owbc

Another vote for Leesa--highly recommend.

Not exactly a defensive clinic tonight.

These moves go in a different category than "garage sale finds", you have to compare them against other FA signings, not other garage sale finds. These are big FA signings shopping from the list of the 30-40 top free agents. There are a lot of FAs to choose from. There were other comparable options and we did better for the price than anyone else. We could have paid for a relief pitcher. Or we could have done nothing (especially in outfield).

It was, then management sold the future to go "all-in". Several times. They could do the same this year, and then we can look forward to more losing teams in the early 2020s. I'm sick of that. I also strongly disagree with the idea that we can somehow become a WS contender this year with a couple of trades. For every Kansas City there are a half dozen other instances of teams that fall short in the boom/bust cycle--stuck with long rebuilding cycles after one or two quick playoff exits. It's not the way to do things.

It's been mentioned already but we need to reiterate it--the offseason moves were absolutely brilliant, all three major moves hit the jackpot plus an all-star pulled off the scrap heap. This was a roster headed for 75 wins before these moves, perhaps less. Look at the WAR of these guys--it's a 10+ win improvement already. This team would be the NL World Series favorites if it had a middle infield, so it's fair to ask where things went wrong. But criticism for not trading Machado is bad news and it would be very dangerous as a fanbase to pressure management to make those kind of moves. We all remember 2008 and 2011 fondly but we need to also remember 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. How many more years do we want to add to that list in exchange for playoffs in 2018?

This team is really good at finding creative ways to lose.

I had the same reaction. I assume there is some unknown logic to it? Why are the Dodgers starting Rich Hill? I thought teams started their #1 coming out of the break.

Nice analysis. What I get out of this is that the Brewers offense is quite good, near the top of the league overall, but a few weak positions are keeping them from being 'elite' like the Cubs. It also seems to be limiting run production which is bad. I noticed that the Cubs are literally the only team left in baseball left that can score runs without hitting lots of HR. But they are also first in BABIP. So maybe they are just getting lucky.

If they win all 5, it probably doesn't mean much relative to the current scenario. They will still be in first and maybe gain a couple games on the Cubs after beating up on a bad team. It might be of note because it would bump them up to 100-win pace which would be insane given preseason expectations. If they lose all 5, they fall back into the big pack of NL contenders that have been sitting around 10-12 games over .500. It would be bad for the hopes of winning the division but would probably put them in a position more consistent with preseason expectations. I should note that the probability of these happening are about 3% each.

One has to wonder what the long-term implications of having a dark shadow over the whole thing will be. The attendance boost from the move was unimpressive at best and the seeds of discord have certainly been sown.

That's fair. Although stadium taxes almost never have majority support. Miller Park certainly didn't have the majority of public votes in the stadium financing district, despite the relatively small tax amount. More recently the St. Louis Rams didn't even bother to put their stadium proposal to a vote, which is required by law in some municipalities in that area.

As I understand it - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - visiting athletes pay a prorated amount of income taxes in whichever state they are playing in. So if Bryce Harper plays 3 games in Milwaukee this year, 3/162 (1/54th) of his salary is taxed in/to the state of Wisconsin. Not to mention 1/2 the salaries of our own multimillionaire athletes and full salaries of high ranking team officials being taxed to the state. That is millions in revenue that isn't just shifted from one place to another locally, and would be lost if the team was gone. The Bucks used this as an argument for public funding for their new arena. That said, your other points are valid. At the end of the day though, just like free agency...all it takes is one. If one other city says they'll help pay for your stadium, then it's pay up or lose out. It does appear there is a shift away from cities letting teams hold them hostage though. I'm not sure about this either but I remember hearing about it. It's probably highly dependent on the state. Some states don't even have income tax. Also--the key number is the portion of the salaries that are paid through investments coming from out of state, which is hard to estimate. But it is certainly more for a small market. I thought the arguments for the Bucks arena were compelling. The NBA is a global brand and there is a tremendous benefit for a small city like Milwaukee to have an NBA team. Many more outside investment opportunities compared to predominantly domestic sports like the NFL and MLB. Not to mention that arena-related money was going to be needed no matter what as the BC had a ton of backlogged maintenance.

Think about it this way--they could spend $500 million in public dollars on literally anything they want. They could build new schools, libraries, highways, parks, bridges, whatever. They could build a giant pyramid. Or a sports stadium. All of those generate construction companies and jobs. The only net income to the local area in the long run would be if dollars from out of state are coming in. Otherwise you are just redistributing money from the local economy. Bowling alleys pay taxes too.

Seattle is a good example of when the city has all the leverage. Right now Key Arena is a money sink for the city--it's obsolete and bleeding cash--the naming rights agreement with Key Bank expired years ago and they didn't even bother to change the name. For the incoming NHL team they had three groups (two serious bidders) lined up to pay for the renovation. The winning proposal has 100% private investment and additional concessions beyond the actual stadium itself: $600 million overall investment $40 million in infrastructure/transportation/parking improvements $20 million toward a community fund that mostly addresses youth homelessness--nothing to do with sports at all At least $168 million in capital improvements are required--or else the private owners will not be able to extend the lease Obviously not every city has the demand that Seattle does but it certainly shows how profitable owning a sports team can be--even an NHL team!!! Edit--another thing--the group that proposed to build an entirely new arena ALSO proposed to fix Key Arena into a concert venue for FREE (to solve the city's problem with the aging arena). That's how crazy it was.

