strawbossisevil

Wow, just wow. Don't let any of us unintelligent folk get in the way of your "better" thinking and reasoning. I would argue that it isn't better, it's different. Baseball prospectus points out that on the road, closers are best used with a one run lead. Those guys have some pretty good thinking and reasoning behind them too. Here's the thing. Even Matt Wise had about a 50% chance of getting out of that inning unscored upon. It wasn't some automatic thing, that he'd come in an bring in a run. And for those who are talking about options and including Aquino, seriously, how hypocritical is that (after just complaining so much about him blowing one this past week). It was clear, Capuano wasn't going to pitch unless they went deep into extras, Aquino probably not at all, and Cordero was being saved for the situation that Baseball Prospectus points out that he'd be most useful. So who does that leave, Matt Wise. After burning through all of his good options (and some of his bad ones too), Wise was the guy who had to get us through that inning. You can argue until your bones turn to dust, and belittle people who disagree with you all you want. It won't change the fact that some won't agree with you (and yes, they have their reasons too). And danzig, I honestly believe that the majority of managers would have done the same thing, you can disagree with that assessment, but its your opinion against mine, so there really is no way to prove who is right in either direction (other than what history has shown us about what managers have typically done in that situation - which favors my opinion). I won't say you are wrong, I have no proof, because there is no way to stick every manager in the ML in that exact situation to actually see what they do. We can just agree to disagree on it.

You can disagree, but I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority would have done the same thing (and it's really not a common sense issue, like one poster says, if Wise pitches a scoreless inning, and we score a run, then a win is pretty much a certainty as we bring Cordero in to finish the game.) That isn't opposed to common sense, as you would like to indicate. It's hardly stupid reasoning, it's just different than how you would have done it, fair enough? And Adam, the reason I brought up the fact that the majority of managers would have done the same thing, is to point out that even if replaced, Ned's replacement would likely handle the same exact situation in the same exact way. So you can disagree with the logic, but when it comes down to it, it is hardly a "Yost" issue. It's a Major League Baseball manager issue. So singling out an individual manager for doing just like everyone else would have done, really seems kind of pointless, unless you have a vendetta against said manager, of course http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Good managers have crystal balls in their brains? It seems to me that every night half the teams in the MLB lose. All those mangers must have their crystal balls turned off on those nights. This is pretty much a joke, everyone knows you play for the tie on the road in extra innings. Every manger, save one or two, does it. Why Yost is criticized for putting his only other option (Wise) into that situation is beyond me. If his relievers hadn't tanked it earlier in the game, he would have had a better option for that inning. But he didn't. And think of it this way, if Yost knew that Wise would give up a run, and still brought him in to get the "save", our team would be back at square one, just without any good options as far as pitching. I've always stood by the play for the tie on the road rule, and I'll stick by it here. Anyone who uses it to criticize Yost has to realize that they are criticizing every single other manager in baseball too (if you disagree with the practice of playing for the tie on the road, that is). People want to explain every single loss as if it is somehow Yost's fault. It's gotten to the point of being completely ridiculous in my opinion, which is just that, my opinion. Instead of enjoying the playoff chase, so many are spending all their time about our manager's "insufficiencies", sounds like fun to me.

It was Wise's inning to win or lose. The Brewer's bullpen had been pretty much emptied. You throw Cordero midway through that inning, and if the game goes more than an inning or two longer, you are in rough shape. Especially, if we are purposely not throwing Cappy so he would be available to pitch for Sheets. I agree with the play for the win on the road, play for the tie at home line of thinking. I don't think it was so horrible that Yost followed that in the game. He didn't have a crystal ball that Wise would fail out there. And I really don't see too many managers doing anything different. So really, next season if we do have a new manager, expect the same. I'll keep the venting thread warm for ya.

The reasons for not bringing your closer into an extra inning tie game on the road have been discussed before. I think Yost did what he should have, it just didn't work out.

Sheets is slow to the plate. He had next to no chance on any of those.

What do you guys think about trading for Jason Bay? The guy has really fallen off the face of the earth this season, with a sub 800 OPS. But, his previous 4 seasons, he has not had an OPS below 900. Not to mention he is signed through 2009. What do you think he would cost us? Would a Villenueva/Bay swap work? Would we need to add more? Bay is a decent guy that we could plug into the #5 spot in our lineup, especially if he reverts to his career norms. (Plus Bay is from Canada, so you know Melvin and Ash want him). For a lineup of: Weeks (capable of .800 OPS+) Hart (capable of .900 OPS) Braun (capable of .900-1.000 OPS) Fielder (capable of .900-1.000 OPS) Bay (capable of .900 OPS) Hall (capable of .850+ OpS) Hardy (capable of .775 OPS) Estrada (capable of .700 OPS) That is a pretty capable lineup. Especially 1-7. Having four guys who could hit .900 OPS or higher would be huge for our offense. The only question that remains, is Bay just having a bad year, or is he on the downside of his career already. I guess that remains to be seen.

