monty57

I've never been the biggest Cameron fan. I understand that the moneyball stats guys seem to like him. I'm not familiar with many of the stats that get thrown around, so it's hard for me to argue against them. Mike Cameron was suspended for the first 25 games of last season, so he only had 444 ABs, keeping him off many of the "top centerfielder" lists. Here is how he shapes up: He had 25 HR in his 444 AB. Only Grady Sizemore (33), Josh Hamilton (32), Carlos Beltran (27) and Nate McClouth (26) had more. The "SABR-guys" would look a little deeper and see that Cameron hit 1 HR every 17.76 AB, while Grady Sizemore was at 1 every 19.21 AB, Josh Hamilton 1 every 19.50 AB, Carlos Beltran 1 every 22.44 AB and Nate McClouth 1 every 22.96 AB. Therefore, if Cameron had not been suspended, he likely would have led all major league CFs in HR. This leads directly to SLG, which is a decent way of showing how much power a player has. If HRs were the best way to show power, then Cameron (from the above paragraph) would lead the league in SLG. However, he was 10th among major league CFs in SLG. This is because he does swing and miss a lot, and doesn't get as many hits as some of the other players. When he does hit the ball, he hits it pretty hard most of the time. That swinging and missing also hurts how much he gets on base, as batting average (often the whipping boy of stats on this site) makes up the majority of a player's on base percentage. Cameron's OBP this season was .331, placing him in the bottom third of all major league CFs (21 out of 30) in this important category. However, he will take pitches and walks a lot, so his .243 batting average is helped by taking walks (often overrated here, but still very important). I think this is the biggest reason people who don't like Cameron don't like him. A CF is "supposed to" be someone with no power who gets on base a lot. That isn't the type player Cameron is. He hits more like a corner OF, but he plays good enough defense to play CF. If you want to throw this into a tidy little package, you come up with an .809 OPS, which is the 11th best OPS for a CF in major league baseball. To put it in perspective, Torii Hunter had an .810 OPS, with a little higher OBP (.344 vs. .331) and a little less SLG (.466 vs. .477). Although Hunter is probably better in the field, both are Gold Glove caliber defenders. To determine if Cameron has any value, look at the huge deal Torii Hunter signed last season (I don't remember the full contract, but he made $16,500,000 in 2008). I worry about him aging quickly I've heard this a lot, but he put up the aforementioned numbers in 2008, I'm not citing numbers from when he was 29. Cameron had a very good 2008 season and likely would command a multi-year deal for well over $10MM / year if the Brewers hadn't used their option. That said, he is similar to most of the other players on the Brewers in that he is a right handed free-swinger that is SLG heavy and strikes out a lot. Just for correlation sake alone, it would probably benefit the team to have some talented players on the team with a different approach at the plate. I guess all I'm saying here is that Cameron has a lot of value to a lot of teams, including the Brewers. I don't really care if Melvin trades him or not. He will definitely help the Brewers if he's on the team, or he could bring in a lot of talent in a trade. I just hope Melvin doesn't undervalue Cameron's abilities the way many on this site seem to.

Thanks Ennder, that helped clear the valuations up for me. So if the deal were to include a young, major league ready SP that could keep Villy and McClung in the bullpen, where they're probably better than league average, it could work out to be a decent deal for both teams. The Yankees get the better player, while the Brewers fill a hole (pitching), shed a decent amount of salary, get some players they can keep long term, and add a switch-hitter to a righty dominated lineup. As to why the Yankees might do it, they could feasibly extend Cameron out a year or two, making it more than a one year rental. Money is not really an issue for them. Plus, they're going to sign 1-2 of the premiere pitching FAs this year, possibly making a young arm expendable. I'd also guess that not making the playoffs this year didn't sit well with them. They may be a little more willing to do what it takes to make sure they're in the playoffs this season. Adding Cameron for a couple of players that weren't going to play a big role for them this season could definitely fit in their plans. I'd still like to make sure the Brewers have a "Plan B" for center field just in case the Cabrera's 2008 numbers turn out not to be a fluke. Re-signing Kapler Could help in that regard, and I'm sure there are other options out there that wouldn't cost too much. I really, really don't want to see Hall or Gwynn playing everyday CF. That in itself would assure us of missing the playoffs.

