Jump to content
Want to get your head around free agents the WORLD CHAMPION Brewers can spend on this winter? Click here and check out our top 75 free agents ranking! ×
Brewer Fanatic

rluzinski

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. rluzinski
    I just set the burden of truth a lot higher than most you guys. Especially when we are talking about accepting something that is highly unusual in baseball. Two months ago, people were questioning why Bush should even start, since it was all but proven that he shouldn't even be on the 25 man roster. Now he should start but it's obvious that he'll contune to struggle on the road but do well at home? I.m just not buying it. That said, as others have pointed aout, it's a moot point for the time being.
  2. rluzinski
    "They're bad: Hitting during the evening. In 57 night games, the Brewers have scored 236 runs. In 41 during the day, they've scored 228." No pretenders in this group NooOOooOOOooOOOOO! (fixed link --1992)
  3. rluzinski
    I would have to think the Brewers are the favorites to win the division and have home field advantage in the NL Is it because the Cubs have the better record or more runs scored or a better team ERA that makes you say that? The Cubs are by no means lock but let's keep things in perspective.
  4. rluzinski
    I can't say for certain whether the split is random or for a good reason, but I know what my guess would be. I can find you a million odd splits in baseball that have no rational explanation. Of course, there's usually a reason why there's no rational explanation. But I think the odds are with both of them doing about the same. McClung has a 4.39 ERA as a starter this year in 55 1/3 IP this year. He has a 4.63 FIP overall this year. He has a career ERA of 5.71. He may very well have reinvented himself into a decent starter this year. I don't pretend to know for certain. I certainly don't think there's a lot of evidence yet that he has, though. Personally, I'd take Bush's 4.51 career ERA and be happy with stashing McClung in the pen. He could improve a bad bullpen and perhaps be a decent fill in if someone in the rotation gets hurt. Instead, we hurt the bullpen and chase funny splits. No thanks.
  5. rluzinski
    Should we be cheering for the Cubs to further distance the Dbacks from the wild card race? Naa, just the Cardinals and Mets. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif
  6. rluzinski
    My personal goal was for the Brewers to win at least 1 of the first 2 games, so this win sure felt good to me. It's a longshot that the Brewers losing both of the final two games of this series (maybe 15%?), so a 3-1 series is looking like a pretty reasonable hope right aim right now. Trowekamp... I think in general 10 runs = 1 win. I'm of the opinion the number is a little closer to 9, but I think Russ would tell you it's 10. I would tell you that it's only a rule of thumb. You want to use 11 or 9 and depending on the run environment, you might be right. And as for what Weeks is worth.... He's been a below average player but he has not cost the Brewers 10 wins. 10 wins is HUGE number in baseball.
  7. rluzinski
    I thought the Cardinals never make mistakes?
  8. rluzinski
    Come on Yost. Make Torres pitch 2 complete innings? Make him pitch bat with an insurance run at 2B? I never understand it.
  9. rluzinski
    BILLY! Who gets the save chance? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
  10. rluzinski
    Torres vs. the bottom of the order. What could go wrong!?
  11. rluzinski
    "Those projections are just interesting to the extent that you can compare what they say now to what it looks like at the end of the season. For me anyway they have no meaning beyond that. I certainly don't feel that they're telling me anything right now. They're just a fun toy to me. Some of you are taking it way too seriously." They tell you more than just looking at the current season's stats, which is why I brought them up in the first place.
  12. rluzinski
    I don't think you've even bothered reading anything about the projections. All they are is a weighted average of prior year's stats, regressed and adjusted for age. That's it. Any attempt at measuring the talent of a player should start with that. Fans like to start with current season stats, which is a bad foundation. And even if a projection system magically knew every player's true skill level, they would still look very innacurate because of sample error. I don't know how many times this has to be said but no one claims that they are a crystal ball. Not even close.
  13. rluzinski
    Maybe Durham won't maintain the .385 OBP he currently has on the season The odds of him keeping an OBP THAT high are very low. Then why aren't they advisers of GM's or something? To my knowledge, this guy just sits in his basement and plugs numbers, but maybe he actually does work for a team or something. On this matter, your knowledge is lacking. Marcel is not a person: "Actually, it is the most basic forecasting system you can have, that uses as little intelligence as possible. So, that's the allusion to the monkey. It uses 3 years of MLB data, with the most recent data weighted heavier. It regresses towards the mean. And it has an age factor." http://www.tangotiger.net/marcel/ Every projection system needs to at least understand sample error, something this system takes into account and most baseball fans know nothing about. At this point, it's fair to assume that the majority of GMs have statistical advisers, to one degree or another. Do your homework. I'll bet you 5 bf.net dollars that he does better than those projections though for the fun of it. What makes you think I want the under?
