Robideaux

RHP Jimmy Nelson - Brevard County

There is plenty to criticize Melvin for in terms of long term team building/planning. For me, the trade of JJ Hardy and the subsequent Yuni season is the prime example of where a lack of foresight put the Brewers in a bad spot. But as much as the Ramirez contract could become an albatross in two years, in my opinion we are in a win-now window. The team as currently constructed has a good shot at the playoffs in 2012. It is no guarantee, but there isn't another team in the division that is clearly superior. I don't know how this move impacts our ability to sign Greinke to an extension, but I do know that in an offseason where losing Prince was inevitable, the Ramirez move helps solidify what could have been a black hole at third. We will be better off at 3B and SS this year, so as long as 1B isn't a complete disaster, our offense should be able to absorb the loss of Prince. Chances are we will be rebuilding regardless of this move in a year or two by the time the Ramirez contract has a decent chance of looking bad, and at that point how much does it really matter? I lived through too many rebuilding years not to be excited that this move helps our chances of making the postseason this year. The Braun situation stings, but there is a lot to be excited about for Brewers fans in 2012. I can't tell others how they should feel, but I am happy to enjoy the ride.

I started this thread on June 28. It is now September 28. Clearly, nothing is changing. I am now in the acceptance phase. Reluctantly.

So to paraphrase, you are saying that because the 1981/1982 Brewers had a bad offensive player in their lineup and still made the playoffs, the 2011 Brewers should be content with having a bad player in the lineup (despite an obvious upgrade rotting on the bench)? To follow down this specious path, couldn't I say that the 1981/1982 Brewers prove that you can make the playoffs with a serious hole in the lineup but you can't win the World Series?

Green is going to be a good player. Just hope Doug agrees...

Every defensive metric hates Wright's defense, and the offensive issues can't be totally blamed on Citi. Could he bounce back to be a monster hitter again? Maybe, but the cost (both in terms of salary and what you what have to trade for him) would be prohibitive. He might--and it is no guarantee-play well enough to be worth his salary, but the Brewers would be better off letting Taylor Green play for peanuts and spend that 15 millions somewhere else. (SS perhaps?)

Does anybody have any data on how a player's peak fastball velocity affects his aging curve, if at all? I did a little bit of digging via Google, but I couldn't really find what I was looking for (found article by Kalk and a few things over at Tango's place). In discussions about whether extend Marcum, there seems to be two main (and directly oppositional) arguments being made: 1. He will age better than "average" because he relies more on location and craftiness than a blazing fastball to get hitters out than 2. He will age worse than "average" because losing a few MPH off of an already below-average fastball will make it difficult to keep batters honest. My purely gut instinct is that how a pitcher ages (the shape of his aging curve) is more highly influenced with how good he is to begin with rather than his peak fastball velocity, per se. (Of course, there is probably a strong relationship between velocity and effectiveness as well, so it is hard to isolate each variable without a bunch of regression analysis that is beyond my pay grade.) I suppose a corollary of this is whether there is velocity threshold that pitchers need to exceed in order to be effective--and, if so, what is it? There almost assuredly is (you don't see too many guys throwing 65 MPH in the big leagues), but is a drop from an 87 MPH to an 85 MPH deadly in most cases or can pitchers compensate by throwing more off-speed stuff? For what it is worth, it looks like Marcum is using his fastball less and less as he ages and relying more on the change-up and (this year) the curveball.

Back in January, I doubt we could deal them anyone in our organization but Braun and get them to trade us Desmond straight up. Why, though? Outside of one big half-season in 2009, he never hit well in the minors and neither the metrics or fan evaluations have him as a plus fielder. What am I missing?

I don't know a thing about Desmond, but glancing at his stat line, he looks like Betancourt version 2.0. Is he really much of an upgrade?

Casey McGehee now has an OPS lower than Yuni Betancourt and Carlos Gomez. Despite his so-so minor league track record, the extent of his struggles would have been nearly unimaginable at the start of the season. On top of his poor hitting, he is also a subpar fielder and one of the slowest runners (for a non-catcher) I have ever seen. There is something to be said for patience--for letting players work through tough stretches. One could argue that replacing an established starter after a poor month or two would not be well-received in the clubhouse. That said, the Brewers have the talent to make the playoffs this season, and right now, he is our weakest link. Casey is hurting the team both at the plate and in the field. Unlike for Yuni B, whose deficiencies have been discussed ad nauseum, we have a viable in-house alternative for McGehee in Taylor Green, who has been mashing in AAA this season. Although, there are no guarantees that Green would out-produce McGehee going forward, it is almost certain that he could perform better than Casey is right now. My question is two-fold: 1. Would you bring up Green to at least be the left-handed bat in a platoon? 2. At what point do you think the Brewers would make that move this season, if at all?

Over his last 7 games, McGehee is hitting .227/.250/.273. He might be "looking better," but he sure isn't playing better.

The record is good because the talent level is better than in previous years, but RR's in game decisions are hurting rather than helping. I don't judge a manager based on whether a specific move works or not, but rather on the decision-making process. For this, he gets an F. There is anecdotal evidence that the team likes playing for him. That's worth something, so I'll raise my grade to a D.

Not to be argumentative, but don't you think if you parse the numbers of any reliever and take out his worst outing, they will have a low ERA and their overall numbers would look good? I'm not sure what useful information that conveys. I could also do the opposite, and skew the sample to make him look particularly bad. If you go back to May 4, for example, he has 20.2 innings total, with 15 runs allowed, so he's essentially had an ERA of 6.50 since the beginning of May. Even if you were to take out his most recent implosion, as you have done, his ERA "drops" to 4.50. Loe has not been effective this season. I'm not saying he can't be an effective pitcher if used correctly, but to say that he has been good in his "not horrible" outings is something you could say about almost every major league reliever.

I don't think most people "fail to understand offensive production varies by production." I think most understand that a .288 OBP is, by your own definition of average, below average. I think below average hitting combined with below average defense makes for a below average player. Do some fans resort to hyperbole about the extent of how poor a baseball player he is? Sure. But the fact that some exaggerate doesn't make him good, or even passable. He is what he is--a below average hitter and fielder who happens to be our starter by the grace of Doug.

I realize that nothing will dissuade you of your Yuni love, but I'm curious which part you consider thee pleasant surprise? The .293 on-base percentage? The .341 slugging percentage? The no range/ no errors fielding?