Using Brewerfan's salary page and making some arby guesses, I'd say the Brewers' are at around $62-65MM in salary for the 21 players under contract. That would leave somewhere around $15-20MM to fill two pitching positions, 3B (I put Hall on the bench) and a bench spot. That leads me to believe that while I am not opposed to trading Cameron, I don't think it's necessary to dump his salary. Therefore, I'd assume it would have to be a "fair" trade talent-wise for Melvin to go along with it. I would see some sense in trading for a slightly lesser CF if it also added a SP that would allow both Villy and McClung to remain in the bullpen where they've shown success and/or if it added someone to fill the 3B hole. The above stated "proposal" from the Yankees seems to fit that bill in theory, but are the players good enough to constitute a "fair" trade. In other words, if money were no object, would Cameron for Cabrera/Betimet be a good deal? I'm not very good at determining talent-for-talent trades, but I'd think Cameron would merit a little more than that. The trade could very well put us in a situation where we'd have a .650 OPS CF that plays worse defense than Cameron, (with our only backup option being Gwynn), and a utility infielder that forces us to play Hall as a near-everyday 3B. I agree with JohnBriggs' in that Cameron's skill set is somewhat of a redundancy on the Brewers, but his skills are worth a lot to most teams. Plus, Cameron's a steady guy... you're pretty certain what you'll get from him next season. If Melvin is going to trade him, I'd like to see more certainty coming back. If Melky Cabrera is part of the trade (A) there had better be another solid player in the deal, and (B) we need have a better backup plan than Gwynn in case Cabrera fails.

I know I've questioned ZiPs before when you brought them up, and I don't try to belabor points, but how do they project that someone at 33 is going to gain 99 points of OPS, both from his actual production and from their 2008 projection?

You dont move a 26 year old all-star for an unproven talent. No, you don't. However, if you could get someone like Cain, then you'd have a pretty tough pitching staff. So, again, the question becomes: "Is the dropoff from Hardy to either Escobar or a "proven veteran" replacement worth the benefit of Cain over whichever of Bush/McClung/Suppan he'd replace?" At this point in time, I don't think anyone would argue that we should trade JJ for some high-level-but-not-yet-ready-for-the-majors prospect. This season, 25 SS's had over 400 PA's. Based solely on OPS (maybe not the best way to measure a SS, but that's what I'll use), the median was Michael Young with a .741 OPS. JJ Hardy was at .821, placing him 5th in the league. If we signed "Joe Average" for one season, we might get someone in the .700-.725 OPS range, which would be a pretty significant dropoff from Hardy. Since Matt Cain is always the name that's thrown around, let's look at his numbers: 217.2 IP, 3.76 ERA, 186 K / 91 BB, 1.36 WHIP 7.69 K/9, 2.04 BB/9, .251 BAA If he's replacing Suppan (let's say he could be traded): 177.2 IP, 4.96 ERA, 90 K, 67 BB, 1.54 WHIP If you could somehow just trade away Suppan to lose the salary, and could trade JJ for Cain straight up, would a trade of JJ, losing around .100-.125 OPS and maybe gaining defensively in the process be worth bringing in Cain for the increases over Suppan?

The bottom line is: you have to do what's in the best interests of the team. Until you know what Hardy could net in a trade, and what other options are available, it is difficult to say for sure what's best. If Hardy could net Cain + a one-year stopgap SS, it may be worth making the deal. Or, if we can trade Hall and sign a decent 3B, maybe the dropoff to Escobar's bat wouldn't be so noticable. The person who stated that every position player not named Braun will be open for discussion is correct, so there are a lot of "ifs" involved. I would like to see another good-to-decent starter added, and if Hardy isn't part of the package, where is that starter coming from? If Fielder is traded, we're really going to have a big hole in the middle of our lineup, and Braun won't be traded, so the chance of landing a #1 starter goes out the window if Hardy isn't part of the package. Therefore, we'd need to look at what starter could be found for some mix of the rest of our team. I guess that being said, the real choice is "What's better, keeping Hardy and losing Weeks or Hart for a #3/4 starter, or Keeping Hart / Weeks and losing Hardy for a #1/2 starter?" As far as Escobar stepping in, I think there is a decent chance that Melvin will sign a "proven veteran" to hold the fort for a year if Hardy is traded. If Escobar proves himself worthy of jumping from AAA to the majors next year, the "proven vet" could be relegated to a backup role or traded away. If not, then Melvin has his safety net in place so that the team won't be crippled by losing Hardy and having Escobar step in and fail.

