sbrylski
-
Posts
3,593 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by sbrylski
-
I had a Zune 80GB. Crashed 4 times in a week, so I returned it. Good job, Microsoft. I loved it when it worked though. I'm considering trying it again, chalking it up to a faulty unit, but I had software problems as well. We'll see.
-
Kearns could play left and thus allowing Braun to play third. I love Kearns, but moving Braun to LF was the single biggest thing we could have done this offseason to improve the team. I would have loved a Capuano/Bush + Turnbow/Prospect for Kearns trade before the signing of Cameron, but I think we have all the bats we need or will acquire.
-
I'm not aware of a big fire, and I don't know which way your window faces. However, during previous cold snaps, I've seen big buildings in Madison switch to coal burning, to reduce demand for natural gas, I'm guessing (the winter equivalent of turning off the AC for a while during a heat wave - though I don't know why burning coal is better). We noticed this when we used to live very close to Meriter Hospital. That's my only guess. Channel3000.com has no news of a big fire - it's all about the cold and the Packers. I'm a few blocks from the Capitol and facing southwest - the direction of Meriter. Could be it. Though the bright yellow illuminated smoke seemed to come from much closer to Mendota... Could also be the freezing temps thickening the steam. -
When I look out my window in Madison, it looks like some large building is on fire in the distance. Is there?
-
We will all praise Ted Simmons, of course.
-
Average Relative Run Value of Offensive Events
sbrylski replied to rluzinski's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
I'm guessing you got the inspiration for this from the same article I read the other day. In fact, I had to go find a proverb and change my sig, because I put the rounded relative weights down there. Luckily, I haven't posted on BF.net in two days... In terms of just excitement, for me I'd say: Walk - 1 Single - 3 Steal - 4 Double - 5 Home Run - 8 Triple - 10 -
I like Ennder's thought - if we can get a catcher prospect (i.e. Teagarden) using Capuano or Bush (and maybe a prospect), that'd be great. Otherwise shed Vargas for whatever we can get. Just dropping one player should clear it up enough and leave us with plenty of depth. (Note to Schnieder: Losing Stetter is not "no big deal." Stetter and Pena have great chances to play large roles in our 2009 bullpen.)
-
LambeauLeap Forums Have Moved To Yuku
sbrylski replied to PeaveyFury's topic in Brewer Fanatic Issues & Suggestions
The forum jump on the top of the page is absolutely wonderful! http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/celebrate.jpg -
sbrylski, Did you read my initial post on this thread? Texas just traded the guy listed as their 5th starter on the team's website. They now need another starter (ala Vargas or Capuano) to fill that slot. Texas could not trade Catalanotto prior to today because they had no adequate replacement for him so any inquiry would have been rebuffed. Now not only do they have another left handed hitting outfielder in Hamilton, they are short one more starting pitcher. Yes, I read it, and Gross>Catalanotto was my response. I don't care about who Texas traded or what they need, that's irrelevant to my argument. Can we agree that Hall's massive dropoff heavily contributed to 2nd place last year? Have we agreed it was completely due to a position change? He also played through an injury. There's also just natural fluctuation. Not saying it didn't hurt, but there's other guys who've made the transistion and hit fine. Even if he hits a bit worse and is below average defensively in a corner, he'll be more valuable than he was at 3B.
-
Catalanotto is a far, far more accomplished hitter than Gross and far closer to the description that Melvin says he wants. He's been a regular platoon guy his entire career. Gross has been a bench guy. As a number 2 hitter in his career, Catalanotto has posted .299/.359/.451 in over 1500 AB's. He fits Brewer needs to a tee. He's lefthanded. He plays LF. He's tough to strike out (as opposed to Gross). He gets on base (.359 career). Over the last three seasons, verse RHP: Gross - .270 / .361 / .464 / .825 - 440 AB Catalanotto - .291 / .362 / .450 / .812 - 1105 AB Gross is under contract for 400k. Catalanotto would cost a prospect/pitcher to get, and is under contract for 2 years / $8M total, with a $5M team option and $2M buyout. Gross is also likely better defensively, based on BP's Rate, 100 is average (LF/CF/RF): Gross - 110 / 103 / 106 Catalanotto - 91 / 93 / 101 The only argument you can make for Catalanotto over Gross is he has a larger sample. I think we should set our sights a little higher or stick with what we have.
-
Catalanotto = Gross, IMO. Good for deepening the team, but I'd hope we could find an everyday player out there somewhere, if not at 3B.
-
For comparison: Rolen, 89 RC (Bill James Projections - .367/.475/.842) Rolen, 25 FRAA (per 150 games, as above charts) So Rolen could be 3 team wins or more better than Hank Blalock. And then you'll pick up about 2 wins by moving Braun to LF. So adding Rolen would be a 5 win move. Nice.
