vetter

Let’s go ahead and spot them another 2 in the first inning fellas

I'd be curious what those numbers look like if you eliminate the two bloodbaths against Detroit and St. Louis. By August 31st, the Brewers had only scored 135 runs, third last in the NL. If you plug the numbers, the team average across the NL was 160.3 runs scored (St. Louis not factored in because they played so few games). If you take away the 19 runs against Detroit and 18 against St. Louis this month and substitute 3.5 runs for each of those two games, they're sitting on 206 runs scored while the NL average is 264.9 runs scored. Even with those two games (236 runs scored as of September 24) we're still looking at 28 runs below the NL average. By comparison, Pittsburgh has scored 202 runs this season. So take away the two Detroit and St. Louis games and our offense is right on par with Pittsburgh. If you are going to go down the path where you take away our two best games when comparing us with the rest of the league, at the very least, shouldn't you also take away outliers from the other teams too to be consistent? Just to be clear, I don't condone this type of analysis regardless. EDIT: I went ahead and took out Pitt's best two offensive games and replaced them with 3.5 runs. That drops them to 184 runs on the year. They have also played 1 more game than us so far. So by the parameters of your analysis we have 206 runs scored to Pitt's 184, with Pitt playing one extra game. Fair enough regarding the Pittsburgh comparison. But the fact remains, this team's offense is and has been at the very bottom in run production all season. We're still at 28 runs below NL league average. However our OPS and other batting stats may compare to other teams, it hasn't translated to runs. Also, 19 and 18 (37) runs scored are pretty extraordinary blips. For example, the two highest scoring games Cincinnati had this year were 12 and 10 (22). St. Louis' two highest scoring games were 16 and 12 (28). Pittsburgh 13 and 12 (25). Chicago Cubs 12 and 10 (22). It further skews what our actual per game run production has been over the course of the season.

I get it, there's a lefty pitching. But at this point I'd be content with playing Braun in RF and DH'ing Vogelbach. At least he's been a bright spot in our offense.

I'd be curious what those numbers look like if you eliminate the two bloodbaths against Detroit and St. Louis. By August 31st, the Brewers had only scored 135 runs, third last in the NL. If you plug the numbers, the team average across the NL was 160.3 runs scored (St. Louis not factored in because they played so few games). If you take away the 19 runs against Detroit and 18 against St. Louis this month and substitute 3.5 runs for each of those two games, they're sitting on 206 runs scored while the NL average is 264.9 runs scored. Even with those two games (236 runs scored as of September 24) we're still looking at 28 runs below the NL average. By comparison, Pittsburgh has scored 202 runs this season. So take away the two Detroit and St. Louis games and our offense is right on par with Pittsburgh.

True. Given how drastically the Brewers underperformed at the plate, it's not a stretch to say they could easily be in a better position than the Cubs right now, who've had similar problems with Rizzo, Bryant, and Baez. Even if Yelich had been very good this year (and not even godlike) and if Narvaez had any bat whatsoever could have made this a totally different season. Not to mention the early to mid Avi struggles, Smoak all season, Hiura strikeouts, etc.

Exactly. Again, that’s the beauty of this year. A 5 or 7 game series against the Dodgers is highly unlikely for the Crew. But put Woody and Burnes vs Kershaw and Buehler and we have a legit shot

Reds GM went all in because his job was riding on a playoff berth this year. That may happen but at what cost? One can only hope their FA acquisitions cost them in the long run

Considering the Reds were a trendy World Series pick coming into the season, I'd say they are playing sizably below expectations. I don't know if anyone figured that the Cardinals, Reds and Brewers would all struggle to get to .500, while the Cubs would run away with the division. Agreed 100%. I think on paper the Reds are way better than the Brewers. Don’t know why they’re almost equal in the standings.

Well...sucks there’s a good chance Reds get in and we don’t. But they went all in over the offseason while we basically pinched pennies. This year may suck. But I think when all is said and done we’re going to look back and be glad we got Yelich signed over the offseason. Unpopular to say now, but just wait.

