MNBrew

Huh? I don't see it. Can you explain your take?

Ugh, we have a meddling owner. Even if you don't think Melvin is a good GM he should still be making decisions about who is hired as the manager. Is your opinion of Attanasio really that narrow & negative that you'd see his having some input in the managerial hiring as being a sign of him being a meddler? The problem we had for so long, esp. after Bud officially became Commissioner, was that the ownership seemingly did so little. Now we have an owner who's a bit more active. But active & meddling aren't the same thing. Logan, you may have other reasons behind your opinion -- and it's an opinion you're perfectly entitled to -- but I just don't see Mark A. as a meddler.

Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo offers this musing (link): "Jason Varitek would be a nice veteran backup for the Brewers, who need someone to mentor Jonathan Lucroy." Between Varitek's touted leadership, the fact that he's already had to adjust to a part-time role, and the possibility that he could also serve as a part-time fill-in or backup at 1B (should Prince be gone), I wonder if he wouldn't be a more affordable & suitable signing than Pierzynski. Or maybe he's too old. But it's at least an idea worth considering if the Brewers are looking for a more veteran backup than Kottaras. Other than taking more walks, Varitek should be pretty comparable to George at the plate if not better.

Not a bad hunch, though. It would mirror what the Brewers did with Greg Vaughn in '96 (granted, the only commonalities are the Brewers and its respective star player since Bando's gone, the Seligs aren't the owners, etc.).

I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere at length, but I don't remember seeing it in my many visits as this thread has grown: Wasn't there some overlap in Texas between Melvin & Valentine? True or not, I don't have an opinion on this. But it would explain an elevated trust level and higher interest in Valentine on Melvin's part. Regarding all the salary-related questions, I just don't care so long as they make the right decision and for the right reasons.

It was a totally legit knee/leg injury. The field conditions in Las Vegas were horrible. That lousy field in those 2-3 exhibition games also changed Edgar Martinez's whole career. . . . And I also agree that the nice extension Listach got was more than a large leap of faith given that he'd never hit so well in the minors. I loved that Yankees trade. That was the best one of 3 solid late-summer trades Bando made in '96: - Vaughn wasn't re-signing for an affordable figure; we got Florie (decent reliever & spot starter), Villone (ditto), & Newfield (dud, should've been better, little legal/judgement issue) - Listach & Lloyd sent to the Yankees for Bob Wickman (solid set-up & eventual closer) & Gerald Williams (the lesser Williams in the NY OF, but still a Gold Glove caliber defender) -- Listach turned out to be injured, so they got Bones; who was terrible by then, too; Lloyd was the only guy in those 3 trades they arguable should've & realistically could've kept - Seitzer (who was likely to retire, though he still played another year for Cleveland) to Cleveland for Jeromy Burnitz

Somewhere in there was an injury in an end-of-spring-training exhibition game in Las Vegas (seems to me it was against Seattle, in the same series where Edgar Martinez blew out his knee & subsequently was fated to become a full-time DH for the remainder of his career), after which Listach's career was never the same. I doubt Listach just coasted after his contract extension. He wasn't known as that kind of person. His SB success rate stayed good for the rest of his career, but he never hit again like he did as a rookie, which suggests that his great rookie year hitting may have been a fluke.

Wow, lots of subtle parting shots this offseason.Dale's consistent, though: This is pretty much the same thing Dale said after Yost was fired & he was put in charge. I totally agree that to be more effective, the Brewers need to take a more aggressive approach to the whole offense, not just at the plate. And that's I think much of where Macha failed, because he was quite conservative outside of the batters' box.

I'm not crazy about Roenicke, but as a friend of mine pointed out, he's been a coach under Mike Scioscia for nearly a decade, and there's much to like about Scioscia and the ways his Angels teams play the game. It's not unlike Yost being on Bobby Cox's staff for 12 years. Yost proved to be able to do many good things with the team, but getting them "over the top" once they became pretty solid proved to be where his managerial skills hit the wall (those "crash and burn" 2nd halves didn't help, either). Maybe it's just guilt by association, but I'm not keen on Ozzie Guillen's turbulent personality or the definite AL-style ball of his White Sox, and therefore I'm not so keen on Joey Cora. I liked Tim Wallach as a player and the Dodgers organization seems to do certain things right (developing pitching being one of them), so I wouldn't be totally against him. For reasons this friend of mine -- a 5-year AZ resident and 40-year Brewers addict -- pointed out, I think Bob Melvin could do a pretty solid job and I see why he's seen as being a strong candidate. I'm intrigued by Pat Listach, less because of his Brewers background as a player and more because of his being a speed-game player and because of his successes and reputation managing in the Cubs' minors. I also still wish Willie Randolph were being given a real chance at this. I'm not sure what verbalizing all this adds to the conversations going on here. Just dumping out the thoughts in my head. However it works out, I'm glad we only seem to have another week or so before the mystery ends.