A ~30K seat ballpark is a great idea to create a more intimate environment. When Oakland eventually gets a new park it will probably be in the 30-35K seat range as well. Nosebleed seats are not worth the investment. They are legitimately trying to stay in Tampa--it's what the owners and MLB want. The ballpark looks nice. The idea that sports teams generate money for the economy has been thoroughly debunked. It turns out the net impact on the local economy is minimal. All it does is redirect money from other forms of entertainment. There aren't exactly other cities lining up for MLB teams any more except for hypothetical lists generated on the Internet. All of the other proposed cities have the same issue--lots of stated interest in teams but politicians/public who are highly skeptical of investment dollars. Hence why owners have recently been using shady techniques to try getting public money (see Atlanta, Arlington, and soon possibly Phoenix). The good news is that the owners are no longer trying the BS "we are losing money" argument. Because we all know they are making plenty of money in the current situation, and they would still be making money if attendance was literally zero. There is a relative abundance of billionaires wanting pro sports teams and supply/demand applies in that realm as well.

Arcia's defense might be worth more than the extra offense we get from these other guys.

Damn, I wasn't going to watch but with our playoff hopes on the line I better tune in.

It's fun to watch this offense go to work.

Any type of move toward streaming is bound to skew the audience younger. I can't remember the last time I watched a baseball game on actual "TV" and I've been able to get ahold of all the baseball games I want through various streaming services, some of which I am paying for and others not. The blackout rule is so incredibly stupid...MLB provides no option for me to watch the home team without a cable subscription so I have to resort to sketchy streaming sites to watch their games. That just seems incredibly dumb since I'm willing to pay for it. So a big thumbs up to Facebook streaming, hopefully we see more of this in the future. The more mediums the better. No "exclusive" content, no blackouts. Have the games available everywhere.

Exactly, I think we're nearing the "home run derby" point where hitters are overwhelmingly trying to hit a home run at all times, regardless of the game situation. Sometimes they 'fail' and hit singles/doubles but they usually aren't trying to do that...except for maybe the top 3-5% of all-star caliber hitters and the few remaining speed guys like Dee Gordon who are likely to be extinct soon. There are a ton of reasons for this--pitchers have gotten so good/throw so fast that you have to guess at the plate, defenses + shifting have gotten so good that even hard-hit balls are gobbled up for outs, and hitting home runs is just easier overall because of the small new ballparks and possibly "juiced" baseball. So reducing strikeouts would be really hard without inducing unintended consequences or making dramatic changes that will likely be unpopular. There's no sign of a plateau in strikeout rates so one wonders how high it will get. 25% is in reach in a few years. And of course in certain game situations it is way higher than the league average--e.g. close games with front end bullpen guys pitching.

At least there is action happening on the screen during the commercials, the same can’t be said for much of the game these days. With the attendance plunge continuing into the warm weather months I think we will finally see movement on this in the offseason. Perhaps the biggest indicator of the problem is how empty the ballparks are now in the 8th and 9th innings. Even the fans who are showing up can’t tolerate the length of the games and/or are not engaged enough to stick around. The game has always been evolving and the rules need to catch up. It isn’t really a surprise or that big of a deal. Strikeouts will be harder to fix since it is a multifaceted problem, unlike the pace of play which (as that article shows) is overwhelmingly caused by players just being slow. And there are some good arguments that strikeouts aren’t that bad anyway, especially for the TV-packaged version of baseball which emphasizes the batter-pitcher matchup.

You’re not alone in this thought. We know the game has changed and it may never change back but it doesn’t make it any less annoying as to how long these games take. Pace of play will be something that will be a battle in the near future. It will be interesting. Like it or not, things change when it affects the bottom line. The fans are speaking with their wallets and they are saying that they don’t like the current state of the game. There will be big changes soon. They did succeed in knocking 6 minutes off game times this year but it’s not nearly enough. I bet my baseball watching would double if they got those times back to 1970s levels—although it probably can’t be done without changing how relief pitchers are used. That said, attendance might never reach 2000s levels again, or at least not for a long time. All forms of live entertainment are seeing the decline and it will take a long time to undo the mistakes of the last 20 years. In my opinion price gouging is one of the biggest reasons for the decline—which the Brewers wisely avoided for the most part. And now the Brewers are only of only 3 teams with an appreciable attendance gain this year. MLB’s problems are easily solvable so I remain optimistic.

No way man, Braun's zero WAR is just 'unlucky' and is going to snap out of it any day now.

This is a likely playoff scenario--narrow lead against a good team, need the bullpen to hold it for 3 innings.

I just posted this in the Cubs Series thread...I have never heard this type of thing before. What is that? The only thing worse than Illinois-based Cubs fans are Wisconsin-based Cubs fans. I assume that on weekday games these are mostly Cubs fans that live in the Milwaukee area. The whole thing can mostly be summed up by putting a bunch of drunk Wisconsinites in a room together and giving them something to bicker about.