BillScottCanRake

Duck tape is only around the corner if you ask me. I guess it's all semantics nowadays. I don't want to steer this too far off topic, but isn't it duct tape? The only reason I even bring it up is I just saw Mike Rowe surprised to see it was actually used on duct in one of his shows.

What do the Brewers or Sounds have to gain by sugarcoating the injury? Or hiding it? Or downplaying it? That's the part that I don't get... it's not like his playing or not playing is going to affect Milwaukee's series with the Twins or something, where a bit of misinformation might have actually made some sense. Are they worried about attendance in Nashville? Or that their website won't get as many hits? He was day-to-day. He was that way for about 8-10 days, one of which he took BP. My guess is when he too BP it didn't feel right, and that cause the Sounds to put him on the DL. Sometimes things are exactly as they seem.

But for a guy like Prince, I'd rather see him try to crush a ball thats off the plate than work pitchers exclusively for BBs. It's like when teams do shifts on batters, and all a batter would have to do is bunt the ball down the third base line to get on base, but they never do it, because that batter probably represents the team's best chance at scoring runs. I definately don't want Fielder going up to the plate looking to walk. If he gets a pitch that he can hit, I want him swinging. That said, I don't want him swinging into out, either, because he won't accept a walk that was pitched to him. I'd rather have him on first with a walk than in the dugout because he tried to hit a ball that he couldn't. Pitchers make a living out of getting guys to hit their pitches. The successful ones, anyways. Sometimes that's a pitch in a part of the strike zone that a hitter can't hit with any authority, and sometimes it's a pitch out of the zone. Either way, trying to hit those pitches is usually exactly what the pitcher wants, and most of the time I don't think it turns out too well. Sometimes you have to go after a pitchers pitch because it is a strike. But if its a ball, I think they are better of taking the pitch and either looking for a better one later in the AB or letting the next guy do their job if you end up walking. I'd be willing to bet that a hit 'ball' turns into a base hit a lot less often, even for a guy like Fielder, than the next guy up who hits a 'strike', regardless of who that next guys is.

One thing you have to look at too is that OBP is a more important stat for different players. You are more concerned about RIckie Weeks OBP then you are with Bill Hall. Each player has a different role in the lineup and thus they're OBP will reflect that. Players are placed in their spot in the batting order (or should be) based upon their skills, as opposed to letting their spot in the order dictate their approach. Instead of hitting someone like Estrada first and asking him to walk (when its obvious he only does so on special occasions), you should find another spot in the order for him. As for the importance of OBP as it relates to a spot in the batting order, I think it's important no matter where you hit. When you don't get on base, you make an out. You only have three outs per inning, and only 27 per game. They are the only limiter to how many runs a team scores, and as such they are precious. Regardless of where a person hits in the order, making outs is bad. Even if the hitter behind you isn't very good, you are almost always better off walking and letting the guy behind you do his job as opposed to trying to hit a pitchers pitch. With regard to Hall, I don't want him not walking as much as he could because it's his job to drive in runs. He needs to drive in runs while still being selective and taking walks if that's what the pitcher gives him. Hall is far better off walking, even if it means he doesn't score the runner from third, than making a bad out trying to be a run producer. This might be my all-time favorite thread... awesome job guys.

TheCouga23, welcome aboard!

I'm not the most qualified to answer, but I'll give it a shot. He'll probably start this year in rookie ball, which doesn't start for a little while yet. My guess is he is in extended spring training, but until he starts playing in games, you probably won't hear a whole lot about him.

However, the reality is that most of us will be rebel and go out of our way not to do what we are ordered to do even when we know it's in our best interest to do so! it's the American Way. That's fine, of course. Because who'd want to respect what the owner of the site has to say? That Brian guy, what has he done for us? I mean, most people who come here don't get anything out of the site anyways. Stupid BF.net.

