Fatter than Joey

However, I think the notion with examining that trio is that it's not at all unprecedented for guys that appeared to have some trouble establishing themselves (though were still solid) eventually grew into pretty good players. Maybe, It seems like justification coming from Melvin to me. I'd rather hear discussion where and how Weeks can improve, rather than comparisons to other players. It sort of smacks of that "Brooks Robinson was a bad 3b, and then became a HOF defensive player, so can Ryan Braun". I think comparing a player to a historic group of players can be helpful -- for example -- "Player X can expect to decline by Y when he turns 35", or minor-league to major league translations -- because those have a lot more data behind it, -- but one on one comparisons are sort of dangerous IMO.

When you see that a pitcher is having a hard time finding the strike zone, yet you have hitter after hitter going up to the plate and showing no discipline and hacking at the first pitch out of the pitcher's hand or you have a one run ball game in the late innings with runners on 2nd and 3rd and less than 2 outs and you have hitters hacking wildly at pitches instead of trying to slap the ball the other way there is no way you are going to convince me that K's are not important. The scientific and statistical segments of our society can be so brilliant with their innovations, yet so dense in how they present their findings. I think the big disconnect is that what is described above is a "bad AB" or a "bad approach" -- A lot of "bad ABs" result in K's, that's a fact -- but is there really a difference in hacking and striking out, or hacking and popping out to the SS? On the other hand, a batter can K, but have a good AB. Corey Hart is a guy that I think has a lot of "bad ABs" -- which result in more K's than he probably should have. I think if he changed his approach to get more BBs he'd become a much more valuable player. For a player that is struggling at the plate with their approach, K's are most definitely not a trivial thing to measure. For a guy like Adam Dunn, I'd probably rather he Ks than hitting a bunch of GBs and reducing his power. His rate of K'ing though should remain somewhat constant. Weeks gets on base enough he has value... however he probably has more "bad ABs" than he should - hopefully that will get better.

Hudson and Roberts had higher averages at the same age, but significantly lower OBAs because they were too concerned with the trivial stat that is K's. You have no idea if Hudson and Roberts OBP were lower because they were concerned about K'ing. K's are not trivial either -- I certainly agree Weeks gets too much grief for striking out, and not having a high BA -- but it certainly is worthwhile to investigate the rate he is striking out at and compare it to his history. I don't think he was trying to say that Weeks is a better player, just that he catches too much grief. My only problem with Melvin's message of comparing Weeks to Roberts and Hudson. Sticking with Weeks because of what Roberts or Hudson did a few years back makes no sense to me. I'd rather Melvin say something that shows that they have faith in Weeks, rather than what other players did in unrelated situations.

I think Macha is probably just overreacting to Villanueva giving up five runs last night. Although I'd love to see where he got his pitch counts are in the 20s. The game log that FtJ linked to and now that logan has posted it shows that he's gone over 20 pitches once, yesterday. Right, I guess I don't have a problem with Macha's reaction, as much as I am wondering actually how bad the performances by Villy actually were. I think Macha was reacting primarily to the game yesterday. I don't think Villy has been that bad.... Would it be to much to ask for real games to start before we start bashing Macha? It's spring training for all of us. Game 1 counts just as much Game 162, and if we don't get into regular season bashing form in time for Game 1, it will be opportunity lost.

"Villanueva has had one good outing all spring as far as I'm concerned," Macha said. "The other outings he's pitched just a single inning and been mid- to high 20s with his (pitch count)." I don't think Macha is good at counting -- look at Villy's gamelog (NP= number of pitches) Villy Game Log First of all he has 3 multi-inning appearances... so Macha seems bad at counting appearances... He has never been in the mid to high 20s for a 1 inning appearance... so Macha seems bad at counting pitches I could be missing something -- and I hope that I am -- but Macha is flat out incorrect, unless I am missing something.

but I want to make my picks on the clock.......

I can't get the bracket to load to make my picks -- anyone else having this problem?

That 6th inning is almost Yostian.... The starter (Cabrera) starts the inning down 5-3 -- He gives up a leadoff jack in the 6th, and gets the hook. Then Burres gives up 8 ER in 2/3 an IP. Now, why not let him finish the inning, once the game is over, or pull Burres sooner? Burres gives up 5 consecutive singles and gets yanked -- I suppose that's the limit.

Those guys had way too many feelings... they should have never been given the platform to express them.

He does have some pretty big pipes though. If my pipes were that big, I'd probably look at them a lot as well.

That I, and perhaps others, would be more likely to say, "Air Supply got way more love than was ever warranted" is another point entirely. I thought all chicks from the early 80s loved Air Supply -- man it seemed that way. Those dudes were horrible.

I'd appreciate you not just outright mocking what I have to say on him though. I really am not mocking you -- I thought your argument was mostly hand-waving -- which is OK up until you announce it as reality. I just thought your argument lacked substance for the conclusions you presented as you did, I have no interest in mocking you, and I'd hope you'd know that -- there are so many other things I'd rather mock. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif There's nothing 'hand waving' about hard data that supports the impression I get with my eyes. The data is the data -- the conclusions you draw however are not necessarily "reality". I think that there is a huge distinction between "improved seasons" and "improved skills". You're certainly right to say, hey hang on a second... we need more data/time here to be sure. Exactly -- and while I certainly understand that Weeks is our best and only real option for 2009, I certainly would be leery of contract extensions, etc... I am not comfortable with the Brewers making any future plans regarding 2b under the premise that Weeks is an adequate fielder at this time. but I don't agree with your categorization of him defensively anymore. and that's fine -- as I have said a few times now, I am willing to re-evaluate my position after 2009. I don't think your position or Ennder's are unreasonable or indefensible at all. I think I am more in the "jury's still out" boat, than "this is reality" boat.

