strawbossisevil

And I should mention, while I know it isn´t necessarily fair to remove an inning from a player´s stats. If we take out that one four HR inning from his stats. He has given up 4 runs over the other nine innings he´s pitched. When someone´s ERA nearly doubles because of one inning, I think we have to consider that said player is likely significantly better than the overall stats suggest (in this case the numbers he put up over a small sample of just 10 innings).

Yeah, because his 10 innings in the major leagues tell us everything we need to know about the guy. The guy was 25 last season, and he just had a sub-3 ERA in AAA last season. Now I´m not saying he is going to be a top of the rotation starter, but he certainly doesn´t appear to be nearly as awful as you make him out to be either Paul. Unless we consider his 10 innings sufficient evidence that he is nothing but a AAAA pitcher, the rest of his stats from last season don´t seem to point to a guy who is going to be absolutely horrible. With time we may know better, but I am of the opinion that you can´t know much from the first 10 innings of a guy´s MLB career. I don´t think it would be a huge stretch to see him put up an ERA at, or around 5.

I think our offense could improve by about that much. But that is just a rough estimate on my part. To say this team is not capable of being in the playoff chase is just not being honest about this team's talent level. We have a lot of our offensive core coming off of down years, and with many of them improving, even by a little bit, our offense may become one of the better offenses in the division. What is ridiculous to me is that people keep pointing to Suppan and McClung as the reason as to why we are so bad. They are probably about as league average as you can get for a #4 pitcher and a #5 pitcher. Our rotation is likely going to be average next season. Our offense is likely to be well above average. If we lose one of Parra and Gallardo for any extended period of time, yeah, we are likely in trouble. But I am willing to guess that the loss of a #1 or #2 pitcher for any team would make reaching the playoffs unlikely. I think it's important too, when we compare this team with the team that played in the first half of last season. The team that was hanging within a couple games of the playoff chase well before CC ever entered the picture. What is the difference between this team currently, and that team? We have Gallardo as our #1 rather than Sheets. That is the only difference. But yeah, we were right in the playoff hunt last season with almost the exact same team, with many of our young offensive players struggling. If Gallardo comes in and is able to post similar numbers to Sheets (probably an ERA a bit higher, but his hitting ability will likely make up the difference), and our offense improves on it's down season. How are we not going to be competing? This doesn't even consider that having a full year in the majors, Parra will be able to come in and likely perform better than he did in 2008. Nor does it account for the upgrade of Hoffman from Gagne. I don't care how pessimistic someone is, if they say the current team doesn't have the ability to hang in the playoff chase, I just don't think they were paying attention to what happened last season.

If he likes it in Milwaukee, and will come back at a fair price, I guess I wouldn't be opposed assuming Cameron's production doesn't drop off of the table this year. I want Cain to be ready to step in the starting lineup and succeed before we bring him up.

If he likes it in Milwaukee, and will come back at a fair price, I guess I wouldn't be opposed assuming Cameron's production doesn't drop off of the table this year. I want Cain to be ready to step in the starting lineup and succeed before we bring him up.

If he likes it in Milwaukee, and will come back at a fair price, I guess I wouldn't be opposed assuming Cameron's production doesn't drop off of the table this year. I want Cain to be ready to step in the starting lineup and succeed before we bring him up.

Yeah, our rotation as currently constructed is probably just as good as the rotation the Phillies ran out there last year. This has been pointed out before. And that team did awful last season, let's hope we don't achieve the same results as them. Look, I hope bklyn's right. I hope we pick up another arm, but if we don't, I still think we will be in the playoff chase around the trade deadline. By all appearances and things said, the Brewers are not going to pick up a top of the rotation free agent starter (nor could they by trading Hart as we've seen suggested over and over). My guess is the best we can hope for is a Looper/Wolf type. And even that is probably unlikely at this point unless we get them at an absolute bargain. I do like this Wright move. He gives us a second person who could start for us if one of the bottom three of our rotation goes down (Villanueva being the other one).