I wanted to re-ask something that I alluded to in my previous post but didn't ask directly. .299 with risp is better (.014) than they say rarely happens but is 27 points higher than with no one on for an entire career. His obp and slugging were much higher also. 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. I don't know where you got your numbers, but I'd assume he must have tried less hard at least half the time, and that's doing a disservice to his team. I think you can watch a game and know if it is a clutch situation or not. Yeah, I am sure you can. The obvious ones anyways. But that doesn't make "non-clutch" situations less important, and it misses those situations are are less obvious. In that regard, you are trying to determine whether or not someone is clutch but a criteria can't be found to determine whether a situation is clutch! Using your example, what about the guys Cooper drove in? They didn't get the "clutch" hit, but then again, Cooper's wouldn't have been very "clutch" with the bases empty. Maybe they'd be covered under the "close and late" definition, but what if it happens in the 5th or 6th inning? When Bill Hall ended the comeback from 9-0 against the Reds, his hit is what everyone remembers, but all those other hits, walks, etc, that got them in a position to finish the comeback were all equally important. In my mind, they are all clutch, but most of them wouldn't be defined as such because when it was 9-0 the game was neither "close nor late." But, you can't hit a 10-run home run, so they must have been important in spite of that. Or what about the guy who leads off the game with a home run and the score turns out to be 1-0. Was that guy "clutch"? If he is, he's also clairvoyant! That's a problem that I don't think you can overcome. Because if you simply limit it to "close and late" or "bases empty vs runners on base" you are potentially ignoring too many important situations and including others that aren't. If you can't define a "clutch" situation with any degree of certainty, I don't think you have any hope of defining a "clutch" player. Having said all that, I do believe in "clutch hits" even tho I don't believe in "clutch players". Cooper's hit is an example of one, as Kirk Gibson's and Joe Carter's and Bill Mazeroski's. They were obviously clutch hits. But a sample of one is too small to anoint any of those guys "clutch". And the reason I don't believe in clutch players, beyond our inability to reliably define a clutch situation, is illustrated in my next point. Can someone tell me how one spots a "clutch" performer? I mean, if you are a .300 hitter, and you hit .305 in "clutch" situations, are you "clutch" or are you simply performing at your normal rate? Do you have to get to .310 to be "clutch", or .320? How much over beyond your normal performance do you have to be? To keep things simple, lets assume that we have found a way to define "clutch" that everyone agrees upon. Let's also say that we find some way to agree that if you hit .020 (using BA) points above your non-clutch BA, you are "clutch". We'll us good old fashioned BA over the course of a season to try to figure it out. Lets say a guy hits .300 over the course of 600 ABs (180 hits). Of those 600 ABs, lets say 150 are "clutch" and 450 are "non-clutch". The first issue we run into is good old sample size. I know a lot of people will roll their eyes at this, but the fact is the smaller the sample the harder it is to tell if someone is really performing to their true ability. In a sport where failing 6 times out of 10 makes you a star, it would be nice to know if someone is really "clutch" or just "(un)lucky". If our hitter went 45/150 in those "clutch" situations, they'd hit .300. This will be our baseline, as someone who hits the same in both "clutch" and "non-clutch" situations would be "clutch neutral". To be a "clutch" hitter by our definition, he'd need to get three extra "clutch hits" to hit .320 in "clutch" situations. Five extra hits and he'd at .333 in "clutch" situations. Conversely, what would it take for him to be "anti-clutch"? Well, three fewer hits drags him down to .280, while five fewer is .267. Doesn't it seem a bit dubious to decide whether or not someone is clutch or not based upon the fate of 6 ABs? Or, over the course of 10 seasons, 60 ABs? Keeping in mind that Fielder had 100 ABs in April this year, I'd be real cautious about labeling someone anything based on 60 ABs. I'm willing to be convinced. I actually want to be convinced, because the notion of a player being clutch is something we can all get behind. I just don't believe it exists at this level.

