Turning2

Pretty much standard operating procedure. Anyone affiliated with the team, either by payroll or privileged access is going to be complimentary rather than offering unbiased commentary. They all have a financial motivation to provide positive, flowery commentary. I like Dom Contronio’s work, especially having Caldwell’s input, but let’s not be naive… you’re never going to get jackhammer criticism when it’s called for. Everybody is full of it. Most fans are ignorant casuals who never played, and that’s the “let the good times roll” fluff they want to hear. As soon as the Brewers return to mediocrity, those same fans will be gone - so the content creators have to milk that audience while they can.

OBP matters obviously, but its less valuable if it comes largely from walks than hits in my mind. I want high OBP due to walks from guys hitting . <.230. I guess you take what you can get though. Seriously, it might be a good time to leverage the sinking offensive numbers with a low(er)ball contract extension offer.

It’s astonishing how often the flaccid ground ball to 2B rears its head with him. He rarely hits a deep, lazy fly ball, and I never expect him to when that’s the least thing needed.

Do you think Turang is becoming a respectable power bat in exchange for a high average hitter? Or do you think this lengthy cold spell where the average is falling like a rock is just a slump? I could live with a .260 / 20-25 HR Turang rather than .285 / 18. Would prefer the latter though.

Metrics are not entirely facts. Stats are calculable facts. Claiming the team wins more with player A specifically because of player A over player B (his win above replacement) does not, can not factor in the contribution or detrimental effect of all the other guys that played in those games. When I search “how is WAR determined”, that is essentially the answer I get. And that is flawed to the point of being useless data in my view. If you begin with a flawed premise, the resulting data is equally flawed no matter how much it gets cited and normalized. Millions of people can authoritatively say 2+2=5 till everyone accepts it, doesn’t mean it’s correct.

But managing day to day isn't that simplistic and binary. Ballplayers aren't robots. Actuarial tables (which is all metrics are essentially) may provide insight, but they are still simply predictive models and little else. There is heart and soul, flesh and blood, emotions, passions, pride, revenge motivations that fuel a player. That must be accounted for and simply cannot be by just punching numbers into formulas, spitting it out in a spreadsheet. Maybe instead Murphy comes to Vaughn and says... "all the metrics and its devotees say you're a bum against RHP. I want to know what YOU say to that? You want to prove them wrong? Want to tell them to jam it where the sun don't shine???... Yes? ... Then go do it, give me a reason not to PH you in these situations." Managers need to challenge their players. Metrics lets them off the hook. It also lets players off the hook from pushing themselves more often than not. I loved it when Mis defied Murphy on the mound last week and made it known for all to see that he was "good, don't take me out, I GOT THIS, #*@&-it!" That was a giant middle finger to this data as god mentality. I'll admit - there is a usefulness in data analysis, be it real stats or speculative metrics. Batting orders, lineups have always been constructed based off that type of information obviously. But managers need to know the psyche, the mental makeup of their players and base decisions at least partially off that as well. Too much of today's game is paint by numbers. We're a predictions market, gambling mindset culture. Just play the numbers, cut out the human element. Like I alluded to earlier, why not just have AI run the management of a game day roster? It will analyze the numbers, assess the best metrics driven move for each at bat, each scenario and situation far better than any human manager can do. Is that what we want? That's where its headed. Count me out if it comes to that. That isn't baseball anymore.

It's a slavish submission to speculative measurements versus playing the best ball players based on actual statistics and production. Thank you moneyball for turning managerial expertise into little more than paint by numbers.... duh.... this is what the numbers tell me to do, so that's what I do..... Might as well have AI managers, save on payroll.

Right, both guys will want a long-term extension, rightfully so. If the economic playing field was level, MIL would probably offer those type of deals to them. Generally speaking, they don't extend guys now, not because they don't want to, but because they can't. They want to hold on to guys for the long run. That's why we're seeing the extensions of their best prospects becoming the new normal way to do things. It's a gamble though, as you pointed out with Yeli. Hope they can get Made locked up for ten years. Then maybe Burke and Fischer eventually too. That would give them a good core continuity for most of a decade (assuming they can all blossom into above average MLB talent)

Sure, not always. But sometimes we should if it was possible. Currently, that is often not even feasible. They should be extending Turang and Contreras into their early 30's but they can't.

There are a lot of speculative measurements called metrics these days. But the younger generation thinks they're all that. The game has changed from a managerial perspective pressured by the economics of today's MLB. Yes, W's aren't as meaningful as they once were for a starting pitcher.

Honestly, I'm not that intrigued by it. Like others, it was more ingrained when I was younger, when guys, especially the stars, were on the roster longer. Used to know the 82 guys by memory. Now not so much, that was a long time ago. I'd even be hard pressed to name every Brewers' number currently. But I like 14. I was a #14 at mostly SS, but some 3B/2B too. Pete Rose was my guy, the model of hustle - every play, every day. Seems odd that 14 is a little uncommon. Would just like to see a star player wearing it for MIL. Last I recall, Mona was issued it. Like I said, maybe it will land with Made, that would be great too.

I don't have to like it, but I understand it's a "keeping up with the Jones' " move. Regarding that on the field product though, I agree with Locked On Brewers Chuck Freimund when he said (paraphrase) "yes, it will generate more revenue, but don't expect this to result in signing more of their own stars to extensions or pursuing pricier free agents, it's not going to generate that much extra money while it kicks fans out of the best seats, some who have been there through the lean years." I expect the extra revenue will be spent on more fluff attractions to draw more of the milquetoast, casual fans.

Winning an ugly one, We’ll take it!

common core baseball

I’d have taken my chances with Vaughn

Need Bau Bau to go boom boom

I had forgotten about him until Just A Bit Outside came out..

Attaway big boy!

Kuhnel reminds me of actor Richard Kind

Can’t stand these non baseball related interviews during the game. Don’t like interviews regardless, but at least it’s tolerable if it’s Brewers talk.

In the offseason, he was listed in a couple articles as a possible target for the Brewers. And I recall someone around here saying he could be a "sneaky good" addition. They tried, it didn't work, and it didn't cost them much. He was a rental placeholder which is exactly what most of us figured he was intended to be. I thought/hoped that he'd at least muster .240 avg and held down 3B for the year while they waited for the prospects to develop for next year / post lock out. Bring on the Coooooooop!

12 it is. Maybe Made ends up with 14 eventually.

A festivus for the rest of us!

If they were determined to rush him to the bigs, now is a good time. As you pointed out, it gives them a window to see what he can do before the deadline. Although, if he struggles, do you really believe they would trade for an upgrade. I don't. Per AI, a .650 OPS translates to roughly a .230 -.250 hitter and <10 HRs. Does that fix the position enough while trying to make a serious run at a championship? Maybe.

That's essentially my definition of "positioning". They didn't mail it in or punt as some others have referred to it. Coming off the 97 wins and falling completely on their face in the NLCS, they didn't aggressively go for it either (and I wouldn't want them to). So when I use "positioning" it's more of a mushy, happy medium term. The reality is, even though they dominated the regular season with 97 wins, the NLCS revealed that they weren't really very close to a WS berth. It would have required some incredible serendipity to get past LA. They could have gone crazy in the offseason pursuing talent, hoping to get over the hump. But they knew the lockout and CBA are on the horizon, so the financial ramifications of that are an unknown. Why commit big money and prospect capital to a couple guys, when adding proven talent might be more manageable after the new CBA is settled? They also knew that they have a solid crop of prospects to be harvested shortly after that new CBA too. Overall, it felt like they didn't tank it, but they went status quo, just keep doing what they do making marginal additions, hoping serendipity shines on them for a change this year.