Jump to content
Want to get your head around free agents the WORLD CHAMPION Brewers can spend on this winter? Click here and check out our top 75 free agents ranking! ×
Brewer Fanatic

And That

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12,409

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by And That

  1. And That
    Despite some rabid opposition to this opinion further on up the thread, I agree with reilly - I doubt Smith is enough to get Kepler. Maybe not too far off, but not enough. For comparison's sake, this is what the Yankees got for Justin Wilson, whose contract and performance doesn't differ wildly from Smith's. Kepler they ain't.
  2. And That
    No, I'm not really asking that. I said "a" best indicator, which if it is anything, I certainly do not believe it to be wins. Wins are based on an enormous number of variables, so I find it difficult to believe that all of those variables magically congeal into a truth about a team's exact talent level. Given that baseball has so much data, why would we limit ourselves to one highly variable-driven stat (wins) to try to determine how talented a team is? That's like saying RBIs are the best way to determine if a batter is talented or not.
  3. And That
    Why is it necessary to have a "best" indicator when there is lots of available evidence from which to draw conclusions?
  4. And That
    They just took Pinto off of the roster, so my guess is no. Guessing they would just have an open competition amongst NRIs to secure the backup catcher role/a 40-man spot. Also think it's not impossible that if Lucroy is traded, Stearns already has an idea about/frameworks for deals regarding backup catchers on other teams who may be more skilled than the ones currently in the Brewers' employ.
  5. And That
    Yes, but I believe you're mistaking cause for effect. The Brewers' eventual draft position will be the result of the organizational talent acquisition philosophy Stearns has implemented. The Brewers are not setting their sights on the #1 pick and making moves to achieve that goal. I can just about guarantee you that nowhere in the Brewers' front office is a sign that states, "WHAT CAN YOU DO TODAY TO HELP US GET TO #1 (the pick)?"
  6. And That
    At least that is better than it has been, though I guess it is slightly worse than the "average" (125/30=4.16666) still. That number may increase slightly if the Brewers can get a Tate and/or Ortiz type in a Lucroy trade. Also have to think/hope that one or more of the Devin Williamses/Marcos Diplans/Angel Venturas of the system takes a big step forward this year.
  7. And That
    The starting pitching will arguably improve (as you admitted) and they may end up winning more games than last year, but if anyone is saying the team talent level as a whole has improved since last year, especially with a Lucroy trade likely pending, I haven't seen it. So deal.
  8. And That
    Ask BA - Who Just Missed The Top 100? No Brewers in #101-120. These Brewers received votes but were not in the top 120: -Clint Coulter -Gilbert Lara -Jacob Nottingham -Josh Hader -Kodi Medeiros -Ramon Flores (!) So I guess you could say the Brewers had 10 of the top 209 prospects. Including Ramon Flores. KATOH is exonerated.
  9. And That
    The Brewers' international bonus pool will be a bit over $4 million.
  10. And That
    No. He could (and may well) spend the whole year in Wisconsin. 2017, start in Brevard and get promoted after a few months.
  11. And That
    I'm not out to prove likeliness, just disprove absoluteness. For reference, Fangraphs' playoff odds (based more or less on perceived talent level at the time) going into last season had the Phillies at 99.8% likely not to make the playoffs, but both World Series teams were less than 30% likely to make the playoffs (and both under 2% likely to win the World Series). Teams among the most likely to make the playoffs included the Nationals, Mariners, Red Sox, Angels, and Indians. Obviously there can be some debate over the methodology in any particular simulation and talent level changes over the course of the season, but I think it is readily apparent that a team with X talent level will not always have Y wins - it just doesn't work like that. X talent may give you a two deviation likelihood of Y +/- 10 wins (or whatever the # may be). Talent over or under performs more or less all of the time.
  12. And That
    Even the worst teams in terms of talent will have post season odds >0% at the beginning of the year because, in the gazillion potential iterations of a baseball season, a simulation (Monte Carlo or otherwise, also see Las Vegas oddsmakers) will show that bad teams could potentially make the playoffs. It's not impossible. It therefore stands to reason that if bad teams stand a remote chance, mediocre teams stand less than a remote chance. Likewise, really good teams also stand a less than remote chance of not making the playoffs. So I don't buy the logic that just because a team makes the playoffs, it is necessarily more talented than a team that does not make the playoffs. Final results do not define true talent level. It's just what happened to happen over that particular 162 game season. 162 games is not a meaningful sample size in the population of all potential outcomes. If the whole season were rewound and played over and over again, the results would be different every time even through the talent level stayed the same.
  13. And That
    Performing well in AA or AAA.
  14. And That
    Speak for yourself. Not everyone shares your woe is me attitude.
  15. And That
    For one thing, the implications on the Brewers' draft pool in 2017 are gigantic.
  16. And That
    Actually I think that is exactly what it means. So the most talented team in baseball always wins the World Series? Or at least the 10 most talented teams in baseball always make the postseason?
  17. And That
    It is possible to likely that Nottingham will begin next season in AA.
  18. And That
    You keep stating this as fact. It's not. As for the Las Vegas line, as of 3 days ago the Brewers were at 71.5 wins. I'm assuming it hasn't changed much, even with the Davis trade.
  19. And That
    Flatly untrue.
  20. And That
    So you're saying there will be four 100 loss teams in 2016? Last I looked, Vegas odds had the Brewers at around 71 wins. Not sure if I'd take the over on that, but I absolutely would on 62.
  21. And That
    Olmos throws a lot harder and I think either of them are bullpen depth pieces at this point.
  22. And That
    I think I might be more interested in Edgar Olmos, the lefty just DFA'd by the Cubs.
  23. And That
    As far as comparing Santana vs. Davis in the coming years, if they have equivalent playing time Davis is going to have a hard time hitting more home runs if only because his new home park is one of the tougher places to hit home runs: [pre]Park Factors for Home Runs MIL OAK 2015 1.432 (1st) 0.777 (27th) 2014 1.142 (9th) 0.903 (21st) 2013 1.259 (5th) 0.818 (25th) 2012 1.631 (1st) 0.859 (23rd) 2011 1.062 (11th) 0.786 (26th) 2010 1.233 (6th) 0.701 (28th)[/pre] And so on and so forth.
  24. And That
    In McCalvy's article on the trade, he mentioned that Santana was going to play left as of now, though Stearns and Counsell still had to talk about it. I'm dubious about Nottingham's chances to stick at catcher, but he seems to have better receiving tools than Coulter, so that's something.
  25. And That
    So it's going to blow up really slowly?
×
×
  • Create New...