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
-
Hey, I'm not attempting to speak for anyone else. There are obviously many people who enjoy reading that kind of stuff. It's just my personal opinion. When I read a Packer article, I learn things. Roster changes, player performance analysis, in depth analysis of in-game strategies employed. Generally some good stuff. When I read a Brewer article, I learn that the team has really been hot but needs to keep up that killer instinct or else they might lose focus. I don't think the kind of coverage could be more different. Night and day difference. One football article from a few years back really made me realize the difference between the coverage of the two teams. It was an article about KGB's pass rushing abilities. They could have just listed his yearly sack totals and provided their opinion, sprinkling in some anecdotal evidence that supported their opinion. Instead, they listed the type of move (inside, outside, bullrush) KGB used on every career sac he ever had. up to that point. I want that in baseball articles that attempt to provide objective analysis.
-
If one of Tom's sources gave him the scoop on CC, fine. I'll give him that. Most of the inside info is just spoon fed to him, though. Game linups? Yes! As articles, 95% of Tom's fit one of the dozen baseball article templates sportswriters apprently get when they become a beatwriter. Pick the right template , throw in some quotes and viola, a professional article! This week it was , "Veterans keep team focused". How many times do you think that article has been written over the years? If you are a baseball sportswiter and take offense with this, it means you are probably cliched and formulaic as well. If you aren't, maybe your one of the good sportswriters out there. Keep it up. We need more of them.
-
We are calling sample error, "luck". Flip a coin 10 times and you may get 7 heads but that doesn't mean the odds are 70/30 of flipping heads going forward. Sample error can let 10 meatballs turn into 10 outs. With a small sample, the sample error is so large that it completely overwelms the underlying true probabilities. Moeller can even hit for cycle because of it! That's the fundamental limitation of sample statistics and it.s a concept that needs to be understood if you want to properly analyze baseball stats.
-
A win tomorrow by the Crew and the Cardinal's chances of making the playoffs are not looking good at all. Quick, someone give me a good link to a Cardinal's in game thread! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
Call me crazy but I'm not nervous anymore.
-
Is there a worse baserunner in baseball than Weeks? He has a 85% steal percentage, so he at least does that well.
-
More important to ensure he leaves with a shutout, beloved, and raise his confidence than to give a higher probability at winning the game???? Sheets was already at 100 pitches and throwing 92 MPH. He was probably wearing down, so I don't think it really lowered the chance of winning much if at all. Nothing wrong with handing the game over to a nice, fresh pen.
-
Maybe this will quiet the Sheets isn't a big game pitcher for a while. Hold your horses... Not if the bullpen blows this!
-
What was the point of that double switch? Why downgrade our defense at 2nd? Durham is easily as bad as Weeks defensively. Probably worse. That's what the fans say, at least: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/pos2007_2B.html I wouldn't have wasted a bench player for that possibly very small defensive upgrade, though. Maybe Durham tweaked something? But that OPS since June is still well below the 1.000 something he did last year. Fielder has fallen off more than I would have liked but hoping that Fielder would be a perenial 1.000+ OPS hitter wasn't very realistic. There are few players who've ever been able to do that. Good ol' regression to the mean.
-
A 10 pitch AB will get the starter out of the game about 2 AB earlier. A guy like Wellemeyer might be a 4.0-4.25 ERA pitcher by the 6th or 7th (starting pitchers lose a lot as the game goes on). That has a touch of value but not much. I certainly am not going to be singing the praises of such an AB when it ends the inning with the bases loaded.
-
If the Cardinals were waiting until the 7th to start playing, they waited too long!
-
Hmm, there definitely is a discrepancy between THT and fangraphs. You have to add a league constant to get FIP inline with ERA. I'd guess that Fangraphs doesn't calculate a separate constant for the AL and NL.
-
I guess I'm not seeing it. But it doesn't feeeeeel like he's doing well.
-
I bet Cardinal fans are just SCREAMING about how their Redbirds always seem to leave a bunch of men on base. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
How many 10 hit ABs that end in an out does it take to equal the value of a single?
-
If you'd have read my entire post, you'd see I am actually hoping he proves me wrong. It's ok to take the "I love Ben" shirt off and expect him to step up. You hope that Sheets proves you wrong by winning the first game in major league history in which the victorious team doesn't even score. Am exagerating of course but by only 1 run, which is kinda crazy in itself. But I'm the one not being objective? I think the the entire notion of expecting starting pitchers to "step it up" in big games is largely a romantic myth. I will assume that Sheets is pitching to the best of his abilities every outing, just as I presume for every other starting pitcher. If anything, I think pitchers can hurt their performance if they get all jacked up and start trying to throw 100 MPH ever pitch. He needs to just approach this game like any other. If Sheets gives up 3 in 7 tonight and loses, I'm not going to get all worked up about it. That's baseball for you.
-
I was standing next to the LF foul pole on the 100 level, so I didn't mean to suggest that I had any chance of knowing if it was good or bad. I'll take a look tonight if I get a chance.