I was just alerted to this Firefox program called Zotero. Basically, it allows you to cite any book with a click of the mouse and with another click puts together a bibliography. All you have to do is download the program (and the MS Word extension), which are both free, go to amazon and find the book you will be using. One click, and you have all of the bibliographical information. This program has saved me so much time so far when writing papers, and the fact that it automatically formats your citations and bibliography means less time spent typing in footnotes or endnotes. It has a ton of other features for note taking as well. It's a student's dream. Just thought I should let you all know about it, since it's perhaps the best add-on that I've seen for Firefox.

It has bearing since most players who haven't played much in the major leagues before the age of 30, are usually not good long term options. There are reasons they have not joined a major league team before that point. He's very old for making the jump, that's my point. The other point was, with Loretta we have someone with a proven track record. Yes, he's older. But he's had plenty of time in the majors to show he belongs. I'd rather have old and experienced than old and completely inexperienced. Chances are the second guy will wash out (how many good players do you know that have come up in their 30s and done well), while the first guy you can probably know going into the season what to expect from him

My bad on Graffy, maybe Loretta would be an alternative. I'm not ready to put all of my chips into Joe Dillon (who is over 30 and never really performed this well at the ML level before). Crawford can be had if you throw enough at the Devil Rays. What do they need most? Catching (where they have one guy hitting a few points over 200 and another hitting below 200) and pitching (take a look at their rotation if you don't believe me). Where they have too much depth is in the outfield. They are very deep at that position, and could move one of their outfielders if it meant improving their pitching, catching or both. I see it this way, are the D-Rays just looking to collect their players, or are they interested in having a better team. I think receiving a top pitching prospect and a decent catcher (which don't come cheaply in the trade market) might be just what they are looking for. And let's not forget, Crawford is starting to get expensive. I think they'd bite with this deal. And about Posada, there is a little phrase that goes, "money talks". You throw enough of the green stuff at him, he might consider coming to Milwaukee. Sure he's been a Yankee his entire career, but he's got a chance for one more big payday, and I imagine he won't let his love of the Yankees prevent him from lining his pocketbook. Telling someone to dream on is a bit rude, isn't it? Let's talk civilly please. Jenkins is a good option at $9. He is a 20+ HR hitter, and those don't come cheaply on the FA market. I would be glad to take on that option, IF we can't get a better alternative (Crawford for example) on the trade market. Next years options in the outfield on the FA market don't look too good, so we won't do much better than Jenkins anyway (Dunn would be an option, but do we really want to get worse defensively?). Crabbe and Dillon are both unknowns right now. I'd rather our bench have experience, and a track record that we can count on. Having one of those guys would probably be fine, having two could make our bench an offensive black hole.

What if we offered Parra or Villenueva instead of Capuano? Would that get them to bite? The fact of the matter is, Tampa Bay is very weak at Catcher (something we'd be willing to trade if we got Posada), and Starting Pitching (something we have extra of). They have an abundance of OFs, so you would think that there is some possible deal there (even if it means trading Villenueva or Parra) Capuano is hardly worthless too, even with his recent struggles. He was an allstar last season, and has been a solid #2 up until this last year. He is better than just about all of Tampa's pitchers (except for Kazmir of course). But I can see what you mean, since he is not pre-arby. I really wonder if Posada would want to play more than two years though, he's already 39. That's pretty old for a catcher to sign a four year deal.

FA Signings: Jorge Posada - (2 years, $25 million) Damien Miller - (1 year, $1 million) Cheap RH Backup OF - (1-2 years, $2-4 million) Graffy - (1 year, $3 million) Offseason Trades: Capuano, Nix and Estrada to Tampa for Carl Crawford (Tampa's catching has two guys hitting below the mendoza line, and their rotation has guys with ERAs over 6 in it, seems like a decent fit) Gwynn to Texas for Otsuka (new closer) Vargas, Gamel and Escobar to Houston for Brad Lidge (set up) Mench to whoever wants him for middle relief/minor leaguer or DFA Team Signings: Sheets - (5 years - 68 million) Lineup: 1. Crawford (speed in OF helps the team's defense) 2. Posada (great OBP, usually almost 100 points better than his BA) 3. Braun 4. Fielder 5. Hart 6. Hall 7. Weeks 8. Hardy Rotation: 1. Sheets 2. Gallardo 3. Bush 4. Suppan 5. Parra/Villenueva Bullpen: CL: Otsuka SU: Lidge SU: Turnbow MR: Wise MR: Parra/Villenueva Loogy: Shouse Long Relief: McClung or other bullpen stooge (possibly from Mench trade) Bench: OF: Gross OF: RH bat IF: Graffy IF: Counsell C: Miller Signing Jorge Posada would solve the two problems. The need for a high OBP bat early in the order, and the need for a better hitting catcher. Receiving Crawford in the trade would allow us to have time to let LaPorta take his time in the minors (so we can bring him up closer to his prime and when he's absolutely ready) as well as team defense, as our outfield would have three guys who could cover a lot of ground. It would also allow us to generate a lot more offense with another speedster and natural leadoff hitter. Having Turnbow, Lidge and Otsuka would give us one of the best late inning bullpens in baseball. Wise is pretty solid when he's right (without the mental issues). Shouse is very good in the Loogy role. Finally, we would have Villy or Parra to take the role of longer middle relief.