Michael Wuertz, while not their best reliever, is a pretty solid guy to give up in a trade. He has had over a K an inning in his career, and over a 2-1 K to BB ratio. Last season, he would have been one of the best relievers in the Brewer's pen. Looking at the Cubs pen for this season. Marmol is certainly better than Wuertz is. But beyond that who is better? Gregg's secondary stats (looking beyond ERA) are essentially the same as Wuertz, only Wuertz has struck out over a batter per inning in his career, Gregg has not. Jeff Samardzija? Well he doesn't have more Ks per innings pitched and his K to BB ratio is worse. Neal Cotts? He's been significantly worse than Wuertz over the past three seasons. Looking at the prospects they got in return, Robnett is Gwynn like. Sellers has not put up an OPS of over .700 in his entire minor league career. And on top of that, the Orioles received Hill, who if he manages to turn things around could be a solid #3 in the rotation. So, the Cubs traded what I see as their third best reliever and their top SP depth for two scrubs who will likely never make the MLB. Well done Hendrey, well done. I just hope he keeps trading, because with each trade he is making the Cubs significantly worse.

A bad week or a good week can definitely alter the stats in either direction, but I don't think we can just throw those numbers out. He pretty clearly trended down the second half of the season. I'd say it's probably a bit naive to think starting a catcher in his mid 30s 150 some games didn't have at least some remote effect on his offense by the end of the season. There is a reason why most teams don't even start their mid 20s catchers that much. Catcher is the most tiring position in baseball, and knowing what we know about how many games he played, I'd say it comes as no surprise that his worst two months came in the final half of the season.

I really have my doubts that Salome is as epically bad as some try to make him out to be. He has a strong arm and his ability to call a good game has progressed nicely. Give him another year, and he'll likely be even better. I seriously doubt he'll be any worse defensively than Estrada was during his time here in Milwaukee. Although the difference between him and Estrada is that Salome profiles as a legitimate middle of the order bat. I see Salome in the same way that I see Fielder. Both may be below average in the field, but their offense more than makes up for the difference. But the biggest difference between Salome and Fielder is that Salome plays a premium position, where as Fielder does not. Getting offense out of a position where you generally do not, is a huge plus.

We don't know how much the injury "sapped his speed" for the long term, so that is merely speculation. But I agree he is likely a C or a DH, but by all accounts the guy has improved quite a bit behind the plate. He still isn't throwing out a lot of runners, but I suspect with another year under his belt he will only get better. The guy has a great arm, he just has to be quicker releasing the ball, something that will come with time. Will he ever be Molina? Probably not. But he'll likely be better than Estrada was for us two years ago. I'm of the belief that while he may not be the best with the glove, he'll be close enough to average that he'll be just fine at catcher. The offense he adds to the lineup will more than make up for a defense that is slightly below the MLB average. And as End mentioned, his height seems like a non-issue. Since the only reason height is desired is that it generally correlates to power. We all know Salome can slug without the extra two or three inches. As for Lucroy, I want to see him at AA before I think he is the next big MLB catching prospect. I've seen far too many catchers stall out once they get to AA.

Salome has already been in a Brewer uniform....period. Rivera is not a long term answer, Lucroy likely won´t be ready until 2011, and Lowry is even further back. With Kendell being gone after this season, that leaves us with Rivera as our only catcher on our MLB roster. It seems pretty likely, unless he absolutely flops in AAA, that we will be seeing Angel Salome by next season, if not sooner (in the case of an injury and as a September call up).

I don't see how it would be amusing, seeing as it would mean the Brewers would lose out on two premium draft picks. If he makes it clear that he is planning on doing that, I think the Brewers almost have to offer him a contract. Unless, does the team that sign him lose a first/second round pick the next season? Would the Brewers at least get a compensation pick the next year?

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/profile/1586/71/n56803269_19653.jpg

That's not necessarily true Ennder. Two for sure, and up to four of the high payroll teams could make the playoffs each season. I'm not quite sure what you are saying with the dollar argument. If you are saying that it negates a bit of their ability to gain an advantage by monopolizing free agency, you are right. The top 10 may spend the most money, but they are directly competing against the other teams that spend like crazy, meaning their huge amount of spending doesn't provide them with the huge advantage that it does when they are up against teams that have huge financial disadvantages. So yes, if you are saying that it means that it makes it harder for a team to "buy" a championship you are right. That's exactly the point. It prevents a select few teams from purchasing trips to the post season, while allowing teams that aren't able to spend in that way the opportunity to be involved in the playoffs as well. And the argument that it merely allows teams to get one round of playoffs. I think by now most would realize the crap shoot that the playoffs are. Once a team is in the playoffs anything can happen. Sure, the teams coming from the "group of death" may have the advantage, but anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game series.

