit the discussion here to prospects, as I have already kinda turned this into a thread about the trade, which I didn't mean to do. But if anyone is interested, I did write an article on the trade. If anyone is interested we could start another thread more about the trade as opposed to the state of the system. I will say this in closing... it's way more fun having this discussion when the Brewers are winning than it would have been three or four years ago.

In addition, Melvin did state that a big reason he got Linebrink, or at least a reason that made it more appealing, was that he projects to be a Type A FA this offseason, openly stating that the value of early draft picks was big enough to make such a deal happen. The Oakland A's have made similar deals in the past, constantly recycling their prospects, if you will, via compensatory draft picks to bolster the big-league squad, even if those bolstering efforts are clearly temporary. I will admit to being incredibly torn about this sort of philosophy. While the draft picks a Type A free agent could bring are nice, I think am troubled by two things in this particular trade: 1. The Brewers accepted getting a lesser player (Linebrink instead of someone like Gagne) in return for draft picks if he leaves. To some degree, that defeats the purpose of trading a piece of the future to improve now. 2. While getting the draft picks is nice, and while the futures of Inman, Thatcher and Garrison are far from certain, the future of those two draft picks is even more uncertain. I understand why Melvin made the move, because you can't take your eye completely off the future. If Linebrink helps this year and brings picks, he could be the player who "keeps on giving." That said, I think I would have liked an Inman-for-Gagne more because it helps this years team more, even if the trade wouldn't have resulted in draft picks. If Linebrink doesn't help the team, it's like trading a prospect for draft choices.