The expanded playoffs are the best thing that could possibly happen for a small market team like Milwaukee. It’s making this season way more interesting and will for years to come. You think this season is interesting? This season has been mega frustrating. But...we’re all at the edge of our seats hoping for a playoff seat. Then anything can happen. The alternative is we tune out by August as has been the case for many many years in this teams history

The expanded playoffs are the best thing that could possibly happen for a small market team like Milwaukee. It’s making this season way more interesting and will for years to come. You wouldn't have been too happy if we matched up with some mediocre team in round one in 2018 and lost 2 of 3. Uh huh. And how many times has that happened??

The expanded playoffs are the best thing that could possibly happen for a small market team like Milwaukee. It’s making this season way more interesting and will for years to come.

This is another factor that would play into the strategy of the off season. Teams will have to decide if the extra payroll is ultimately worth the return. But the end result is that there's probably less advantage to a massive payroll, further leveling the playing field across the MLB. In the end though, there's still every incentive to spend a lot of money and win a lot of games in the regular season. Spending more money, ostensibly, will give teams greater talent and depth to go deep into the playoffs. Winning more games translates into a higher seed, playing a lesser opponent in the first round, 3 game series. Again, the better team will still win most of the time. But the beauty of the 2020 playoff rules is this: A team like the Dodgers, who have a massive payroll and won a lot of regular season games, has a very real chance of losing to a team like the Reds or the Brewers in the 3 game wild card series. I'd love to see Kershaw, Buehler, and May in a 3 game series against Castillo, Bauer, and Gray. That's an epic pitching matchup on paper, and either team has a legitimate chance of winning. And if a behemoth like the Dodgers go down in that series, all bets are off in the NLDS and NLCS. The better team will almost always win the 5 or 7 game series. But that would open the floodgates to the remaining teams that are left standing.

I understand how people don't want the outcome of a 162 game marathon to be watered down. But for the life of me, I don't understand how Brewers fans are contending for things like first round byes. That's just the traditional, antiquated MLB status quo which has literally stacked the deck against a team like Milwaukee for 50 years. I'm not trying to resurrect the salary cap discussion. But a first round bye works for something like the NFL which has a salary cap. I have no problem with those teams being rewarded with a bye. And they're also not playing a 5 or 7 game series. Basically any NFL team can beat another team on any given day if it's one game. But the whole concept of "the best team should win" is flawed to begin with. Were the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals really the best team? They went 83-79 but won the World Series. If we use a "85 win cutoff" to make the playoffs, they wouldn't have even qualified yet they went on to win it all. Were the Packers the best NFL team in 2010? They were only 10-6 and barely made the wild card but won the SB. So let's just keep rewarding teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, or Nationals who pay more money for Scherzer in 2019 than all 5 Brewers starters. It gives every incentive and advantage to the teams that have deep pocketbooks. They'll purchase their way to a first round bye, relax at home for the WC series, and then beat a fringe contender in a long series because their expensive pitching and free agents are so stacked. I get it, there's plenty of exceptions. But go back and compare payroll to playoffs and note the connection. At least a 3 game wild card series gives some credibility to the winner. The better team will win most of the time. But it's still not insurmountable for an underdog to have a legitimate shot at winning.

I really hope they keep the 2020 playoff format indefinitely. I'm looking forward to a lot of David and Goliath postseason outcomes to your point of .500 teams knocking off a 100-win #1 seed. Seriously, I can't understand why every Brewers fan isn't jumping up and down about the prospect of the new playoff rules being permanent. Given the lack of a salary cap in the MLB, this is the best thing that could happen for a small market/lower payroll team like Milwaukee. While ownership has splurged a bit recently in payroll, I don't know if we'll have that luxury moving forward with the financial ramifications of Covid-19, whatever that turns out to be. And yes, this is great for middle of the pack teams. I could envision a team like Cincinnati making the #8 seed this year. They could very realistically take down a #1 seeded team like the Dodgers or Padres in a 3 game series. Now let's say the Brewers take the #6 seed and win in the first round. Instead of the Brewers ultimately facing a 5 or 7 game series against a team like the Dodgers (where realistically, they have very little chance of winning), the Dodgers have already been eliminated. The path to the World Series instantly becomes much more viable. We won't automatically be up against a team that has over twice our payroll in the longer format NLDS and NLCS.