I'm laughing at the 8 pairs of socks you have stuffed into your crotch. My crotch requires no stuffing.

If you personally dont' think he has improved there is no amount of proof I'm going to be able to give you to change your mind. Your opinion is not proof. I think I have clearly stated that enough times -- every player is going to have different metrics from season to season, better or worse, different metrics does not necessarily mean that skills have changed. What you "see" is your opinion, nothing more and nothing less. I have no problem with your opinion, it is a reasonable one that I happen to disagree with -- I have a problem with the authoritative manner in which you present it. If he puts up a 3rd year in a row of improved metrics and you still don't accept it you are probably just being pig headed about it though. I said this earlier (#64): As I said before -- you may end up being right -- but I think that Weeks is still capable of having an awful season defensively, because I do not believe his skills have improved significantly. If his 2009 turns out to be better than 2008, I will happily admit I was wrong. I think you are enamored with your self-sense of objectivity, when in reality you have similar prejudices as other posters do. As far as being pig-headed, you are probably right about that more than I would care to admit.

I can safely say that in my eyes he is improving. Absolutely. When it goes past that, is when the red flags start throwing up.

There isn't much more that he can do to convince me he is getting better. Incremental or significant? You can disagree with my opinion I can't touch your opinion obviously, but it should be represented as such. A number of posters are making some pretty authoritative statements that Weeks is now an "average-above average defender" -- leading others to believe that Weeks's skills have improved, based only on one season of data. I find that rather presumptuous. but yeah I can conclude that his 2007+2008 defense is better than his 2005+2006, I can back it up with numbers and with empirical observation. Right -- but again, I could do that with any "lucky pitcher" that enjoyed a "lucky season" -- I have no issue with saying Weeks's 2008 numbers are better than his 2006 numbers -- I have an issue with concluding that he has improved his skills (in a significant fashion), based on 2008 v. 2006 alone. As I said before -- you may end up being right -- but I think that Weeks is still capable of having an awful season defensively, because I do not believe his skills have improved significantly. If his 2009 turns out to be better than 2008, I will happily admit I was wrong.

Because he's Latino? And it's not as if Parra and Yo are Dominican or anything like that. I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to pursue Pedro.

To non-USA teams, this thing is the freaking Olympics of baseball, and is respected as such. Heck, I'd even go so far to say that even for some USA regions, the WBC is going to provide better baseball than their local MLB team is.

when the reality is that he's about average on defense overall. This is not "reality", only your hand-waving arguments. One could easily make an objective case that Weeks is well below average. Weeks was awful defensively in previous seasons but the last season or two he has improved quite a bit. Again, I think this is a dangerous statement. I think he has had better seasons defensively perhaps, but you cannot quickly conclude that he has improved his skills, which I think is where you are going with this. It is like when a pitcher gets "lucky" in a particular season, perhaps his lucky season was an improvement over the previous season, but ultimately, he is the same pitcher. Yeah, the 'Weeks is awful defensively' comments really aren't accurate or objective. Frankly, I don't find your school of thought any more objective -- I think you want to see Weeks succeed, so you are willing to overstate one year of data to support your conclusion. I certainly hope your school of thought prevails though -- and you may end up being right -- but I think you are at least one season away from realizing it. If I could describe Weeks's defense -- I would say "Inadequate for a playoff team."

FTJ - by saying Weeks is "meh" defensively, I meant that he's gone from horrible to really bad - I wasn't implying he improved defensively enough to be considered even close to league average Fair enough -- I was using the more liberal definition of "meh" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

By rule of thumb, I usually request if they sweet spot it. Traditionally the sweetspot is reserved for the manager. Minor leaguers especially need a request because they aren't well known yet and they almost always will sign somewhere else on the ball, keeping that space open for the manager. Yeah, if you are some player like Tim Dillard, and you sign the SS, and then that ball gets handed to Macha -- that player is never going to hear the end of it -- in a kangaroo court sort of way. http://www.ichabodscollectibles.com/images/Dodger4.jpg You can see Durocher and Alston on the SS http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/sports/baseball/images/mariners/mariners-83teamball2.JPG That's a Mariner ball -- Del Crandall on the SS.

I guess I just dont see the difference between getting hurt in a spring game that doesnt mean anything for us vs. getting hurt in a WBC game that at least has some utility. I agree -- especially this injury... it seems like a holdover that would have been re-aggravated at sometime this ST. Other teams are risking their players as well. I'm sure if Zambrano blew his arm out in a WBC game, we'd be singing the praises of the WBC.

he's improved from being atrocious to meh defensively at 2nd I disagree -- he may have had better stats last year -- but I still have yet to see any evidence that he has improved significantly. I think the Brewers should have tried him in the OF from day 1. Agreed -- and certainly with Braun as well.

Oooh... I just thought of another...

Here is another good one El Debarge = El Garbage BTW, Kevin Costner sucks. This clip of FTJ working it would be great. Too bad video isn't part of this whole experiment. Fat Jokes, Yay. I am sure Neil Gaiman would be proud of you.