Jacob008

Weeks needs his teammates to score runs, but his speed represents a portion of the runs that he scores. Felix Hernandex needs his teammates to make outs, but his pitching prowess represents a portion of the outs that he makes. In the case of the pulled-back home run, and the run that weeks scores the vast majority of the "value" is created by the teammate. It's a simple, and appropriate analogy. Another CF and the "out" is a run. Another hitter and "run" is an out. EDIT: sorry, i can't really follow these threads that are so very old, didn't realize i was responding to a post 2 weeks old. please feel free to ignore this.

The brewers this year have had 57 leadoff doubles in 1080 leadoff plate appearances. that's about 5%. That's slightly less than 1 leadoff double every two games. With runners in scoring position the brewers have had 1007 ABs and scored 396 runs, or .39 runs per plate appearance. ---- In the national league there have been 908 leadoff doubles in 17346 plate appearances. That's about 5%. With runners in scoring position the national league has had 16771 ABs and have scored 6708 runs, or .40 runs per plate appearance ---- The run expectancy of a man at second with no outs is 1.189 runs. If the Brewers perfectly executed "ABC" ball given normal leadoff double rates, there is still 95% of their offense missing. Long live the homerun!

wow, intentionally walking reyes with kendall behind the plate... and he's at second... go newhan!

Nobody does this. So you're saying you don't mind hearing cliche after cliche after cliche after cliche as long as it's delivered smoothly? And you don't mind someone lying to you, and making something up as long as it is entertaining? I think, perhaps the people who criticize the announcers have higher expectations than you do. Do you think those expectations are too high?

I wouldn't get huffy about semantics. Since 2004, andro has been considered by the US government to be an anabolic steroid. If I say, "Turnbow took steroids" it's technically correct. Even though at the time he was tested, androstanedione was NOT considered a steroid. You can consider it dishonest not to include the timing of the definition in order to dispel the implication that he did something illegal, I do, but i wouldn't say "Turnbow took steroids" is a false statement. If last week you ate an oatmeal-raisin cookie, but we didn't figure out until today that's what it actually was, it does not mean that you did not eat an oatmeal-raisin cookie. Talking about Turnbow raises, instead of the legal question, the ethical question. Did Turnbow cheat? Turnbow's case is in many ways analogous to the Barry Bonds situation.

Do you think this thread should be used to discuss the articles, or perhaps, in the interest of usability, it should remain more of an index of articles with links to discussions of the articles?

I disagree. You PH Pujols for Hudson and you put yourself in a position where a hit ties it and sends it to extra innings with no reserves. Foot, meet bullet. Also Hudson is hitting .296/.380/.454. You PH Pujols for Rowand, the better call, and you put yourself in a position where a hit ends the game. You need to be able to PH for a pitcher in extra innings, that AB, and the upgrade from pitcher to hitter is just too valuable to spend it on the tiny upgrade from all-star hitter to all-star hitter.

Good question. In this hypothetical situation is Counsell hitting .310/.385/.478?

Saving your last position player down 1 in the bottom of the ninth is the right play. Also, that's a hack job article. No where does Pujols say "I'm angry I didn't play." here's the rest of the quote: "If I wasn't expecting myself to play, I wouldn't come up here," he said. "Believe me, if I couldn't play, I wouldn't show up here. I'd rather stay home with my family. But that's the way it is." I think he's clearly answering the question, "did you expect to play?"

pitch location for Dave Bush June 10th, 2007 at Texas. v. LH http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3903/db610vlhlz3.gif v. RH http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8944/db610vrhwb3.gif Bases Empty http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/5575/db610emptyjw7.gif Men On http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5370/db610menonwi7.gif One game, only 70 pitches with location data is a pretty small sample, so separating men on vs. empty as opposed to windup vs. stretch is a more important distinction. There does look to be a significant difference in horizontal break on the ball in the men on/empty splits, but again... tiny sample. graphs made by me using data from mlb.com's enhanced gameday

Great. Did you total those yourself? Any idea why your numbers for Bush don't match B-R.com?

Bush's career splits at baseballreference.com show that he clearly is not as effective with men on base. (Note: 2007, so far, shows a slight improvement over career norms.) Eliminating the _23, and 123 base states would be more exact but those samples are small enough, and the difference is clear enough without it, that i wouldn't bother. Yes, pitchers are probably slightly worse pitching with men on base (you aren't pitching as well if they are getting on base, typically the stretch costs an extra MPH or two). But this year the NL hasn't shown as drastic a difference as Bush. I think it's a very insightful observation by Yost. I consider myself a pretty astute observer of the game and I don't think I'd have picked up on it. I wonder if the Brewers figured that out from scouting or numbers. Pretty cool stuff. EDIT: Wanted to add that i suspect Bush out of the stretch is less deceptive which is key for his style. So it would make sense to me that he pitches worse from the stretch. Finesse pitchers need deception and movement on pitches, I'd guess Bush loses both when not in the windup.

So then you agree that firing the manager mid-season would be unjustified? Or that justification does not require reason?

I get that. I wouldn't either, but it's a necessary complimentary position to a fact-based opinion that Yost is a sacred cow. One couldn't exist without the other. If the brewers are below .500 at the end of the season, and it's because of Yost, I'll stand with you that he should be fired. Also, I agree with you that the idea that Yost is a great manager is misguided. But I do think that he's having a good year, and any talk of removing him before the season is over is crazy talk. On the other point, I don't believe that managers have any ability to "turn teams around." I don't think that has ever been done. To take a bad team and make it a good team would be an amazing feat. Outside of a manager being really crazy and getting lucky or not, i just don't see much affect a manager can have on a team. Me too. Batting Estrada fifth is a huge invitation to IBB walk Fielder and get an easy double play one pitch later. It's amazing this doesn't happen more often, guess there are lots of bad managers out there. Go Brewers!

