BillScottCanRake

The first premise with which I disagree is the need to "go for it this year". There have been numerous articles in which GMs and scouts are quoted as saying the Brewers are set to make a sustained run over the period of several years. Part of making that run is a young core which they can keep intact. Moving two of those piece for two that won't be around for more than 1 1/2 years doesn't make any sense. The second reason I don't like this deal is it doesn't make the Brewers that much better now. Willis is decent, but he's not as good as most make him out to be, in my opinion. This Chris Capuano comparison is right on (see below). While Cabrera is very good, I think Braun is very good, too, and he's Brewer property for 6 more years. As much as people rail on Braun's defense, he's a gold glover right now compared to Cabrera. Miggy probably won't be at third much longer. So, the Brewers lose Weeks and Braun for a Chris Capuano-clone and a player who, while better than Braun, isn't hugely better and may not stick at third. No, I don't like this deal. It doesn't do enough short term to put the Brewers over the top, and it makes them significantly weaker in the future. Willis WHIP: 1.3 OPPBA: .260 K/9: 6.5 BB/9: 3 Capuano WHIP: 1.3 OPPBA: .260 K/9: 7.3 BB/9: 3

What's scary is what will happen if the Cavs actually get good players one day? LeBron is the best in the NBA but really, who else is even decent on that team but Big Z? Can you imagine them with Redd? I think he would have been the ideal complimentary piece to James. I am glad Redd stayed in Milwaukee. But there is a part of me that wonders how good the Cavs would be with someone like him.

Anyway, I've noticed that as soon as a batting order is posted to a thread, the thread stands an excellent chance of getting sidetracked, or in some cases, even hijacked. While the first batting order posted may be relevant to the discussion at hand, the responses tend to have more batting orders. As an example, a thread about Bill Hall can eventually become a thread debating where Hart or Gwynn should hit. I second that. In my opinion, there have been way too many lineup posts lately that are completely unnecessary. Pretty much any thread involving a possible roster move of any sort will feature several posts with suggested lineups. There are three threads on the first page of the ML forum that have lineups posted in them. I just don't see the necessity of repeatedly posting lineups.

The Draft and Follow thread that is pinned at the top of the page has loads of information and links about the players that signed and those that got away. p092.ezboard.com/fbrewers...=940.topic There is also some information in the Minor League Transactions thread for April and May. I haven't checked to see if any of the information is duplicated. p092.ezboard.com/fbrewers...4033.topic

When I was five I won a Frosted Flakes basketball, even though the contest was void in Wisconsin. I won a Prince Fielder signed baseball a few summers ago in Beloit.

Where is Dessens when you need him?

Thats the opinion of 2 moderators.. when obviously all the posters felt I did not start it. I feel my response was in fine proportion. seeing as how I'd rather read a swear word you can say on tv, vs. rudness No, it's the opinion of the operators of the web site. p092.ezboard.com/fbrewers...5335.topic 6) Ignoring the cuss rules or underignoring them Words that are banned are bleeped out. Words that aren't banned aren't bleeped out. If you're using colorful language, please respect the rules of the site and preview your post to make sure it all flies. Conversely. there's no need to use "a$$", as ass is not a word that we've placed on the list. We may be prudish, but we're not THAT prudish. If you a upset with TC for what he said, that's fine. You don't have to agree with anyone, much less a moderator, and simply disagreeing or being upset with them is no big deal. But you do have to abide by the rules of the forum, and there isn't any reason you can't do both at the same time. Calling someone what you called them violates the rules of the forum. It's pretty simple, really.

And thank YOU for such a kind, well-tempered response. You might want to watch that. You also might want to review the language policy here, as you've managed to violate multiple rules in one post. Well done. Your response was kind of snarky. I can't blame the guy for being a little upset. A "little upset" is "Well, I can't get game-day to work. It would have been nice if you just answered instead of being snarky..." A little upset can be expressed without writing what was written. What he wrote was out of proportion to the response he got to his initial question, no matter how snarky he might have felt it was. Regardless, it did violate the language rules of the forum and that won't be tolerated.

I hate to add to this thread without answering the original question, so I'll add that GMs are probably offering less than their best to see if they can gauge Melvin's possible interest moving prospects for established talent. I wouldn't be surprised if other GMs use Yo a leverage to get more in return if a trade comes down. Something like "Oh, Yo isn't available... what about that Inman kid and Braddock?" was drafting Rogers over Bailey more of a signability situation? I don't recall paying all that much attention to the draft that year, to be honest. I can understand that if Bailey was the consensus #1 HS pitching prospect that he may have been out of our price range at the time, making Rogers a bit more of a "safe" pick for us. My understanding is that Rogers was thought to have as much raw potential as Bailey, but he would be a bit more signable because he was a bit raw. In some regard, that made him a bit "safer" (in that he'd cost less money if he never made it), and a bit more of a "risk" in that he had a longer distance to do than Bailey.

