rluzinski

It doesn't matter how good the projection, how many millions of times you run the simulations, and the end of the day it's just an educated guess about how a player will perform over X number of games. Exactly. An educated guess. Better than someone just looking at last years or this year's stats. Better than just pulling a number out of nowhere. projections certainly do no begin to account for every variable. No disagreement there. A great example of this is the Cameron thread. FTJ made it clear that he didn't base his opinions on Cameron's production on any projection, rather that he thought Cameron's numbers would jump up more in line with his away splits from SD. A very simple concept, yet 40 posts later people are still telling him how wrong he is because he didn't base his opinion off of a projection. That's the whole problem people specifically ignore... The average fans might ignore park factors but most projection systems try to at least consider them. FTJ was 100% correct for pointing out that Cameron played in a pitcher's park: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id103.html It may very well be an indicator of future success or lack there of, but the games have already been played and someone is trying to make a statement about that finite set of games. I certainly have no objections to doing that. I do it as well. It's when someone tries to go from observation to projection that you will see people begin to question their conclusions. Rightly so. The simple truth is that until you get out there and coach at a level where winning matters and care about passionately about the game and kids, you'll probably never believe in or understand what I'm talking about. I played highschool football, so don't suggest I can't appreciate the human element of the game. I don't underestimate what my head coach brought to the table in terms of motivation and confidence. Tech pride! Of course, I was playing against other 17 and 18 year olds. Some of those kids were out there because Dad told them to be. If I cared more than them, I had a tangible advantage over them in the 4th quarter, when fatigue began setting in. But that was football being played by teenagers. Highschool football and professional baseball are whole other worlds. I don't really see much of a comparison, personally. If people care enough to understand what you're talking about they'll google the stats, find the websites, and do the research just like I did. Like I said, if you are OK with eyeballing career stats to get the sense of a player's talents than you are OK with at least some projection systems. I've provided this link many times before: http://www.tangotiger.net/marcel/ Have you taken the time to research that? It's not anyone's job to force statistical analysis down everyone's throat, nor should it be If you are going to continue to reject any attempts to use projections in any way, I'm going to continue to point out the flaws in your arguments against them. And the wheels keep turning...

I'll never be one to claim that lack of statistical evidence disproves the existence of something. It does suggest an upper limit for the effect it might have, however.

That's why I never drop a projection into an argument, I'll use historical statistics (which are actually facts) to make a point, but a projection doesn't have anything to do with what the player will actually do in a given year, or more specifically, in a single AB. A great example of what I'm up against. What the do you think projections are based on? You obviously have no idea. Good projections just know how to properly handle the sample error associated with seasonal and career stats. Do you? People see the word 'projection' and think they are based on some crazy, out-there methodology. Super computer buzzing away, trying to quantify grit and confidence. Coming up with the perfect model for every player's performance. Not even close. You don't know how projections are constructed but you are still confident enough in your position to make the statement, "but a projection doesn't have anything to do with what the player will actually do in a given year". Past success tells us nothing about future success. I don't think you agree with that statement, which makes your strenuous object to projections all the more ridiculous. And no one can predict 1 AB, so talk about a straw man argument. That's like trying to predict the flip of a single coin and then some. Even if players WERE robots, you couldn't predict the outcome of an AB. There would just be probabilities. Actual players have all those uncertainties and all the human onces as well. That's the concept you don't even begin to grasp. Of course, we've already had this conversation. Same old, same old. Crew isn't going to try and learn anything more about the subject and he isn't going to chance his mind. No point in even discussing it. Waste of time.

I'm not going to go as far as rluzinski and say that Yost has no impact on the clubhouse. Please don't misquote me. This is my stance: "as fans, we don't know: A: Whether Yost has certain character traits that cause his players to have less confidence in pressure situations B: If having less confidence has an impact on the players' performance. " as fans, we don't know: http://forum.brewerfan.net/search.php?keywords=419802/t/Yost-s-Nationally-Televised-Record-.html It's all blind speculation. You could as easily proclaim that Yost is the reason why the Brewers are a good road team this year.

Here's my take on the SOS differences between the Brewers and the Cubs: http://rluzinski.blogspot.com/2008/08/strength-of-schedule-and-catching-cubs.html If you don't want to read it, it's about a 1-1/2 game advantage for the Brewers. Go Cubs!!

So, if the Cards sweep the Cubs and both the Brewers and Cardinals are 2-3 games back, people on this site won't be happy? I'll be happy as long as the Brewers don't slip out of owning a playoff spot. Right now, they do.

Cards sweep and the Brewers take 2 of 3. The odds of the Brewers finishing tied or ahead of the Cubs increases from around 16% to 22 or 23%. Of course, that increases the odds of the Cards winning the division or wildard. I suspect (didn't sim the whole league) that the above scenario would actually lower the Brewers' chances of a post season appearance. Go Cubs.

11 - 2 Need I say more? The proof is in the numbers. And we aren't talking about some small sample, either. 32 - 28 on the year. This is for real. Ned Yost taught the Milwaukee Brewers how to win on the road! Now, if the Brewer could just win at home. A playoff team should be better than 32-23 with the home field advantage. I blame Yost. I think he lets them party too much in Milwaukee.

I've never been able to identify them on my own, so I need your help? Is Counsell having quality AB today? Only when he's lucky enough to bat with runners on and no outs?