So why isn't "clutch" compared to non-clutch situations instead of every ab including clutch? Because so far as I know there isn't a good definition of "clutch". I suppose the whole "late and close" thing is ok, but it's hardly perfect. And trying to determine whether someone is clutch by comparing their stats with guys on and without guys on doesn't seem right, either, because there are plenty of important baseball situations that crop up with no one on base. To me, the lack of a defining criteria makes its almost impossible tell if someone is clutch or not. To illustrate, let's play a game called "Clutch or Not Clutch" and try to identify whether a player is or isn't. Game Situation Bottom of the 7th, two outs, no one on, down five. Result Single Clutch or Not Clutch? What if I told you the next guy grounded out to third and they lost 6-1? Or, what if the next guy homered, they scored four in the 8th and they won 7-6? Game Situation Bottom of the 7th, two outs, no one on, up five. Result Ground out to second Clutch or Not Clutch? Would it matter if the opposition scored 3 runs each in the 8th and 9th? Game Situation Bottom of the 7th, two outs, runner on third, down one. Result Home Run Clutch? What if, in the same game... Game Situation Bottom of the 9th, two outs, runner on third, down one. Result Fly ball out to the warning track. Is he still clutch? My biggest problem with "clutch" is the perceived ability to raise one's own performance in "clutch" situations. If a Teddy Clutch can raise his level of play in the 8th inning of a close game, why doesn't he get dogged for failing to perform at that level in the first inning?

I think we need to keep in mind we are dealing with an injury to the human body. Get 25 people together and pull a groin and you'll have 25 different time frames for them returning to 100%. Forced to predict when those guys are going to return to full health, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single prediction that would be right on for all of them, and forced to make 25 predictions, I wonder how close they'd get to 100% accuracy. Braun might really be day-to-day without the medical staff or the coaching staff lying about it or mis-diagnosing the severity of the injury. Remember... Koskie was day-to-day with a minor concussion. Actually, Koskie was really close to playing (by his own admission) within a couple of days of the injury. It was only after that time his post concussion symptoms cropped up. No one lied- the conditions changed. I don't have a link for that, but I remember reading it in one of the Koskie threads in the ML forum. Remember...JJ was supposed to be out for a week or two after "popping" a tendon in his ankle. If I remember correctly, JJ's initial injury was a sprained ankle and that he was going to be out several weeks. The tendon popping was the result of a pre-existing condition (something he noted in AAA) that needed to be fixed after the sprain. Initially they tried to strengthen the tendon thru exercise, but it didn't work so they did the surgery. Again, I don't think anyone lied or there was any medical missteps. I guess I just don't see too much reason to worry. His injury is what it is and he'll be back when he's back. And that's probably as much information as we'll ever have about the injury. As an aside, does anyone have any more information about the injury disclosure policy? I thought that I read someplace that it was going to be harder than ever to get information about injuries because of patient privacy laws.

JJ kinda scares me. I mean, how much over and above his minor league projections is he playing currently? How many players significantly improve on their projects once they reach the majors? With guys like Weeks, Fielder, and Hart playing around him, I think people sometimes didn't realize that JJ was going to be able to hit for a fair amount of power. Remember, JJ was almost always one of the youngest guys in his league, so it's not surprising that his power numbers were lower in the minors than they are now. Keeping that in mind, JJ hit 12 HRs as a 20/21 year old in AA Huntsville. The Southern League is very much a pitchers league, and Hardy hit only one less homerun than that years league MVP (Hart had 13). The next year Hardy hit 4 in 100 ABs as a 21 year old in AAA Indy. While one hates to use the dreaded "projection" to try to make any sort of prediction, that would have been in the 16-20 HR range for a full season. His five home runs in 35 games in Milwaukee last year projects to about 18-20 home runs. So, while JJ is definitely on a hot streak and I don't expect him to hit 40 HRs this year, I wouldn't be stunned if he hit 25-30 at some point in his career.