I have some issues with the stat: - Some times a "quality" start isn't. If a pitcher goes six innings and gives up three runs, but allows 15 base runners, I wouldn't consider that quality so much as incredibly lucky. - It treats all starts of at least six innings and three or less runs the same. A 6 inning, 10 hit, 5 walk three run start is treated the same as an 8 inning, three hit, no walk no run start. - If a 6 inning, three run start is quality (ERA for the start of 4.5), how come an 8 inning, four run start isn't? It is the same ERA, and the starter went longer. - It doesn't take the game into context. A pitcher can be effective giving up four or five runs if their team is up a bunch. In general, I like the idea of identifying a "quality" start. I just don't really like how it is currently defined.

I thought I heard one of the announcers say just before the bottom of the 3rd) that Sheets said in the dugout to the team "If you guys go out and score some runs, I won't let them score again". I am not sure that anyone heard Sheets say that. When I heard them say that, I was under the impression they felt like that is what Sheets would say, as opposed to actually hearing him say that. He might have said something to that affect, but I don't think anyone heard it.

I think Russ is saying is that more often than not if you give up 11 hits in 6 innings without striking many guys out you are getting lucky. Eventually those hits will string together and bite you some place south of your equator. I agree with that. I don't think anyone is calling Sheets' performance last night good. The thing I wanted to point out is that while Sheets start was not all that good, it didn't follow his more recent four start trend, and given that the blister prevented him from getting in his regular work last week, I am not too concerned about how he pitched last night. In his previous four starts, Sheets was averaging just under 8K per 9 innings and has a WHIP under 1.00. My hope is that is the trend and his start against Atlanta was an aberration due to the blister.

Win or not, I'm disappointed that Sheets only struck out 2 and gave up 11 hits in 6 IP. I would guess this is the result of less than stellar command within the strike zone and a less than good curve. The command issues are probably related to not following his normal five day routine (he didn't throw a normal side session because of the blister). He threw plenty of strikes, but they weren't located like he'd normally locate them, especially in the first. The curve ball was the pitch that was most affected by the blister. As much as we'd like to see Sheets use his change, he is what he is at this point- a fastball, curve pitcher. When he doesn't have his curve, he's much more hittable, which is what we saw tonight. It wasn't a good outing, but I until he repeats it a few times, I'll attribute it to the blister and his routine getting broken.

why was the main site down in addition to the forums? I'm just curious because I thought they were pretty much 2 seperate entities. I should probably let Brian answer this, but I'll do it anyways. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif When you go to the main page (i.e. Brewerfan.net), you'll note there is a DISCUSSIONS section near the bottom of the page that shows some of the recent threads that are being discussed. My guess is that this tie between the forums and the main page caused BF.net to never completely load. So, event thought they are separate, they are interconnected.

EZboard was down for much of the day. Brian was working with them to get service restored.

Interesting articles. Thanks for the reading, tho I suspect to truly understand there is more reading involved. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Another new rule instituted this year is draft-pick compensation for unsigned draft picks. In past years, unsigned first-round draft picks would garner the teams that failed to sign them a compensatory pick at the end of the sandwich round. Moving forward, teams that are unable to sign their first, first-round supplemental or second round picks will receive a pick right after the slot of the pick from the previous year. This means that if the Brewers are unable to sign whomever the select with the seventh overall pick, they would receive a compensatory pick right after the seventh slotted pick in the 2008 draft. This is an interesting rule change, and I wonder if there could be abuses. Let's pretend, for example, that the 2007 class is considered a weak class but 2008 is supposed to be one of the best in recent memory. What is to stop a team from intentionally not sign their 2007 first round pick (or even second or third) to get extra compensatory picks in a deeper 2008 draft? The Brewers, using this example, might be better off with the 8th pick and a mid-20s pick next year than the 7th this year and a mid-20s next year. While I understand the premise is to better compensate a team that couldn't sign a player (I'm sure losing the number 3 pick and getting a sandwich pick doesn't seem fair), but this seems like a rule that could be abused. Any thoughts? EDIT: Thanks Patrick. I sometimes take your work so for granted I forget to mention how much I learn from it.

The Spurs tanked to get Duncan. Robinson was indeed hurt, but they weren't nearly as bad as their record and really just did nothing on purpose the second half of the year. I don't recall all the details, but did the Spurs actually play their worst players (or sit their best) to lose games (what I'd consider tanking)? Or did they just do nothing to replace Robinson and Elliot? I know it is a gray area, but I could see a team making a legitimate case for not making trades and the like to fix a lost season if they knew they'd be back when they got healthy. While the end result is the same, I see that as more reasonable than not playing your starters in the 4th. It is still a gray area to be sure, but it at least seems more legit.

The year they won the lottery they blew hard -- I don't think they were the worst -- but I think they were in that top-3 group -- they weren't a long shot to win it, or at least that is how I recall it. 21-61 is what someone else posted... so, top three and that record, with their two best players hurt... makes sense I guess.