The other Hardball times article explains some of the flaws in looking at things in such a "quick and dirty" way, as it doesn't take into account a number of factors. As Ender pointed out, using that method to try to estimate BABIP almost always was the least realistic. It seems like the BABIPx which includes a large number of different factors had the most consistent results in predicting someone's expected BABIP. That system points to Theriot as being one of the luckiest players in all of baseball. Here is the link, one more time. http://www.hardballtimes....rticle/batters-and-babip/

The players union would never allow that KCBrewer, because it would drive down salaries a ton.

http://www.hardballtimes....rticle/batters-and-babip/ Here is a link that points to Theriot as one of the luckiest when it came to BABIP. The stat BABIPx talked about in this article has shown to be very accurate in predicting a person's true talent in BABIP, when looking toward the future projections. Theriots BABIPx? .291 Also telling, is that in the list of "lucky players" who surpassed their BABIPx by the most this past season, four of them are Cubs. Including Theriot, Bradley, Soto and Johnson. Hardball times expects all people on the list to have a significant regression in the next season. For the record, the 4th "luckiest" person in all of the MLB was Theriot last season.

Problem with that assertion FTJ, is you are then saying that Theriot is going to hit a lot more HR. He may have one or two more than he hit last year, but he has Juan Pierre power.

As I have lived here in Mexico, an idea on how the MLB could go about leveling the playing field has come to my attention. Here in Mexico, the biggest sport is soccer. The league is set up in three divisions. One of those divisions is called the "the division of death". In this division are all of the teams that have the biggest financial advantage, and thus generally are able to bring in the better "free agents". This could be applied in the MLB as well, by dividing up the league between East and West. And then each league would have the top five spending teams in the same division. Such a league division would look like this. East: Division of Death (Top Payroll Teams) New York Yankees New York Mets Boston Red Sox Detroit Tigers Philadelphia Phillies East: Division #2 (Mid Market Payroll Teams) Houston Astros Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians Cincinnati Reds St Louis Cardinals East Division #3 (Lower Payroll Teams) Baltimore Orioles Florida Marlins Tampa Bay Rays Pittsburgh Pirates Washington Nationals West: Division of Death (Top Payroll Teams) Los Angeles Angels Los Angeles Dodgers Seattle Mariners Chicago Cubs Chicago Whitesox West: Division #2 (Midmarket Payroll Teams) Toronto Bluejays Texas Rangers Milwaukee Brewers Minnesota Twins Kansas City Royals West: Division #3 (Lower Payroll Teams) Oakland As San Diego Padres Arizona Diamondbacks Colorado Rockies San Francisco Giants I adjusted some of the divisions to limit the amount of travel needed, thus the reason why Kansas City is in the midmarket league in the West. Some of the pros to realigning the league like this: 1. Teams that spend lots of money would not have the significant advantage over the teams that don't have the same amount of resources. 2. It would give teams in small markets and midmarket teams an actual chance at competing for their division title (Toronto, Tampa Bay, and Baltimore get out from the NY and Boston shadow). 3. Less travel for many teams, and an increase in cross town rivalries. 4. At max, only two of the big market teams could make it to the playoffs in each league. 5. No need for a long strike in order to enact a salary cap. Some of the cons to realigning the league like this: 1. A lot of travel for teams from Chicago. 2. DH or no DH? Perhaps DH East, no DH West? 3. It's more possible that the four best teams in regard to talent do not make the playoffs. 4. Some traditional rivalries (Chicago, St. Louis f.e. get broken up) 5. No longer can there be a subway World Series. 6. It ends the tradition for many teams that have strong ties to a certain league, either American or National. So what do you think? Crazy? Or could it actually be a creative solution to the problem?