You're exactly right. And that's why a team like Milwaukee probably stands the best chance of benefiting from the new playoff rules for the foreseeable future. Why? We've typically been a fringe playoff team (under current rules) that lacks the phenomenal, big name starting pitchers. For example, let's assume the Brewers are the #8 seed and we face the Dodgers in a best of 3 series. The new playoff rules allowed us the opportunity to make it in when we otherwise wouldn't. Then, we start Burnes and Woodruff vs. Kershaw and Buehler in the first two games. That gives us a legitimate chance to contend against a #1 seed. The BEAUTY of no first round byes is that it levels the playing field because of the 3 game series. A 3 game series is always much more realistic for an underdog than a 5 game series when the higher seed gets the bye. If I were a Dodgers/Cubs/Yankees/Astros fan I'd probably be upset with the playoff changes. But for a small market, generally lower payroll team in a Covid-19 world of uncertainty, this is a phenomenal thing. And let's face it, given small market constraints, a team like the Brewers will typically be a #4-8 seed vs a #1 seed like 2018. If that turns out to be the case, we'll be major beneficiaries of the new rules

I agree it is less doubt, it just isn't no doubt. Bauer has still only had a sub 4 ERA once in his career. Gray has only managed to stay healthy back to back seasons once in his career and has not looked great 2 of the past 4 years. Castillo has been pretty streaky as well though he is the one I'm most sure of. DeScalfani's FIP has been about 4.70 over the past 2 years. People look at the ERA"s last year which were all way better than the skills and just assume they are going to be amazing, I think you are going to see that rotation isn't as good as people want to believe it is, that's all I'm saying. From just a straight up run prevention as a team standpoint I expect the Reds will be worse this year because last year there was tons of positive variance in the stats that I don't think they repeat. Derek Johnson effect On an even sadder note, we can add Wade Miley to the mix once again.

These two statements are at odds with each other. The Reds rotation is seeing a heavy downgrade in defense at SS, 2B and LF this year. They way overperformed their FIPs in general last year and there is absolutely no depth past the front 5. I will easily take the under on the Reds matching last year for run prevention. Also the run differential stat is a really weak one, all it takes is removing Corbin Burnes from the mix last year and the run differential for the Brewers goes from mediocre to elite. It just isn't a very valid stat. To be fair though the 3rd order win percentage of the two teams was very close, that is a bit less error prone than run differential. To each their own, but the Reds are likely being a bit overrated going into the season. That rotation has a lot of doubt in it but everyone seems to be sure it will be great. They are in the mix but they hardly ahead of the class. It's incredibly inaccurate to say the Brewers would have had an elite run differential if not for Corbin Burnes. In 2019 he pitched a grand total of 49 innings and gave up 48 earned runs. While that's a horrible stat, the run differential in his four starts is only -5 (24-29). Now let's be extremely generous and say the Brewers gave up zero earned runs in the remaining 31 innings he pitched, in which he gave up 27 earned runs. Subtract his 27 runs from the RA column and the Brewers differential would be +30 instead of +3. For comparison, the Cubs won 84 games and their differential was +97. The Cards won just two more games than the Brewers and their RD was +102. No way the Brewers RD would be elite if Burnes hadn't pitched. As I said in my original post, and I'll say again: I don't put too much stock in the run differential either. However, the facts are that every winning team in the MLB last year had positive run differential and every losing team had negative RD. The reason this is relevant is I believe it shows that the the Reds were particularly unlucky in 2019 with just a -10 RD and only 75 wins. Likewise, with only a +3 RD, the Brewers were very fortunate to have 89 wins. I'm not attributing everything to luck, because good strategy can be extremely effective in winning one run games. However, I believe the Reds should have actually been more of an 81-83 win team last year. That's why I feel, unfortunately, that the changes the Reds have made so far could easily take them into 90+ wins in 2020.