While I agree it is frustrating to see Braun not playing, I am sure the Brewers are being ultra cautious. Since he is in Nashville (where winning is secondary to development), and since he's been playing so well there, and since he could well be a big part of Milwaukee's second half, I wouldn't be surprised to see him sit an extra day or two beyond what he really needs to get healthy enough to play. He doesn't really have a whole lot to prove, and I'd rather he miss a week now than really hurt himself and not be available when Milwaukee is ready for him.

some supposed phenom that has done nothing but play in NY to earn the hype. Regardless of whether or not you'd make a trade like this, I am pretty sure characterizing Millege that way isn't fair. He's a prospect because of his talent, not where he plays. He might well never live up to his billing, but he's got the tools to do so. This isn't Antone Williamson.

Per the JS, Braun's wrist is still sore from his injury earlier last week. Original Injury thread: p092.ezboard.com/fbrewers...4088.topic JSOnline article: www.jsonline.com/story/in...?id=601740 The Braun injury is about half way through the article.

At this point, he definitely hasn't proven to be a prospect. The only thing we know is Corporan's numbers were pretty pedestrian until his fourth season, with all but 9 ABs of it in A+. That's not to take away what he did last year, as it is great to see him perform. However, it is also only 280 of 980 professional ABs. Right now Corporan is performing well. But it is only 80ABs, and he is repeating high A at age 24. We have all seen guys get off to hot starts (Krynzel) or guys fail to make an adjustment as he moves up the ladder. Until Carlos repeats for a full season in AA or AAA his 2006 season, I agree with Pogo that he will probably be that organizational solider every organization needs. I think that is what he needs to do to prove that he's more than that, and until he does that, I believe it's fair to be skeptical.

So why was he pulled for a PH (Gross) in the 6th after he'd already been to bat to lead it off? Because that AB was about 15 minutes earlier and the game went from 4-2 to 11-2. I would suck if Sheets re-pulled the groin running to first in a 9 run game.

I look at performance out on the field. Right now, no one can argue that he isn't our #3 best starting pitcher. If you do, then I have a right to call into question your baseball knowledge. http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/DVD-%5BJerk,-web-large%5D.article.jpg

I missed opening day. I was wondering who the Brewer's pitcher of record was that day, and if they won or lost. Thanks!

I think "singles to Braun" are infield singles hit to him. The thought was if his defense was as bad as some thought, people would bunt him to death and even if he didn't make an error there would be a lot of bunt singles directed his way.

Trevor

That pretty much nailed it, in my opinion. Guys who are able to stay consistent and not let pressure situations bother them will always appear to be clutch, simply because they seem to come thru in pressure situations. However, as Bay said, they are aren't really raising their level of play so much as playing the same as they always do. The one thing Bay implied in his comments, too, is that those players who remain consistent are probably able to take advantage of players who don't handle pressure situations so well. Not that guys are out there falling apart in pressure situations... but I am sure there are some guys who struggle a bit with that.

I know that the whole "he's on pace to" is way over-blown. But when someone is on pace for 126 HR and 300 RBI after 18 games, that's post-worthy.

I'm just wondering what extended spring training can provide a player that playing for a Class A or AA team can't provide? With regard to games, you can run simulated games and do pretty much anything you want to do to get a player well or exposure to certain aspects of the game; things you might not normally be able to do in a real minor league game. If you want a guy to hit live pitching but not run the bases, you can do that. Or if you want to have someone run the bases or play 9 innings of defense without hitting, you can do that.

Thanks for the information guys. I appreciated it.

Hi guys and gals; Can any of you tell me what the approximate value of Beloit Weeks and Fielder bobbles might be? The Fielder I have is signed (signed as Prince), with the Snappers label affixed, but not terribly well. Both are in excellent condition, but I don't think I have the boxes. I realize that the market for these things can kind of fluctuate, but I'd be interested in their approximate value. Thanks!