-
Looks like you used different numbers for Braun, probably just by mistake, but take them out as Braun in LF is a constant... Oh, whoops. I projected two third basemen in the first comparison. Brain fart. I'll just take Braun out then. And yes, I would also think a +0 to +5 FRAA for Gwynn would be about what to expect. Blalock, though, already has a rather lowish projection, assuming he really is healthy. If you want to lower it, I wouldn't go more than -5. Blalock (83) + Hall (67) = 150 Hall (82) + Gwynn (40) = 142 This still rough estimate has us about a win better with Blalock. Is it worth the price? Actually, probably not. Hall could improve in CF though, which would widen the gap.
-
There has to be a formula somewhere, where one could add the .OPS of a Braun(LF)-Hall(3b)-Gwynn(CF) combo and also factor in likely defensive contributions (or liabilities) each would provide at those positions (projected VORP, WARP?) and contrast that with a Braun (LF)-Blalock(3b)-Hall(CF) combo. Here's what I got: Here, using Bill James projections for offensive Runs Created (RC) and Baseball Prospectus' career Rate Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) from the players position - you can assume your own expected improvement/decline. Then I projected both stats to 150 games. POS NAME RC FRAA TOT 3B Hall 82 0 82 CF Gwynn 40 -20 20 Total 122 -20 102 POS NAME RC FRAA TOT 3B Blalock 91 - 3 88 CF Hall 82 -15 67 Total 173 -18 155 I assumed Braun to be similar to Hall's OF transistion, so I used the same -15. I think he could be a little better. The thing that obviously stands out right away is Gwynn's -20 in CF. He's only got a 46 game sample, so I guess it can partially be attributed to that, but he might not be as good as some people think. No matter how good he is out there, he won't be the +54 runs in the field needed to make up the difference. (League leader in CF was +24, I believe.) Obviously these are rough, but I think it shows bringing in a solid 3B is not only better offensively, but defensively too, provided he's about average defensively at 3B.
-
The Orioles do need pitching quite badly, hopefully an offer of Cappy, Vargas, Wise and Aquino for Bedard might interest them. Overstatement of the year. "Might"? More like, "would never in a million years". The Brewers 08 rotation of Bedard, Sheets, Yo, Suppan and CV could be very solid. Understatement of the year. That rotation would be amazing.
-
Ok, I guess that makes a little more sense. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure that I understand fip completely. Every explanation of it that I heard of it up until now, pretty much stated that it takes out all fielding plays and only accounts for BBs, Ks, and HRs. Your post, if I'm understanding correctly, makes it sound like that's not the case. It only uses BBs, Ks, and HRs. But it assigns a value to them based upon a neutral environment. I guess that's where the confusion is.
-
If you read the rest of my post, you saw that I acknowledged that pitchers with a better defensive behind them tend to have lower ERAs. However, I don't believe that discounting ALL defensive plays is the way to accurately measure this. It's like saying since some QB's have better receivers than others, we are going to completely discount all attempts and completions when assessing QBs and only count times that they score on there own, since that's all that they can truely control. It doesn't remove that component. It sets it to league average, or a neutral environment. If an average defense allows a BABIP of .300, and a pitcher has a .330 BABIP, it removes that generally uncontrolable factor. xFIP is a simplification, definitely not perfect, as pointed out already. But it does a good job of removing luck, natural variation, defense, and park effects. Those are not the only factors that influence ERA, however, but they are large ones.
-
This is what I just don't get. This happens very very rarely. A routine play in my opinion is an easy ground ball hit directly at a fielder. If a fielder misplays it, it goes down as an error. Unless the official scorer is blind or something. People are acting like this happens all the time. It hardly ever happens. You're saying the difference between a good fielder and a bad one is a rare play here or there? Are you taking into account range, or even arm strength?
-
Also note that xFIP takes away park effects.
-
But xFIP generally regresses everyone's preformance a bit to the mean. So I think its fair to say that at half of those guys will beat their FIP's, and some by more than a half point of ERA (and, of course, the other half the other way). So I think we'll see four or five guys solidly in the 3's, a bunch in the low to mid fours, and then a couple blowbags in the 5's. Because we're so deep, we hopefully can limit the innings of those 5's and use our top guys in the critical situations, we could have a nice low 4's team ERA. 4.10 to 4.40 would be an improvement from last season (4.41), and place us solidly in the 2nd tier. I think that list looks fine, doesn't have me worried. Someone who has more time could compare it to a list of the Cubs pitchers.
-
There's now way this happens, but imagine for a second Swisher and Street are on the Brewers.... See how happy you feel?
-
I totally forgot about Kearns, and I've been one of the biggest proponents of his. With Dukes, Millegde and Pena also in the fold, you'd have to think that'd be an option.
-
DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
sbrylski replied to agent39's topic in Brewers Minor League Talk
Awesome get with Brantley. One of my favorites in the system. -
also, how does me repeating what the mlb said and what tom h. said constitute slander? other than saying the suspension was for steroids, which if you look above you'll see tom h. printed on his blog, i've said nice things about the guy... MLB has only reported it as a "banned substance." Its natural to assume steroids, and I wouldn't put it past Tom to have assumed and unintentionally reported it. But maybe I'm just hearing what I want to hear. I guess I'll remain open to both possibilities until someone can say something more definitive than "trust me, I know," because we got guys on both sides saying that. Please, if you can, do so to clear this up.
-
Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too.