All the posters who feel like they have to "set straight" anyone with any optimism what so ever. Yeah, everyone realizes that the team is playing poorly. But that doesn't mean we have to be considered foolish for having at least some hope that the team might get on a roll by the end of the season. That and the posters who feel they have to knit pick every single decision Yost makes as if he's a flipping moron. And make thread after thread after thread about how they feel about it.

Wow, I'm surprised so many people liked the movie 300. I was all excited for it, since I am a big Greek history buff, and I couldn't even get to the end before turning it off. It was just so stupid and over the top. My girlfriend and I lately have been using it as the measure for what a bad movie is. For example, "it was bad, but not 300 bad." And all the talk about the phalanx at the beginning, only to spend the entire (at least from what I saw) movie not in the phalanx formation made it all that much more stupid. Sorry to be disagreeable. But this movie was probably the worst movie I've seen in years.

Hey, I was wondering if anyone knows any good sites on the internet where you can earn some spending money. I was looking around at survey sites, etc. But I would be willing to hear if anyone has a site that they use, that they could recommend.

Chatroom working for me. Thanks guys.

I've tried it in both IE 7 and Firefox, and no dice. The weird thing is that it actually enters me into the chat, but it is shaded, and I am not able to enter any messages. I have gotten the same error message in both. It's strange, because two hours ago or so, everything was working fine for me.

Same here brewdude15. I can read what people are chatting about, but it gives me that error message.

Weird, for some reason I can read the chat, but it won't let me participate. I have a message that reads, "Connection failed! Maybe your network can't access the server, or the server is under maintenance, please try again later." It's obviously not a problem on my end, as I was in there earlier in the evening. Anything I can do to get back in the chat?

I would say that it is objective, since I am putting no spin on the numbers. I am just letting the bare numbers speak for themselves. If others want to spin the numbers in ways to change how they look, that's fine and not necessarily wrong, but it's less objective. As far as OPS goes, the Brewers are better than the Cubs at 6 out of the 8 lineup positions. That is objective. What is not objective is to start taking small samples to try and show that the Cubs or Brewers are better despite what the bare numbers say. I guess I don't know how someone could be more objective than what I did, just stating the bare stats on the season. Perhaps I could have dug a little deeper and gone to OPS+ or something, but I decided to stay simple.

Even Fontenot has been struggling lately, his average had dropped almost 100 points since we last played them.

Like Ennder is saying. OPS is the best "simple" stat we have that correlates to runs produced (and what can be expected to be produced). Obviously, as you pointed out a team can have a lower OPS and still manage to score runs. This comes from taking advantage of a higher amount of scoring chances than is normal. Now if the Cubs continue to hit as they have, eventually their luck is going to run out. The Brewers on the other hand have put lots of runners on the bases and have had plenty of scoring chances, probably quite a few more than the Cubs over this past stretch, but have failed to capitalize as often. Think of it this way, a team might load the bases once in a game and have a grandslam and put four runs on the board. Another team might load the bases every inning and not score a single run. Although those situations are extreme, it gets the point across. The Cubs have been the ones leaning toward the first extreme, the Brewers toward the other extreme. Over a full season, however, this evens out.

Like I've mentioned before, those comparisons were offensive only. Offensively, Prince has been better than Lee this season. That's objectivity. Trying to add defense in the mix would make the list very subjective, plus that wasn't what the original poster asked for. He was saying that their offensive lineup was better, and that simply isn't the case. Now starting pitching on the other hand, really swings in the Cubs favor. At least when you look at the pitchers ERA to this point in the season. Our relief pitching is better than theirs, however. All in all, I think it is about a wash as far as current talent. Our offense is a little more capable, while our defense (which is somewhat reflected in our pitchers ERA, right?) and starting pitching are our biggest weaknesses.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/jeff_damico_autograph.jpghttp://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/jeff_juden_autograph.jpg

I agree bsglorydays. That was meant to be a joke. I was trying to poke a little fun at those who constantly make fun of Yost. Perhaps I should have put it in blue font. Personally, I see the two coaches as about even.