And this, i would argue, is unreasonable. The manager can only put the team in position to win. He doesn't score and prevent runs. (I do think that managers can make good odds-defying moves that turn out well and should be credited for winning the game, but those are, and should be, rare events.) What you are saying, to me, is the equivalent of as long as Hardy is slugging over .600 Yost can keep his job. What I assume you are saying is, as long as Yost puts the team in a position to win the game, he should keep his job. Do you think that Yost is not putting the team in the best position to win? How many more wins should the Brewers have at this point in the season? 10, 20? Do you think the cubs should fire Pinella?

Well then it's just a semantic issue. In general I assume that if someone has some evidence for an opinion the point is to share it, and when they don't i assume it doesn't exist. So a statement without evidence is always opinion. I wouldn't get hung up on how it's presented. That's that other guy's job. I don't have any evidence that he's managing well enough to keep his job. I could put something together perhaps, like i suggested above, but i wouldn't trust it enough to fire the manager. Clearly you think he should be replaced, right? So, what evidence do you have that the team, because Yost is manager, is under-performing. I haven't seen any. And sometimes best-available evidence is not actually evidence at all. Like career winning percentage for example. Might as well evaluate manager talent on hat size. This, i would definitely argue against. I would say that there are no bad teams that have gone to the playoffs because of the manager. On the whole i'm with you. I think Yost is a bad manager. He had a bad '05 and a horrible '06. But he's greatly improved this year, and I just don't see enough games that he's lost to cost him his job. If he were still trying to use Aquino in closer situations, i'd have a different opinion. He just meddles too much to be a great manager. But this year he's not intentionally walking hitters, he's not sacrificing as much, he's managing the OF and the IF rotations well, his bullpen management has improved since april, the team is aggressive but not overly so on the basepaths. He handled braun brilliantly, he didn't leave hall at 4 too long, he's gotten away from mench when it was clear it was time too. What else do you want?

I see that, and I know that your list was to show that by winning percentage Yost is not considered a good manager. And my point, poorly articulated, was that no one would argue that winning percentage shows Yost is a good manager. Further, my point was, let's not be objective about it. I don't care where Yost "ranks" in the league among managers. Or if there are better managers out there. As long as he's not losing more games than he's winning why rock the boat? I actually think he's won a few games this season on good managing alone. Most of the guys on this team are not playing for contracts, replace a guy they are comfortable with, with a "better manager" (which you could never be sure of) and that could very easily have negative effect on this team. He's having a good year. And really, he deserves a shot with this team. I don't mean to defend any crazy "top-5 manager" comments. But just as it's hard to show he's a good manager, it's hard to show he's a bad manager, and it's probably harder to show that there are better managers out there that could come in and have a positive impact on the team. really? actually crappy teams, or crappy teams that had good years? If you want to get objective about it, i think the way to do it is to find teams that based on their hitting/pitching lines, scored/prevented more runs then they should've. Then, the managers that can do that consistently over the course of a career can be called good managers. But, just like clutch hitting, you can't make that judgement until after said manager's/player's career is over. It's a crapshoot. Get a guy who's good at making the trains run on time, and isn't ozzie guillen crazy and you've got a good manager.

Mostly gut. Pretty hard to separate the team play with/without the manager and estimate how good a team really is. For me, if the manager puts the team in the best position to win by getting out of the way, and adds a sprinkle of surprise they are a good manager. If you are putting guys in positions to fail you are a bad manager. Yost, has, in my opinion been a poor manager, however, i think he's having a very good year. Other than your own criteria for judging a manager it's pretty difficult to objectively compare them. While that's a neat list, it doesn't say a whole lot. I certainly wouldn't use career winning percentage. Honestly, I think a manager's most valuable asset is getting your guys to play for you, squeezing a little extra from them. Second is not playing crazy baseball. Yost seems good on the first account...

I'd be flabbergasted if Yost were fired. He's an average manager having a great year. I agree that he is more likely to win manager of the year than get fired. If he continued managing the way he has this year, and the brewers lost the rest of their games he still wouldn't get fired. The intentional walks are down, the non-pitcher sacrifices are down, they play with a healthy level of unpredictability on the basepaths. The bullpen management has steadily risen this season all the way up to Ok. The OF carnival has worked pretty well. He's backing up his players at all the right times without looking like a clown, or a pinella. Yost had a terrible season last year, but this year he's vastly improved. Talking about him being on the hot seat is crazy talk. That's like saying if Prince stops hitting homeruns at his current rate does he need to get benched? Crazy.

I'd highly recommend new forum software. What you currently have does not at all lend itself well to a conversation format. Also, if you want the elite community you are looking for you need to embrace the fact that every post, and every poster, is not created equal. Currently, the only tools you have to deal with that fact is the much abused thread-locking and thread-moving tools, and the terribly misleading post count. There is useless stuff, and i mean phenomenally useless stuff, posted by dimwits, and blowhards which a casual user may give too much credit to based on a perceived reputation, and waste their time reading it. You need the best content and the best contributors to rise to the top, and you need a forum software solution that facilitates that. You cannot create an elite community by holding onto the false notion that by asking people to behave more like the elites they can and will. As you've stated before this is not a democracy. The brewers.com forum is a democracy, and that's exactly what you don't want. Good luck.

er. good idea. rats.

i'd ask who's on deck but it's not going to matter....

definitely one of the breweriest brewers.

weeks, miller, bush... ??

http://jacob.madtownramblers.com/images/bh.jpg "i said drop it!"