-
Yeh, I read that "veteran presence " article and thought it was a complete crock. I guess 2007 Suppan, Jenkins and 2007 Counsell let their team fall apart! Wait a second. They fell apart and then came storming back and then faded late. Obviously, skill had everything to do with the great start and comeback but lack of veteran grit caused the collapse and fade. It's all so obvious in hindsight. Just nonesense. A typical baseball fluff article. And I'll gladly admit that I have no idea how team chemestry affects performance if everyone else can do the same. Couple that with no one even knowing what teams have good and bad chemestry (its apparently not tied to specific players and can actually come and go from year to year, even with the same personnel ) and we can all continue on with our lives, wholy and equally ignorant on this subject.
-
You have to love it when your offense could score 1 run and a guy like Yount would still pin the probable loss on Sheets. I guess it makes it easier to have players prove you right when you go into a game with completely unrealistic expectations. I predict that if the offense scores 3 or less runs, Sheets will once again prove that he can't win the big games. Bold of me, huh?
-
Backcatcher, I may have undervalued defense in 2002 but I've learned a lot since then and have drastically revised my position. I decided to try and find evidence to support my unsubstantiated opinion and found the exact opposite was true. Crazy, huh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif It's really not worth debating the value of chemestry since there is no way to even begin to know its value. No one knows. If someone can tell me what teams are going to do better than their individual projections suggest, I'd love to hear it. We all agree its good to have team chemestry but we don't know how to get it. We all would rather our favorite team have it but we what to expect if we don't. I do know that, whether people want to accept it or not, the primary motivation for professional players is money. Since their future financial prospects are tied to their current production, most players seem to do just fine keeping their eye on the true prize. There is no evidence that playing on a good or bad team with good or bad chemestry has any measurable effect on performance. For many of you, you don't need proof of something to "know" it is important. Hell, we've got player quotes! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif
-
Only time will tell how Suppan actually performs over the next two years, so we'll just see how that plays out. He's on the wrong side of the age curve, though, so it's not a good idea to extrapolate out his current performance forever. Yes, the fans loved the Suppan signing but fans are fickle and most don't even seem to like him anymore. In the end, winning is going to make the bigger statement than picking up free agents, so baseball decisions sould be made with that in mind, IMO. As for players.... I'll just say that I think the contracts that they were offered were pretty darn competitive. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
With regard to BABIP, pitches with less velocity and movement and bad location get hit harder. That appears to be a pretty indesputable fact. The problem is, for the most part, fans are letting the result of the pitch determine whther it was a good or bad pitch. Sometimes a hanging curve gets poped up and a 95 MPH fastball on the corner and with great movement ends up over the wall. Was Sheets' fastball to Blum really a meat pitch? From my seat, I sure couldn't tell. Bad location? If you really dig into the data, you can strip away a large chunk of the flukiness of small sample results. We know that Bush's velocity was down at the start of the season, so we expected his BABIP to suffer as a result. But if you are just looking at BABIP over a season and nothing else , you might as well just assume league average, because it tells you next to nothing by itself. Pitch f/x data is pretty close to quantifying the pitcher's contribution to his BABIP. Exciting times! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
I used ERA because that's what everyone seems to care about. And it "should" have been around 4.4 last year (IIRC) and should be around maybe 4.75 this year, so it looks pretty representative over the last 2. I'm not trying to suggest that a 4.6 ERA starting pitcher doesn't have value, especially one that's proven to be durable. My concern is that sometime soon, its reasonable to assume that Suppan will slip from barely average to decidedly below average. When that happens, his IP totals start to become largely irrelevent. And yes, if you don't care about the last 2 years of his contract, I can see someone arguing that the signing wasn't bad. If it had been a 2 year deal, you wouldn't have ever heard any objections from me. That's because my objections to the signing had everything to do with the last 2 years. If someone wants to argue that because of the cirumstances of the team at the time of his sighing, he's already earned his money, there's no sense in arguing further. That kind of thinking results in big troubles down the road, IMO.
-
No one seems to be discounting the possibility that team chemestry could have an effect on player performance. Most seem pretty prett convinced that it's pretty insignificant, compared to actual talent, however and the evidence supports that notion. The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry makes it clear that no one even knows how to measure chemestry, much less measure its effect to wins and loses. Blind speculation.
-
But to maximize the ability to win sometimes one must overpay a certain person of need vs just sign a bunch of cheaper guys who are collectively better than the one. If, for the same price, 5 players adds 5 wins over what you currently have and one player adds 4, you get the 4 players. That's all I'm saying. This probably needs its own thread but... Suppan was worth the money because,at the time, they needed a reliable veteran pitcher in their rotation. Reliable veteran? His 4.62 ERA last year was reliable? Suppan was signed because Melvin and/or Mark A. got caught up in a bunch of baseball cliches and thought Suppan was better than he really was. Suppan has a 4.6 ERA in his first 2 years of his contract. I'm surprised you or anyone else would still be willing to say he was a good signing. If he's still a Brewer in 2010, he probably won't be in the rotation. Of course, that is what many of us predicted when he was signed.