When I'm trying to measure a team's ability to manufacture runs, I use this stat called "runs scored". It's unproven but you'll find it does a better job of measuring the total skill of an offense better than BA w/RISP. What BA w/RISP does correlate well with is "FDF (fans disappointment factor). When the bases are loaded with 2 out, we have certain expectations. When a guy pops a 2 run HR with a runner at first, it's a pleasnt surprise.

Youe can go to ESPN's team stats page and filter for RISP. The Brewers have a bad BA overall though, so that's really what you should be comparing it to. Really, BA w/RISP is just a dumb stat to begin with. What is it trying to measure, clutchiness? It's just shoved down everyone's throats by the media, so people use it.

When dd the Reds get a hit w/RISP? Am I an inning behind?

Why wasn't anyone tallying hits w/RIsP yesterday? And Cam's RBI double doesn't count just cus. I know, how about we just focus on what actually matters, runs scored. By that measure, the Brewers' offense is above average.

Counsell against a RHer at 2B doesn't bother me at all. He's night and day better defensively than other 2 options. But Weeks and Durham are both defensive liabilities. I don't think Branyan is anywhere near that bad.

Yes, as fans, we allow ourselves to create and cultivate an irrational emotional attatchment to a sports team. Their success is our success. Their failures can ruin an evening. I don't see how being a fan of a team and being able to objectively discuss topics about that team is mutually exclusive, though. Sure, we all have our biases. None of us can ever be 100% objective about anything. But if you've called for half the team to be DFA'd by August, you probably aren't even trying to think rationaly. The way I see it, the vent thread and (to a lesser degree) the IGT are there to let you express yourself emotionally about your beloved team. But when people are trying engage in thoughtful discussions on a particular topic, adding a one line post about some player being "garbage" is adding nothing to the conversation.

I'm not sure that counsell shoudl be starting but I bet the difference in SLG compared to defense means very little in the Brewers win percentages. Counsell is probabaly about the same as the other crappy 3B we have. Counsell projects to have about the same OBP as Branyan and a SLG around 140 points lower. I won't pretend to have crunched any numbers but I find it hard to believe that their defensive difference at 3B makes up that kind of offensive gap. Am I being generous for calling Branyan a defensively average 3B at this point? And sure, we aren't talking about a big difference in win% over 20 starts but you could say the same thing about starting Rivera over Fielder as well. Doesn't mean you shouldn't maximize the talent on the field.

Counsell has been having good AB's and has a nice OBP. That's why he's been getting some starts. They feel they have plenty of pop. And he's the best defender as well. The guy has averaged a sub .330 OBP over the last 3 years and no power. He had an OPS of .460 in July. And if it was his 3 singles in 8 AB in in his first two appearances in August that justified giving him 2 starts in a row at 3B, we are in big trouble. I would assume Ned will go with the hot hand there, with Hall starting vs all lefties. Do you advocate that kind of thinking?

This is getting interesting.....

i thought you could just copy-paste but it usually doesn't look good. I just cheat and "print screen" and image.

You know, if Fielder had maybe given Parra a quick shove or clenched him, I might be able to go with you. But what he did was just pure anger and Parra could easily have gotten hurt. Not cool.

I have no problem with Counsell being a defensive replacement in the 9th inning at 3B or 2B. I love his defense and think he's a great utility player. But him starting at 3B with Hall and Branyan in the wings is just an absolute joke, IMO.

With Counsell starting to get more and more starts at 3B, I think it's fair to question what is Yost's and Melvin's plan for that position over the last 48 games. What the heck is going on? Counsell is still a plus defender. I don't think there's any question that he's easily the best defender of the three. But his offense is just TERRIBLE. Brewcrewball.com posted some updated Marcel projections at the all star break. Here are Hall's and Branyan's: Hall: .260/.326/.465/.791 Branyan: .236/.322/.469/.791 Counsell? I don't really need a projection. I'll simply show you two things: Career: .257/.342/.346/.688 2008: .241/.331/.323/.654 Someone tell me. What am I missing? And if the phrase, "quality AB" has to be used... Either use a straight platoon with Hall and Branyan or give Branyan a couple starts against RHers a week. Counsell should be getting ZERO starts at 3B. Not even close.

Sheets (I think it's love) Yo! hart Hart Branyan CC would be in there but he doesn't really feel like a Brewer. Just a hired mercenary. I respect Braun as a player. I'm happy he signed the extension and I root for him to succeed every time he's up there. I just don't like him that much.

Is there less actual interesting discussion these days, or is it just drowned out by all the noise? I doubt there was less interesting discussion, as the userbase was only a fraction of what it is today. It's the ratio of good to bad has just drastically changed, IMO. Rolling with the site's growth is the biggest challenge we've faced to date. We've implemented more rigid rules, and made it more challenging to apply for access (you now have to fill out an application, where we expect something more than "YOST BLOWZ! LET ME IN!". We've added a slew of moderators as well, as the sheer volume of posting has become overwhelming to moderate. I really, really feel that changes need to be made within the userbase. I'd prefer that it would be communicating to users what our expectations are, but obviously removing users is an option on the table. You guys do a great job. I know I wouldn't want your job. My beef has never been with the moderating here. Heck, I've gotten my wrists slapped a few times and I deserved it every time. Maybe I just need to grow a thicker skin.

Bucksman, how much was our bet for again? That's right, you were just yapping.