It's a tough economy to be raising prices in any industry. For "any industry," CPI is abating, and we are now seeing deflation in some industries (housing and energy in particular), but year-on-year numbers are still up around 4.7%, so we're seeing prices go up at a rate substantially higher than the historic norms of around 3%. As far as baseball is concerned, owners will have to put more thought into price increases then they would in "boom" years. Price increases (especially those greater than CPI) should likely cause reduced demand / attendance in any scenario, but have a more dramatic effect during a recession. Often, "luxury" purchases are the first to go, and baseball tickets could be considered non-essential purchses. However, the Brewers had excess demand this season, leading to a record number of sellouts even with a looming recession. A rise in prices for Milwaukee may not have as dramatic an effect as raising the prices in stadiums that don't already sell out. Fan demographics and local unemployment should definitely be considered before making any pricing decisions. It's possible that even player salaries will be held somewhat in check this offseason. It's possible, but only if owners / GMs are forward looking, which probably isn't the case. Even though retail sales numbers are expected to be down, baseball attendance and viewership were up this year, so I'd guess the owners have ample cash to spend. If they have cash, and they want to sign a player, history has shown that the cash will be spent. If the current downturn (likely recession) continues through next season and attendance drops, then it's possible we'd see salaries go down (or at least not rise dramatically) after next season.

Now if only we had a better TV deal. I'd guess that the ratings they've been getting, paired with an owner who understands the business world a little better, will mean a much better deal from FSN when the current deal is up. There's no way FSN Wisconsin wants to lose the Brewer games. On another note, I'm surprised we had 64 day games this year. It didn't seem like nearly that many.

I'd rather have Yo pitching his first ever post-season game at home than in Philly. My thinking is that I'd let the two guys with post-season experience pitch on the road. Visions of Rick Ankiel go spinning through my head. Maybe it's better to go with the guy who's been there before.

I'd say the theory should be to try to score more runs than your opponent. Having the current version of CC Sabathia on the mound means that about the only way you'll lose is either scoring 0-1 run or having your closer blow it. Therefore, waiting for a bunch of non-slugging "sluggers" to come back to life may be the only way to get CC a loss.

A couple of things to look at. First, CC was pitching last night, meaning that the odds of needing 5+ runs to win the game have diminished substantially (i.e. each run you score has substantially more value). Second, for a "slugging team," we sure haven't been doing a lot of slugging lately. Just to cite a few examples, before his recent surge, Prince went around a month without a homer, Braun is in the biggest slump in his career, and Hart hasn't hit a home run in weeks. Our power outage, coupled with our innate inability to get on base at any sort of a decent clip, may help determine why trying to score a run any chance we can get could be seen as something other than dumb. As an aside, beware using aggregate stats for situational analysis, as it has a good chance of being incorrect. Russ, as always you seem to have looked past this little pet peeve of mine and have researched beyond the "standard SABR chart that shows why x is always right." I don't have time right now to research the book you referenced, but I will try to do so in the near future.

Melvin made an interesting point on a Brewers 360 a few weeks ago, when this subject was being discussed. He feels that number of pitches per inning is much more important than total number of pitches or total number of innings. He compared it to weight lifting in that the arms is much more stressed on the later reps than on the earlier reps. In weight lifting, it's much easier to do five reps of ten than it is to do two reps of 25, even though you're doing fifty reps either way. He, at least at that time, wasn't worried about CC's use, as he wasn't throwing very many pitches per inning. This may lead to why someone like Harden has more arm troubles, as he regulary throws 100 pitches through 5 or 6 innings, leading to greater stress on his arm than someone like CC who throws 100 pitches through 8 or 9 innings.

I'd guess Hall will be hard to trade this offeseason, as he's been a bench player most of this season. Therefore, I'd say a Hall/Branyan (or Lamb) platoon would be likely to start the season. Gamel will likely start the season at AAA with the (high) potential of being called up a couple of months into the season. On a side note, what's with all the "he wouldn't accept the move" talk. If he's under contract, Hall will have to play when {insert 2009 Brewers' manager name here} says he will. Same holds true with Hardy if they should choose someday to move him to 3B. They don't have to like it, but they don't really have a choice but to accept it. Most players aren't able or willing to pull a Manny Ramirez and fake an injury, so they either play or find another line of work (that would pay them substantially less than the $4+MM Hall will gladly accept from the Brewers for the next two seasons).

While there are numerous possible explanations, some quantifiable, some not, I think part of the problem is that he is the only dangerous left-handed bat in the lineup. He has faced a lot of LOOGY's this year, plus it seems that the Brewers have faced a lot of LH starters. On top of that, many righties pitch around him, leading to the higher number of walks, and probably to more swings at pitches out of the strike zone. I have no probems with him taking the walks, but it could throw him out of rhythm by rarely seeing a good pitch to hit. Not everyone can be like Barry Bonds and only see one pitch to hit all night and hit it for a HR.