Do you have a link to this chat or can you post what Witrado said in this thread? Sorry, I am really having trouble following your line of thought and I guess I am not sure whats your opinion and whats Witrado's.Simply responding... LINK as requested Q: rich, green lake, wi - Hey Anthony, I've heard talk of moving either Hart or McGee to first if the Brewers indeed trade Fielder and giving RF or 3B to Gamel. Is Brewers brass seriously comfortable with that? As a fan I Know I'm not. Success in the minors is one thing, but Gamel has showed next to nothing with the big club. A: Anthony Witrado - McGehee won't move off third and Hart could possibly move to first if Gamel isn't the answer there. Also, if they move parts this winter, it's possible another first baseman or RF comes back to them in a trade aside from the pitching they seek. One thing is certain: Gamel won't play 3B at this level. You can see Witrado's opinion underlined above. I'm putting stock in the eye-witness observations of a beat writer whose perspectives some around here say can't possibly have an ounce of credibility (presumably in the sabermetric sense). My opinion is that errors aren't meaningless and defensively I'd prefer McGehee at 3B over Gamel because of Gamel's large error totals and because McGehee more consistently makes the plays.

Oxy, I think your assertions about McGehee and his value are spot on. Per some folks' opinions 'round here, this is an inherently dis-credible position to side with, but I also put stock in this: It tells me something when Witrado, himself at least attentive to some advanced metrics, believes (per his last JSOnline chat) that Gamel, defensively, is not a major league third baseman. I'm admittedly not into "deep" stats, but I know Gamel is an error machine and that hasn't changed greatly. Some here, though, would point to his UZR and suggest he's a good defensive 3B because of his range. To me, unless a guy's feet are permanently stuck in concrete blocks, I think it's more advantageous to have a guy who makes the plays. And that's something Casey generally does, and which Gamel's history indicates he generally doesn't. But I'm not agreeing just about his defense. I agree w/ your assertions of his whole game. He's not a media-magnet type of player like Braun or Fielder, or a top draft pick "ace" prospect like Weeks. But he's the type of guy any team needs, and the Brewers are fortunate to have him -- not to mention that he's also still under team control for another 4 years.

I think it means that if they don't trade the guy by a certain date (in the offseason ensuing the season in which he was traded to said new team), then he can choose to void the remainder of his contract and become a free agent.

My good friend who's lived his whole life in Seattle hardly has the same rosy view of the Mariners' situation. I think yours amounts to a "grass is greener" view. They've got some strong prospects. But I'd take our overall situation (current MLB talent & good prospects coming) ahead of theirs. They may have wealth working for them, but their payroll's not any more generous than the Brewers' is -- or at least beyond Felix & Ichiro, they're not paying any stars (though they're paying Figgins as if he were one).

Covering the last 25 years, 4 of the Brewers' last 6 non-interim managerial hires have been the "up and coming" types: Trebelhorn, Garner, Lopes, & Yost. Only Royster (who was conveniently around but never sought before or since) and Macha weren't. Lopes especially was seen as the next "hot prospect" for a couple years, much like Willie Randolph before the Mets hired him. I think part of the allure of the "up and comers" is that they haven't really given anyone reason to doubt them, whereas anyone who's been fired has. There's more allure, more hope, to someone who hasn't disproven himself. It's actually much like the allure of strong young prospects when they actually get MLB playing time: some do well & some totally bomb. And really, with "retreads" you can get the exact same thing. Valentine is intriguing. But I'm not that interested. There's a difference between being extremely motivated but being picky about finding the spot that's the right fit vs. finding a spot that helps spark an interest that doesn't presently exist. With Valentine, part of the allure is hiring a dynamic personality. In that sense, he's the anti-Macha. But I don't feel that's the right reason to be interested. Valentine is such a self-promoter, and it seems like he'd still be more into being Bobby Valentine than he would be being the Brewers' manager. . . . . That's partly why I really like Yost when he was hired: Most of the other candidates wanted a managerial job, whereas Yost REALLY wanted to manage the Brewers. I like Bob Melvin. I also wished they'd never let Don Baylor go years ago, so he still interests me. And Willie Randolph still seems to have much about him that would fit this position well (I must be missing something). Clint Hurdle doesn't do as much for me. Maybe that's because of how the Rockies really took off after he got fired. Of the "up and comers," I'm not sure I want any of those guys. Continually going for those guys is starting to feel like trying to catch lightning in a managerial bottle, and Melvin has a better track record doing that with players. Sorry not to have any inspired conclusions other than not wanting Valentine -- just chipping in a variety of thoughts.