This is exactly how they got Duncan -- They had gone to (and I think won a series) the playoffs, and then Robinson and Sean Elliot got hurt the following year and then they won the lottery and drafted Duncan -- and then made the playoffs everytime since. Being the lazy guy I am, I'm going to ask this instead of look it up myself. Do you remember how bad the Spurs were the year before (without Robinson and Elliot)? I don't remember if they were a fringe lottery team or if they were really bad. I guess with the lottery system in place, you'll have occasional weirdness, but I don't like the thought that a 35-40 win team would consistently winning the lottery while 25-30 win teams are picking 8+. Maybe that's because I am a Bucks fan. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I don't think this was fixed. I do think that the 1985 draft lottery was though. The Ewing Lottery? I am going from memory, so I could well be wrong, but I believe: 1) That was the very first NBA lottery. 2) All teams in the lottery had an equal chance of getting the top pick, rather than the current weighted system. 3) The weighted lottery was put in place for the next draft. Maybe the NBA knew they needed a weighted system, and they really were hoping a team like NY got Ewing, and in that sense the lottery was "fixed" to give their chosen team a better choice. If that's the case, I can't really argue that point. However, they didn't need to "fix" the actual results to get the result they got. what if the system went like this. the teams that dont make the playoffs are in the lotterty, as it is now. But then best of those teams gets the best chance at number one and the worst team gets the lowest chance of all the lottery teams. While I like adding an incentive to get teams to play their best the entire season, this system punishes teams that are truly bad and may reward a good team having an off year. If the Bucks, for example, were clearly the worst team in the league and they were getting thumped every night while playing their best 5 guys 35-40 minutes, they could, in theory, be picking 8-10 every year in such a system. Conversely, a really good team that just misses the playoffs (maybe because of injuries) could get an impact player. Lets say that the Spurs had lost Duncan for most of they year and they just missed the playoffs... and then they get to add someone like Durant or Oden.

I don't know why one excels in hitting with runners on base while others don't but I wouldn't criticize them. I am not being critical of Simmons for excelling with runners on base. Rather, I am being critical of him for not excelling with the bases empty. Did the pitcher not pay as much to Simmons which changed the way he pitched? Did the pitcher concentrate too much on the runners on base? I don't know but he did well. That's exactly what I was looking for. Simmons never raised his level of play artificially (as is the premise of most "he is a clutch player" discussions) , he simply never let it drop when there was added pressure. Combine "anti-clutch" and simple statistical anomalies and that probably explains 99.9% of "clutchness".

So if Simmons would have hit .272 or 9 points over the league average you wouldn't have criticized him but since he unlike most major leaguers actually performed better with risp you rip him for that. I don't care what league average was, I don't care what other hitters did, or who is or isn't in the HOF. I don't care about Carlos Lee, or Derrick Lee or Robert E. Lee. I am comparing Ted Simmons the bases empty hitter to Ted Simmons the runners on base hitter; Ted against Ted. I don't mean to be critical, but thats the issue, and it's being danced around by bringing up all sorts of irrelevant examples. Simmons hit .027 points higher with runners on base than he did with runners not on base. I don't care if he hit .100/.127 or if he hit .400/.427. The fact still remains that he failed 2.7% more often when runners were not on base. If Simmons is able to become "clutch" when runners reach base, then he should have flipped that same switch and hit like that all the time. By not doing so, he cost his team games and he cost himself a hundred plus base hits, and he might well have even cost himself some chances to be "clutch" later in some games. Why is it that the greatest hitting catcher of all time deprived himself, his fans and his team of greater glory by only hitting as well as he was capable half the time? Until someone can provide me an answer, I can only assume that Simmons didn't give it his all all the time, that the only time he truly gave his all at the plate was when he had a chance to bring extra attention to himself by driving in runs. I don't like coming to that conclusion, but it is the only one I can reach with the data we have.

Chris as always you bring up interesting points. Should Wilt Chamberlain be criticized for not scoring 100 points in every game? OK that's a bit of an extreme but anytime someone excells do you criticize them for not doing it all the time. In baseball that would be difficult since 1 for 3 is excellent. The issue isn't that all baseball players fail more often than the succeed. The issue is what causes a player (Simmons in this case) to fail 2.7% more often when there is no one on base than when there are runners on base. We aren't talking about a stray game, or a stray jump shot or AB. We are talking about over the course of a 21 year career a player failed nearly 3% more when the bases were empty than when there were players on base. That's three fewer hits per 100 ABs. That's probably between 3-6 fewer hits per year, times 21 years. My original question remains unanswered. If Simmons (and others) have the ability to raise their level of play in certain situations (in this case clutch) and perform to a higher level, why didn't they do it all the time? And why doesn't anyone call them out?

How come Ted didn't try as hard when the bases were empty as he did when there were men on base? If "being clutch" is a skill whereby one raises their level of play, that's the only conclusion I can reach. In jest I assume but No, it's not in jest. It's a very serious question that no one has ever bothered trying to answer. If Simmons gets credit for performing better in "clutch" situations, and he performed better in those situations because of an ability to do so, how come he doesn't get discredited for not playing as well in "non-clutch" situations? How many times did his early game, non-clutch, sub-par performance cost his team? And, for the record, this isn't a HOF debate. We are debating the merits of clutchness as ability.