I live in Illinois and work amongst a lot of Cubs fans. I'm just happy when anyone else in the room is a Brewers fan, so I say the more the merrier. I do get upset about the standing up in the middle of at-bats, though.

but we still do our jobs to the best of our ability because that's what we get paid to do regardless of the mood. We all are proud of our own work and proud of our collective work. Posted at 9:10 am on a workday. Sorry, BSCR, maybe you work a different shift, but I just found that to be kind of funny.

Well put, FtJ. That said, I think Weeks will be back next year, as he will be relatively inexpensive. A season like he's having shouldn't merit a huge pay raise, and there aren't a lot of other 2B options that would get better "bang for the buck," although I would love to see them trade for Brian Roberts if they could sign him to an extension. Otherwise, the price tag may be too high for one year. I don't see any way Durham will be a Brewer in 2009... they'll need a more versatile player as a backup infielder with Counsell gone. So, to answer the thread's title, Weeks is probably a better answer than Durham. Even though he's having a decent year, Cameron will be gone next year, as he's not worth $10MM. Our best bet is probably to add an OBP machine at CF next year that could be our leadoff guy, allowing Rickie to bat 6 or 7 in the lineup. Of course, we tried that this past offseason, and got Cameron after Melvin couldn't find the OBP guy he was looking for. I also agree with the group that says that Hardy would make a better 3B than 2B. One of his best defensive assets is his strong arm, which you don't need at 2B. His only deficiency (which isn't as bad as some seem to make it) is a slight lack of range, which you don't need as much at 3B as at 2B. He seems to have good reflexes which is very important at 3B. Also, staying on the same side of the infield should be easier than moving to the other side. Of course, all of this is moot if Gamel is kept at 3B. It would seem that if the Brewers didn't really think he could play there, they would have moved him already, but who knows. If he can play 3B, they might keep Hall / Branyan around until Gamel has enough AAA experience (and is past Super 2) to take over, and we'd see Hall dealt or moved to "super sub" status at that point.

Dillon makes no sense if Dillon is replacing Branyan. I'd rather see Dillon called up to replace Counsell at 3rd, than Nix to replace Branyan off the bench or Kapler in LF (while Braun is hurt.) We really don't need three 3B on the team. Billy Hall seems to be the forgotten stepchild in all of this. If you're going to bring up Dillon to start instead of Counsell, why not just start Billy full time? I think the Nix call up makes a lot of sense given the current situation. Braun is hurt, leaving us with three healthy outfielders. In addition to playing all three OF positions, Nix has been playing well at AAA, and Gwynn has not, so Nix is the logical choice. I really don't care if they platoon Nix/Kapler or simply start Kapler in LF with Nix playing the 4th OF role. I just hope that Braun comes back soon, and that the rest of the team stays red hot until Braun is healthy enough to return.

This question is for any of the SABR guys: Has sabermetrics gotten to the "econometrics phase" yet? Meaning, are there any studies as to how different types of players correlate while playing with other types of players? By measuring purely by OPS, or seemingly any SABR category, players like Counsell are dwarfed offensively by most other players. However, it seems that teams built around a bunch of sluggers never seem to win much and tend towards being streaky... get no hit one day and score 10 runs the next. It would be interesting to see correlation studies done to determine what mix would bring the greatest rewards with least variance / risk. Economics really took off when they figured this out, and stopped looking at everything on a linear level. Likewise, I think it would revolutionize sabermetrics. In reference to this thread, the Brewers are a lot of all slug, no discipline hitters. They probably have more raw offensive talent than the Cubs, but due to plate discipline, the Cubs have scored a lot more runs. Maybe Ned's simply trying to find one guy on the team that won't swing wildly every time a pitcher throws a fastball eye level.