  14. rluzinski
    So do these stat people just like to discount 263 AB's in 2008 where Durham did a hell of a lot better than that? They are updated for the current seasons stats. If they weren't, Weeks' projection would have been better and Durhams worse. If guys like Marcel are so good at predicting the future, why aren't they GM's? the Marcel projection is a weighted average of each player's stats over the last three years, adjusted for age. Nothing crazy about it. Just common sense. Every GM should be starting with something very similar when trying to guess future expected performances. To it, I'm sure they add a lot of additional information, as they should. A smart GM should be able to beat Marcel the monkey over the long haul. Even the fans (as a group) can beat it (although, their advantage is subtle). It's just a nice, objective, solid foundation for these kind of conversations. What is not a solid foundation is quoting a guys numbers over the first 90-some games of a season.
  15. rluzinski
    Current win%: .561 Expected road win%: (based on MLB average team over the last decade or so: .541% Works out to an expected road record of about 27-23. Within 3 wins of expected.
  16. rluzinski
    If anything, I could see this just putting more pressure on Weeks. Unless people are questioning his work ethic, I can't see any other reason to think this should make Weeks play better.
  17. rluzinski
    Updated Marcel Projections: Durham: .259 / .335 / .412 / .747 Weeks: .247 / .353 / .409 / .762 The fans' opinion of their defense: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/pos2007_2B.html Both Weeks and Durham are at the bottom of the barrel, although Weeks holds a slight advantage. And considering Weeks is a decade younger than the other, I think it's fair to say that the gap has probably widened a bit more this year. I'm sure there are many who would scoff at that projection for Durham. Basically, it comes down to 1. Whether you think what a batter did 4+ years ago tells you anything about his future expected performance 2. Whether a season's worth of stats can and should be ignored if it is clearly an outlier to the rest of the seasons. Marcels says no on both counts. Unless I was 100% certain that a player was playing extremely hurt for an entire season, I wouldn't even think of removing an entire season from his projection. As a pinch batter and a once and awhile starter, I have no problem with this trade. If Durham is going to start getting majority of the starts at 2B, I think it's the wrong move. If the Brewers really believe that Weeks isn't going to get out of his funk this year, they should have just given Counsell all the starts against righties. At least you get the benefit of a huge defensive upgrade.
  18. rluzinski
    Someone needs to use that Hardballtimes spreadsheet to find Durham's updated Marcel projection, so we can start using some realistic numbers when trying to guss what to expect from him this year. Seeing that he's had nearly a .400 OPS against righties this year his not a way to set realistic expectations. Somehow, Melvin found a 2B who is expected to have even worse defense than Weeks? I'm thinking that we are going to hear a lot of cliches from Melvin when he tries to justify this move..
  19. rluzinski
    Mike Cameron: .237/.329/.502/.831 He's now easily beating his preseason projection from every major projection system. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif And $6 mil for solid defense and above average offense (for his position) is a steal. Who the hell called him an "offensive juggernaut", anyway? You get the exaggeration trophy for the week.
  20. rluzinski
    Playoff teams beat teams with losing records. Tom Haudricourt Did he really say that?
  21. rluzinski
    What a silly, silly idea. McClung doesn't exactly set the bar very high to begin with. I think it will be abandoned by the end of the month for sure. Does this mean that Bush can't even be used in the bullpen? Since they are on the road, he'll obviously do terrible, right?
  22. rluzinski
    You think that a projection, which incorporates the 08 ERA has "minimal value". The opposite is really true, which (as I've said) is big part of the probem' Fans rely way to much on current season's ERA. They see a 5+ ERA on a guy in June and he must be bad. That just isn't true. And it used to be that people complained about the Crew "always" struggling soft tossing lefties. Now it's righties. I would expect the Brewer to do worse against any righty, obviously. If someone wants to chart how well the Brewers have done against bad RH pitchers the last 2, get at it. I'm done chasing a moving target.
  23. rluzinski
    1999 Milwaukee Brewers $250,000 2000 Detroit Tigers $1,000,000 2001 Boston Red Sox $4,500,000 2002 Los Angeles Dodgers $4,500,000 2003 Los Angeles Dodgers $7,750,000 2004 Los Angeles Dodgers $9,000,000 I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he made the right move by leaving Milwaukee.
  24. rluzinski
    That seems arbitrary. A decline from 27 to 35 perhaps, but not from 34 to 35. You should expect a marginal decline in true talent every year after around 29-30. It's just not going to show itself so perfectly over a 600 AB season. Cam's OBP is a little lower than his projection Yep. Again, no one is saying he sucks. It's kind of odd that you didn't copy the part that says that his higher than expected SLG makes up for that. No big deal that you aren't satisfied with his offensive numbers but they aren't worse than his projection predicted.
  25. rluzinski
    I'm sure some major leaguers are anti-clutch to some degree. It's just tough to find statistical evidence of it when the anti-clutch isn't dramatic. I suppose that, in an AB in VERY important situation (in a clutch situation in the playoffs, for instance), a player could be terribly anti-clutch. You could just never prove it, statistically.
×
×
  • Create New...