Yeah, but when you look at '07 where he had all of those XBH, the fact that he had a more average BABIP had such an effect that his SLG% was actually lower in '07 than it was in '08 despite the higher ISO. So in other words, if he goes back to being average in BABIP, in order for him to match last year's numbers he would have to have a better ISO than he did in '07. It could happen, but is it likely? Probably not.

And why is his BA lower FTJ? He has a lower BA, because his BABIP is lower, no? Is that not the cause as to why his BA would be lower? Do you have any other reasoning as to why it would be lower? The projections don't have his K rates going up signficantly, so that's not it. You haven't explained at all how you got to that .725 OPS, other than just taking a projection system as gospel without looking at how they got to their numbers. I've pointed out why that .725 might be flawed. I guess I don't know what else I can say. I feel like despite all my efforts at clarity, I'm not being clear enough to break it down in a way you can understand what I'm saying.

Yes, so what is the biggest thing that is causing him to drop in his OPS for next season in the projections? It isn't the slight downtick in walk rate, or slight uptick in slugging. It is the fact that all of the projections have him with a BABIP .020 points lower. That is the biggest change between what he put up last season and what they are projecting him to put up next season. Look, I don't know how to explain this to you any better but I am not merely looking at BABIP and comparing it to runs. I am pointing out the relationship between BABIP and OPS. As BABIP goes up or down, the secondary stats that form OPS are effected. So if a person's BABIP is likely to decrease by quite a bit, so is their OBP and SLG unless they drastically increase their walk rates or their ISO goes up significantly to match what production was lost by having a drop in their BABIP. Having a lower BABIP is likely to cause a lower OPS, a lower OPS leads to lower runs. So while it can't be the only thing looked at when considering how many runs a player will score next season, it certainly is far more likely that a lower BABIP will also lead to a lower OPS and less runs. In looking at the Cubs players who posted above average BABIP, it is unlikely that any of them would increase enough in SLG or OBP to make up for a drop from their 2008 numbers with the high BABIP. It is likely that their OPS takes a hit, and by extension, the amount of runs they score. I should add that not many players can make up for a drop of .030 or .040 points or more in BABIP by increased ISO and walk rates. So the OPS of most players who drop by that much in BABIP is almost guaranteed to go down. The Cubs have a whole handful of guys who will have to do just that if they expect to equal the offensive output of 2008.

Ah, he is a December birthday. So are you saying you expect him to make huge gains in slugging this year like some of the projections claim? That you are on board with that? Because that is essentially the difference between saying that he is likely to end up with an OPS in the high .600s vs. going with projections that claim he'll be in the low .700s. It seems clear that all projections see some regression from Theriot for next season, even with the increased slugging. That much we can agree on. So to state that he is likely going to be a downgrade for the Cubs next season is probably likely, no matter whether you look at his BABIP that he is not likely to repeat, or the various projections for him out there, many which seem optimistic about his ability to add a significant amount of power at age 29. So it's likely a downgrade for the Cubs, the only question is how big of a downgrade? The same can be said for Fontenaut, who all of the projections expect him him to head back toward average with his BABIP and the effect that drop in BABIP will have on his overall stats. (With it being very unlikely that he repeats his .355 BABIP). Same can be said for Johnson, who put up a BABIP of .367. Same for Bradley whose BABIP was in the .390s (no one has ever maintained a number that high in their career). Add on to that injury concerns and the fact that many of their players (Lee, Soriano, Ramirez) are on the downside of their careers where regression is far more likely than improvement. And I don't see how anyone can claim that their offense is going to be equal or better than what it was last season. I think the Cubs of '09 are a clear downgrade from the Cubs of '08. The only question is, if any other team in the division can put things together to catch them. If two or three of Prince, Hall, Braun, Weeks, and Hart have a stronger '09, and our pitching holds together. We could be challenging for the division. I'll keep pointing this out, pretty much everyone thought that the AL Central would go to the Tigers or Indians last season. No one gave the White Sox or Twins a passing thought. But look how it ended up! The Cubs may be the favorite, but they are not head and shoulders above everyone else in the division that they are uncatchable.

I never said I expected him to decrease, I just don't see any reason for a signficant increase. A player's prime is generally considered to be from 27-29, so Theriot is likely at the end of his prime.