I would love to see you justify this completely ridiculous statement with real data. I hope yount19 doesn't mind me speaking for him in this instance, but here is some "real data." Take it for what it's worth. This is data from the 2000 census found on FreeDemographics.com. Note, this is only the actual cities, and does not include the suburbs, which would likely trend to higher income levels. Avg. Income: Chicago $54,200, Milwaukee $40,894 (Chicago 33% higher) Median Income: Chicago $38,797, Milwaukee $32,562 (Chicago 19% higher) % of households income $100,000+: Chicago 11.65%, Milwaukee 4.72% % of households income between $10,000 & $40,000: Chicago 37.61%, Milwaukee 46.14% College (any): Chicago 48.80%, Milwaukee 44.66% At least High School Grad: Chicago 71.82%, Milwaukee 74.82% This does not distinguish between "Blue collar" and Professional / Management (Blue collar and affluent aren't opposites, as I know plenty of blue collar workers who are affluent and plenty of professional employees who have negative net worth), but it does show that both average and the more important median income are higher in Chicago (did you really doubt that, Team Canada?). Plus, a higher percentage of the workforce is "high income" in Chicago while a lower percentage of the work force is "low income." I kept the $0-$10,000 bracket out, as that would generally be working teenagers, college student and seniors or habitually unemployed individuals. For the record those numbers are 13.76% for Chicago and 14.07% for Milwaukee. All in all, yount19's statement is not "ridiculous," as Milwaukee does "tend to be more blue collar," while Chicago seems to be "more affluent." Both areas are cities surrounded by many, many miles of farmland, so the "more rural" statement could be debated, but I personally don't see rural as a bad thing.

No, of course Ramirez wouldn't have 162 errors... it just seems like it, as he has a very erratic arm. I'm sure other 1B would save many of the throws, but I'd guess Lee's saved well over 10 errors on throws that someone like Fielder wouldn't be able to stretch to get or simply wouldn't dig. Of course, Ramirez may rush his throws, knowing that Lee will make the play, thereby getting outs he wouldn't otherwise get if he had to slow down and make sure the throw was right on target. This is why defensive stats will never be that accurate, there are too many things that can't be put into a calculator. I dislike the Cubs, but Lee is an amazing fielder and is fun (but discouraging) to watch. In addition to saving errors, he turns a lot of doubles/triples down the line into outs. We get really excited when we see Prince make a jumping grab like he did the other day. Lee makes seemingly impossible plays all the time. Alright, that's enough of the Cub love before I make myself sick.

Living in Illinois, I watch a fair share of Cubs games. It seems that Lee saves about an error a game from Ramirez' throws. Aramis has become a decent "glove" but still makes a lot of bad throws. On any other team, I don't have any doubts that he would easily lead the league in errors.

I'm in no way a Cubs fan, but for those saying it's wrong for a Brewers fan to root for the Cubs over the Cardinals, who was it that beat us in the '82 World Series? As far as the vote, I'd say a split series would be great if we can sweep Washington, so we'd gain ground on both teams. Since sweeping anyone (even Washington) is a tall order, I'd rather see the Cubs beat the Cards, helping us hold onto our current lead in the Wild Card race. Either way, I can't see myself actively rooting for either team.

The thing that struck me while watching the video is how Prince just couldn't control himself. Seeing TH's most recent quote, Prince just got done yelling at Manny. We don't know if Manny said anything back. Then they walk together halfway across the dugout. Was Prince waiting for Manny to say something back? You can see the whole time they are walking, Manny doesn't open his mouth. Manny lets out his frustration by doing something with his jacket. I don't know what his intentions were, but I am POSITIVE they were not to hit Price with it. But Prince was right there, probably waiting for something to set him off. The way I see it is that Prince told Manny that he needed to stay out and watch the rest of the game. Manny got up and began walking to the locker room. Prince walked beside him waiting for him to sit down, and when it was obvious that he wasn't going to, Prince pushed him to the bench. When he didn't sit after the first push, he pushed again, a little harder and leaned into it to make sure he sat down. I don't condone this, but I think Prince's thought process was "if he isn't going to do what I say on his own, I'll make sure he does it." It was a dumb thing to do, but it doesn't seem to be as viscious an assault as some are making it out to be, and I don't think there was much chance of anyone getting hurt. That said, it was good to see the reaction of the other players, both in the dugout and in the newpaper quotes. I agree that Braun is taking over as the leader of this team, and he is exactly what this team needs... well, that and someone who can consistantly get on base at the top of the order. As far as Ned, I can't understand how he could sit there and do nothing while everyone else in the dugout was involved. Adding this to his abuse / misuse of pitchers has moved me from the "who cares if he stays or goes" into the "he can't get out of town quickly enough" crowd. All I know is that I've moved my Prince Fielder bobblehead away from my other Brewers bobbleheads so they don't get broken. - tosabrewfan I just had to quote that because that's funny

Jose Guillen wants out of Kansas City Is there really anyone that couldn't see this coming when he signed there?