Sorry gents but the Reds off season moves pay off in 2020. The Reds allowed the 3rd fewest runs in the entire NL last year. Couple that with an even stronger rotation this year and some key offensive pickups (Moose/Castellanos) and this becomes a formidable ball club. Not to put too much stock in run differential, but 13 runs separated the Brewers +3 (89 wins) from the Reds -10 (75 wins) in '19. The Brewers happened to be 9 games above .500 in the one run column (27-18) and the Reds were exactly 9 games below .500 (24-33). Without the expanded rosters in September the Brewers are even further disadvantaged in 2020. Reds: 91 Cards: 88 Cubs: 83 Brewers: 79 Pirates: 72

I don't think anyone is arguing that he would actually accept a four year offer. But that's probably the only offer that makes theoretical sense for the Brewers. Anything beyond age 35 at $30M-$35M (or more) for an aging player is most likely not going to bring a good enough return on the investment. Especially if he's extended out to late thirties. There's always going to be cheaper alternatives by that point of a player's career. Granted, the NL could adopt the DH rule. And Yelich could certainly put up numbers akin to David Ortiz who in his late thirties was absolutely killing it all the way to age 40. But he is a major exception to the rule. Again, some ball clubs can take that gamble. If the contract pays off, great. And if not, it won't decimate the future of the team. The Brewers don't happen to fall into that category. DS stated he wants to be competitive every year. And for a club like the Brewers, that can only really happen if they avoid the 7 year/$250M extensions to a 31 year old.

I mostly agree and I think this is pretty close to what Stearns is probably thinking. I could see it being closer to $32.5-$34 per year on 4 year contract. He did pay Grandal a very high AAV on a short one year deal. Wouldn't surprise me if he's very aggressive on a 4 year deal. I would be all for a 4 year extension at that AAV. But if we get into 5 or more years on his contract and it averages $30M+, I think it's better we walk. My guess is he'll take a 6 or 7 year deal somewhere else. But beyond Yelich's WAR, stats, analytics, future projections etc., one has to think that Attanasio is going to view the Yelich decision from more of a macro financial perspective. Yelich is really our only superstar, especially when Braun's name recognition is gone after he leaves. If he thinks retaining Yelich and perhaps overpaying him or extending him long term creates an ROI that makes business sense for the organization, then all bets are off.

I agree with this 100%. And so far, many of Stearns' actions suggest this is how he's going to run the team. For example, Yasmani Grandal. Stearns stated he was a priority to sign in the off season. No matter what Milwaukee offered him, Stearns ultimately went with a 27 year old over a 31 year old they would have presumably had to sign to age 35 to compete. Grandal 2019 WAR-2.5 Narvaez 2019 WAR-2.1 Grandal salary 2020-$18,250,000 Narvaez salary 2020-$2,725,000 Still, it will be fundamentally difficult for a team like the Brewers to win a WS for this reason: There will always be teams that will extend long term contracts to capitalize on the 2-3 prime years a player has left on their career. Take Yelich for example. An extension of, say, 7 years/$225M will probably give you 2-3 more prime years of Yelich. But can a team like the Brewers survive when they're taking a bath on the remaining four years of his contract and his production is merely average? I think the big question is, "Would Yelich agree to defer money?" 7/$225 million could be survivable for the Brewers. $10 million bonus divided equally between 2021 and 2022. $75 million deferred to be paid out over 25 years starting at the end of the contract. ($3 million/year starting in 2030) That makes the 2023-2029 annual payout an average of $20 million. When you account for inflation, roughly akin to the Braun deal. And in January 2018 the Braun deal did not stop the Crew from acquiring Yelich and signing LoCain. The next year, it didn't prevent bringing back Moustakas and signing Grandal. The only question is if Yelich would accept that much deferred money. Still, 7/$225M was merely speculative on my part. Rendon received 7/$245M and who's to say someone doesn't throw out 7/$275M for Yelich or an even longer contract? Even if we're splitting hairs, to your point, I really don't think Yelich would need need to settle for deferred money if he signs with another suitor. There should be enough teams that can pay him as competitively as Milwaukee without deferring. Having said that, the only reason I could possibly see him wanting to stay with the Brewers is if he's so in love with the team or Milwaukee. Or if he feels he stands the best chance of winning here. We're not Yelich so it's impossible to tell. But beyond that, Stearns seems to always have a number in his head that he's willing to offer. And he's very disciplined to walk away if that doesn't align. I think in this case there will be too much of a discrepancy between what Yelich feels he can receive on the open market vs. what Stearns would be willing to offer. Melvin I could see. But I think Stearns has shown, in general, he's fundamentally more risk adverse to long term contracts with aging players, i.e. Grandal and Moose. Cain so far has been the exception. But that's only 5/$80M. Not chump change but nowhere near the level that the elite players have been demanding (Cole, Trout, Rendon, Harper, etc.).