From the dictionary: "trend = the general course or prevailing tendency; drift" and no, 146 AB's is not enough evidence to support a trend. I defined my parameters. My word choice works, and you made it clear that in your mind, "season-long trend" is an oxymoron. We just disagree. Would you prefer "pattern"? "2010 performance"? Just make a suggestion. Prince's "prevailing tendency" in RISP situations in 2010 was a great OBP but a lousy BA. You're arguing semantics. My point still is what it is: When Prince was up w/ RISP in 2010, he wasn't particularly productive when he didn't walk or perhaps get hit by a pitch.

Its impossible to distinguish "trends" in 150 PA'sIf there's a "proper" sabermetric usage of "trends," I blew it off in favor of the "everyday" or dictionary definition. The importance would be clarifying the context or parameters, which I did.

I worded my response carefully, which is why I said "It comes off that you're implying..." as opposed to "you implied" so as not to directly assume your intent here. However, your "but you can't read what I write . . . " doesn't seem to extend the same courtesy. The intolerance of others' viewpoints seemed rather apparent based on Ennder's word choice. In any case, valpocrewsader's post better articulates several examples of what I was trying to get at in terms of not everything being represented by stats. Sorry for the unproductive digression.

Please forgive my lack of clarity. Prince's lousy BA (& OPS, as you point out) w/ RISP were a season-long trend. I was not referencing other seasons. A .450 OBP w/ RISP is great. I wouldn't begin to argue that. But his .233 BA w/ RISP isn't good. That's all I was saying.

Your passion is admirable but your intolerance toward viewpoints other than your own comes off as sheer arrogance and discredits you. There's more than one way to look at things. "Deeper" or more sophisticated stats prevalently are "the thing" on this board. That's fine. But the notion that some people feel you have to be an uber-stat-head around here to have any credibility is narrow-minded and limits some opportunities for thoughtful & intelligent discussion. Success or failure in RISP situations, regardless of their somewhat-random nature, is still clear fact and therefore is indisputable. Prince hit .233 in 146 ABs w/ RISP. 146 ABs is substantive enough to reflect a legit trend. Those numbers are just plain bad for your cleanup hitter. If Prince hits better in those situations, the Brewers score more runs, which is ultimately what matters. Then Prince is also on base more, still giving the guys behind him nearly the same RBI chances. Prince's RBI total, while somewhat secondary, inevitably improves accordingly.

You're saying that everything can be found in stats. It comes off that you're implying that since you have stats, there's no additional credibility to the perspective the beat writers have by watching the players play everyday -- or no perspective to be gained that's not already evident in stats. Maybe that's not what you mean. But if it is, I simply think that's a flawed perspective.

