rluzinski
-
Posts
9,362 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by rluzinski
-
Agreed. Just sucks that the Dodgers have a good shot of winning tonight. It's going to be very tough to pick up ground if two teams are ties for that last playoff spot.
-
OK, this is just crazy.
-
Nice Lucroy. OK, Schafer and Ishikawa, shut me up about LH/LH matchups. EDIT: Great AB Schafer. Sure would have loved a pinch hitter here.
-
Without knowing how often the trail runner gets to second on a contact play, I don't understand why you can be so certain about anything. I would also like to know how often no outs and two outs are recorded.
-
Damn, now three nothing-special lefties in the line up. Need to get this lefty out of there.
-
He started Monday against a LHP and we still won. He's mainly in there for his defense. A sample size of 1 game aside, if your 1B is playing mainly for his defense, that is a big problem.
-
I'm not suggesting you or anyone else shouldn't speculate. That's half the fun. Nor am I suggesting that all those human factors play no role. I agree that there are parts of the game that will never be fully quantifiable. I am only speaking for the parts of the game that can be.
-
Not saying there is a better option but Ishikawa getting a start against a lefty sucks.
-
All teams have their ups and downs in a season and there is little predictable about any of it. This insistence on persistence is frustrating to me because I know so much of it is just white noise; I can prove it is mathematically. How are you guys so good at identifying when it isn't just luck? For instance, you seem to imply that the Brewers performed poorly at least in part because they felt "pressure" (implied correlation). How do you know pressure had any meaningful effect on team performance, either positive or negative? Not long ago, the Brewers were swept by the Rockies and fell to 52-64. Right around that time, someone wrote in a game thread, "Things will get worse before they get better." Of course, in all likelihood, things were going to get better but baseball fans don't seem to think that way.
-
BP thinks the Cardinals will earn the final spot with about 87 wins, hence my claim that the Brewers probably need 16 more wins to force a 1 game playoff for the right to play a one game playoff to get into the playoffs I'm sure 15 would still give the Brewers some reasonable chance.... 14 probably very little chance.
-
I swear I've heard a hit and run sometimes referred to as a contact play. My mistake, apparently. This addresses one of my other concerns. We need to know what the odds of getting the runner to second are. It is not 100%. If it was then yes, with 1 out, it would make sense to always run it. What is the real number? I have no idea.
-
The exact opposite is actually happening though. Fewer outs will be recorded by having the contact play on than by not having the contact play on. It's easier to throw to first for the force out than it is to throw home for the tag/rundown. I think you are assuming everyone is blinded by their aversion to making an out at home when in reality, the confusion is regarding how you are framing the question. I asked you to provide the assumed base/out situations. You came back with the run difference between to base situations. The part that you appear to be ignoring in your analysis is the part that I don't like about the contact play. A contact play forces a batter to swing at a pitch that he otherwise may not have. That obviously negatively impacts the odds of that swing resulting in good contact and hence, a non-out. That must be considered in any analysis of the contact play. Am I misunderstanding something?
-
Why do you say that? I guess in terms of % difference in the two estimates but not absolute difference I don't think. We obviously don't know the true odds of winning each of the last relevant games but even if we assume 50/50 odds, you are going to come to reasonably similar odds I would think. Coolstandings has a "smart" and "dumb" version of their estimate and there is only a .7% difference between the two. BP's estimate of true team talent must be very different.
-
The Brewers may need to finish with 87 or so wins to get even a share of the last wildcard spot. That translates to a 16-4 finish. The level of talent the Brewers face becomes pretty irrelevant at that point. Baseball Prospectus estimates that the Brewers have a 1.8% chance to make the playoffs right now. If you replaced Was and Cin with a generic average team, for each game it might be the difference between a 36% of beating Was or Cin vs. a 46% chance. That's going to raise the odds of making the playoffs by very little. The bigger issue is that the Brewers only have 3 games left against teams above them in the WC standings. That means that even if the Brewers do the improbable and finish on a 16-4 tear, they STILL might not make the playoffs. That's why I don't even bother looking at the long odds. The Brewers need to win 3 of their next 4 games. That's a "reasonably optimistic" short term goal.