I agree with this 100%. And so far, many of Stearns' actions suggest this is how he's going to run the team. For example, Yasmani Grandal. Stearns stated he was a priority to sign in the off season. No matter what Milwaukee offered him, Stearns ultimately went with a 27 year old over a 31 year old they would have presumably had to sign to age 35 to compete. Grandal 2019 WAR-2.5 Narvaez 2019 WAR-2.1 Grandal salary 2020-$18,250,000 Narvaez salary 2020-$2,725,000 Still, it will be fundamentally difficult for a team like the Brewers to win a WS for this reason: There will always be teams that will extend long term contracts to capitalize on the 2-3 prime years a player has left on their career. Take Yelich for example. An extension of, say, 7 years/$225M will probably give you 2-3 more prime years of Yelich. But can a team like the Brewers survive when they're taking a bath on the remaining four years of his contract and his production is merely average? Now take big market teams like the Astros, Nationals, Dodgers, Yankees, etc. They have the luxury of signing a Yelich type superstar to a major extension so they can enjoy a handful of prime years without the end of his contract sinking the team. I realize that the major FA signings/extensions are only one aspect of building a team, but that aspect does not favor Milwaukee.

I think people need to, well, come to grips with the fact that this team isn't going to be run like most teams are in this league. Not as long as they are mid market. Not as long as DS is here. It's amazing to have Yelich on this team. I mean the MVP level he exploded to after that deal is amazing. But imagine if MKE could deal Brinson Harrison Diaz Yamamoto. Use Yelich for 4 years. 43.25 million dollars and an estimated +220 mil in surplus value. And trade Yelich for Brinson and Harrison level guys while dumping the 18mil 5th year of Cain on a team. You'd be 4 years of Yelich for Diaz in the end. That would be one of the best trades in history. Or we can pay him 1/3rd of our payroll. That's not possible and after the 1st 4 years the next 4 could plunge this team into darkness for multiple years. I think the Betts deal just showed us the future of Yelich. Your analysis is spot on. People really need to differentiate in their minds the 2018 and 2019 Yelich from 2026 and 2027 Yelich. Sure, no one knows how good or bad that will be, but time is never on a player's side. Or for contrast, consider that Ryan Braun was paid $39M in 2018-2019 for a combined 2.9 WAR (1.1 and 1.8 respectively). Meanwhile, Eric Sogard had a 2.6 WAR for 2019 alone and is signed for 1 year at $4.5M. 2018 notwithstanding, you can see where DS sees the upside to someone like Sogard. The point is that there will always be lower risk options with comparable production available. Compare that to signing the long term extensions for players who turn into alter cockers by the time their contracts are over and become way overpaid in relation to their production.

What about a Bobby Bonilla-type arrangement? Attanasio goes to Yelich, says, we want you in Milwaukee, you love playing here. We both know that the Milwaukee Brewers can't afford to pay $30 million a year. However, what about a 7-year, $220 million extension? There would be a $5 million bonus, and $75 million would be deferred over the 25 years after the deal. The remaining $130 million comes out to a LoCain-ish (adjusted for inflation) $18.57 million per year. The Brewers win by having Yelich for seven more years and he retires a Brewer. Yelich wins financial security down the road, and gets his mega-deal. I get that Yelich has been godlike the past two years for Milwaukee and knock on wood he continues that trend while he's here. But seriously, why extend someone to his late thirties with that type of money when he ends up below replacement level well before his contract is over? Deferred or not, to me that's just a profligate way to spend money. Cain is 33 years old and has 3 years left on his contract. GG award aside, many are already starting to view the remaining years of his contract as a liability and he's paid nowhere near what Yelich would be making at the same point in their career. Braun is another example of someone who got the mega extension at his peak. His WAR dropped from 4.4 in 2016 at age 32 to 1.2 in 2017 (33), 1.1 in 2018 (34), and 1.8 in 2019 (35). Not to say Yelich is doomed to repeat those numbers exactly, but I see no reason to pay him absurd money beyond two years of his current contract. Someone probably will but I hope it's not the Brewers. And yes, the back issues are very alarming when you start to consider a long term contract extension to his late thirties.