1. It's not a slippery slope at all. What I was getting at was that he hit very poorly w/ RISP and he drove in 58 fewer runs than in '09, and for your cleanup hitter, that kind of dropoff isn't good at all. Simply put, when Prince didn't draw walks, he was failing at a high rate to drive in runs. RISP totals & walks are mutually exclusive except when you walk w/ the bases loaded. Stereotypically, the primary job of the cleanup hitter is to drive in runs. Prince's poor RISP means he didn't do as good of a job at that as he should've. His 32 HRs and 114 BBs (and consequent .401 OBP) were strong numbers. But his .261 BA is very pedestrian. . . . Prince basically wasn't very good in the clutch, so I don't see how you can suggest that would've changed w/ a .400 OBP guy in front of him. Bottom line: Prince's offensive year had great & bad in it. His defense wasn't very good. Net result: I can go along w/ the JS guys' B- grade. 2. Kottaras' 9 HRs and 33 BB helped the team, to be sure. But otherwise the guy was a black hole on offense. I'm not going to be satisfied at all if the best the backup catcher can hit is .200 -- esp. when he still starts nearly 25% of the games (Wolf's starts plus a couple other games here & there). My point was that there were more far things that Lucroy did well than Kottaras, which is why I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Kottaras deserved a better grade than Lucroy solely because he had a better OPS. But a point you're missing is that when Zaun went down, Kottaras was the starting catcher. His poor offense couldn't offset his terrible defense, so much so that he lost his starting job to a guy essentially just up from AA. Kottaras' overall offensive totals aren't that far off from Henry Blanco's last year in Milwaukee, which the team viewed at the time as so lousy that, in spite of his great defense, he wasn't worth keeping around. Blanco had about 350 PAs that year compared to Kottaras' 250. Also, what I said was, "other than hitting a few HRs and taking some walks, Kottaras contributes little positively to the team through his performance both offensively & defensively." I was talking about the sum total of his performance. You misconstrued it as an evaluation just of his offense. Even if I meant just his offense, I still hold that a little power without a major-league worthy BA is not good enough, regardless. The whopping 9 HRs were nice. But all in all, I believe the grade of a D that the JS guys gave Kottaras is very appropriate.

What do you think happens in a baseball game that isn't quantified? . . . . Anything that happens because of that is going to be reflected in a stat. Homer & I have stated different things to prove our respective positions. You disagree but don't support your position. So in the spirit of good discussion -- and using your logic -- prove it.

I find the first sentence funny. They've been doing these season-ending player grades for a long time, possibly since I was in college, and that was over 20 years ago. This is just an annual thing they do. It's a way to put the team & individual performances into a perspective. It's also a clever & effective way to "put a bow" on the Brewers season coverage in the paper, much as a report card presents the summary of a kid's performance in school for the term. Responding to others' comments.... Briggs, I'm totally with you. Stats tell a good deal of the story, but they don't tell everything. Kramnoj, not everything can be quantified statistically (your comment implies that as your point). The eyes see not just what someone does, but how he does it . . . and how he goes about doing it, and how he functions as a team member, how he interacts with his teammates & how he's respected by them, and much more. Last point. Each player is different, as are the expectations for each player. Two examples: 1. To suggest as someone did that Kottaras should've received a better grade than Lucroy because he had a better OPS is absurd when there's so much else that goes into a player's performance (basically, their point was that other than hitting a few HRs and taking some walks, Kottaras contributes little positively to the team through his performance both offensively & defensively). 2. And Fielder, for his great walk rate and consequently high OBP and solid OPS, as the #4 hitter, he's expected to be one of the team's best run producers. But the huge majority of his 32 HRs were solo shots and his RISP was LOUSY this year. While 141 RBIs cannot be treated as a norm, he still drove in nearly 60 fewer runs than last year -- finished tied w/ Weeks for 4th on the team in RBIs, basically 20 behind the top 3 guys -- and a 41% drop in RBIs from your cleanup hitter cannot be a positive thing. Thus, while Fielder's OBP & OPS were good, they're not necessary the best or most complete measuring stick for what his role is on the team (as indicated clearly by his spot in the batting order).

Juan Samuel makes no sense to me. Melvin talks about guys w/ experience and also guys who have been winning managers. Juan Samuel's Orioles were putrid during his Interim tenure. Buck Showalter came in the took the same team to an incredible record over the rest of the year. That alone tells me Juan Samuel is no winning manager. This would be right up there with hiring Rene Lachemann for 1984 and touting his virtues after he was fired after a lousy tenure in Seattle. Good luck getting a job elsewhere, Mr. Samuel.

Why are you assuming the only pitchers that Melvin can get are free agents and expensive guys who have no trade clauses? Why are you assuming that I was assuming that? That list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, but rather only some of my reactions to a sampling of several things for which many relentless Melvin bashers argue that DM should pay with his job. I touched on a variety of angles & supporting points. There are several other points I didn't touch on. I'd written a long enough post as it was. Anyway, the fact that he didn't bring in more good pitching doesn't automatically mean that he had ways that he could do so realistically without crippling the talent-thin organization even further. Melvin's shown that any deal he's going to make HAS to be in the organization's best interests. There is a ton of conjecture about what he could've & should've done, and even more accompanying judgement of Melvin for that. But for all the zeal & conviction behind the judgement, it doesn't change the fact that it's still only based on conjecture. There's NO WAY short of mind-reading that we can know everything Melvin offered or was offered in the scads of deals that never became reality.