-
Harper: .265/.337/.458 Aoki: .285/.352/.426 Very close there. Since Harper is younger and has played more at CF, I'd have to give him the nod as well, though.
-
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Base/out situation, assumptions, etc...
-
In retrospect, how much has losing Prince hurt?
rluzinski replied to adambr2's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
By definition, if we've identified that it is a high leverage situation, we've acknowledged that it is more important than average. The "how much" can be quantified by using a metric called "leveraged index" (LI) or something similar. LI looks at the various possible win probability swings for a particular situation and compares it to average. If I remember right, an LI of 2 means that the situation is twice as "important" as average, for example. As such, you will see saberists multiply the expected value of an elite reliever's performance in an average situation by some LI value to acknowledge that the situations he typically finds himself are in higher leverage ones. -
If that 68% success rate is close to being correct, I believe that makes the suicide squeeze an unattractive option. I'm sure there is still a time and a place for it, as with most strategies. I just thing RR attempts one much too often. The odds of success are very much dependent on whether the defenders are ready for one and obviously, the Brewers have lost that advantage (opponents are positioning for the bunt attempt now). The good thing is that RR can now leverage that fact into greater odds of a base hit. I hope he does just that. You can't just look at the odds of a base hit there. There are many other things that can occur (sac fly, walk hit, hbp, etc...). A better way to start looking at it is in terms of run frequency and expectancy for a given base/out situation. This data is old and I don't have time to get into it but here is something to ponder: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html
-
For the last month or so, my "unrealistic" goal for the Brewers was just to get to .500. Now, it's to simply catch the Pirates. Just happy to see some nice baseball and hopefully see the Brewers spoil it for the Cards, one way or another. You are technically correct but if this format sticks, I can't see people considering it the playoffs in 5 years. Seems like it is destined to be considered a play in game, with the winner entering the playoffs. I just can't see a team winning 85 games, losing that 1 play in game and still feeling right about hoisting up a "Wildcard" banner. Maybe I will be wrong though.
-
I agree that every team is going to have a different projection for each player. The question is, how divergent are those projections? Is one team really going to have a .750 OPS for a player that another team has .900 OPS for? I maintain that for 99.9% of the players out there (even the ones who had a "breakout" season the year before), most teams are going to be pretty close to each other. Why? Because in part, GM's know not to just look at one year of results. I think some fans think that 500 AB is an eternity and think that GM's do as well. Whether or not GM's know the term, they believe understand the concept of regression.
-
Because despite RR's sub-optimal strategies (IMO), he's been lucky enough to manage for a team with good hitters. Even a bad manager isn't generally going to cost his team 50+ runs/year. I don't mean to suggest I think the squeeze attempts have cost the Brewers 20+ runs. And I also agree that considering all the variables associated with suicide squeezes is difficult. I've tried to consider the main variables with some back-of-the-envelope calculations though and it doesn't look good. "I really love how aggressive RR is with the squeeze/sac bunt to move the runners." Do you mean you love the entertainment associated with aggressive base running?
-
The TV crew was quoting some success rates a few months ago but I found them to be unrealistically high (like it had only failed 1 time or something like that). I guess it depends on how you define a failure. I don't think they were counting every situation. Every team knows that it's tough to stop. Everyone (but apparently RR) also knows that you have to have an extremely high success rate to justify doing it in the first place, though.
-
i agree that when someone may be overstating the odds of the Brewers making the playoffs, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. It's when someone makes the proclamation, "The Brewers are done!" that annoys people. I'm sure I've made that statement here at some point over the years but I don't anymore. Until they are mathematically eliminated, it simply isn't true. So it becomes a judgement call of each fan to decide how much of a chance, however small it might be, justifies hope. I think it's silly that you were still holding out hope on Sunday but now they are "obviously" done. Probably a difference between a 1% chance had they won on Sunday and the current .5% chance. For me, neither justifies any real hope but hey, you are free to set that bar wherever you want, just like anyone else.
-
[sarcasm]When the Brewers had a .4% chance of making the playoffs, it made sense to continue hoping. Now that it is .2%, it's just silly though.[/sarcasm] It's a personal choice to decide how low is too low to root for.