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
-
Because the idea that you can identify when a pitcher is off simply based off the results of the first few batter's faced is largely a myth. RR was rewarded for sticking with Loe.
-
It's the young starting pitchers that lead me to believe the Brewers CAN compete next year. "Compete" is a highly subjective term of course. As I said in the Wolf thread, if a team projects to be around 85 wins, they have a chance to compete in my book. Others may set the threshold higher and I certainly won't call them wrong. Some key updated ZiPS projections and 2013 salaries: Fiers: 3.24 ERA ($0.5 mil) Gallardo: 3.75 ERA ($7.5 mil) Estrada: 4.13 ERA ($0.5 mil) Peralta/Thornburg?: 4.75 ERA ($0.5 mil) Free Agent: 4.25 ERA ($10 mil) That's about a 4.0 ERA starting rotation for $19 mil. A league average starting rotation for $19 mil is awesome if that scenario plays out. It will probably give Melvin some money to bolster the bullpen and perhaps get another outfielder.
-
The Brewers have too many xfactors. Too many xfactors = need luck - young SP's that we don't know how they'll pan out. - don't know how (or even if) Doug will fix the bullpen Maybe we have a different definition of luck but having a higher uncertainty in your projections of younger players doesn't mean you need luck for them to pan out. They have as good of a chance of exceeding our expectations (provided we have an unbiased expectations to begin with). And as I said, I am assuming that Melvin (like any other GM) can pay the going rate for free agents to fill in the gaps. Really, I think the Brewers' 25 man roster for 2013 is closer to being set than many other teams. The starting 8 position players may already be decided. 3 spots in the rotation are locks, with another spot probably taken by one of the other young guys.
-
Non-out play made by an infielder certainly has a lower run value than a non-out play made by an outfielder but the difference isn't as large as you might think. First, we can simply look at the average run value of typical baseball events (I'll keep the numbers simple): out: -.3 1B: .5 2B: .8 So when you add it up, a non-out that results in a single is worth around .8 runs and one that results in a double is around 1.1 runs, relative to making an out. Second, while more non-outs by an outfielder results in a double than for an infielder, it's not 100%/0%, obviously. A 3B showing poor range to his right is obviously going to up the number of doubles he gives up. So maybe a play not made by an infielder is worth something like .9 runs and for an oufielder, 1 run. I don't know what the exact numbers are but the point is, it's not insignificant but it's not huge either. Maybe the more important point is, fielding opportunities vary dramatically by position. If lack of range causes you to get to 10% less balls, you have to know the total number of balls that went through your zone to estimate a run value of being slower. Long story short, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that range in the outfield is more valuable than in the infield. We'd have to look at it by position and even then, it might be hard to draw any firm conclusions.
-
I'm not assuming that all the under performing players will play better and all the over performing players will continue to over perform in 2013. That would be assuming some luck. My expectations of players for 2013 are based largely on projections. Those projections anticipate some regression (both up and down). Players should have a 50% chance of being above or below that. I'm also assuming that Melvin can get fair market value for the wins he will be trying to buy in free agency (e.g. starting pitcher, relievers). That is being neither optimistic or pessimistic. Again, I have not done any kind of comprehensive study on this but I suspect the Brewers can get to an objective, unbiased 85+ win projection for 2013.
-
I don't see why we have to assume the Brewers have to get lucky to be able to compete next year. My definition of being able to compete is an 85 win projection. That gives you something like a 35% chance of making the playoffs (and no, I'm not including the one game playoff). I haven't done any calculations or anything but I suspect the Brewers might be a starting pitcher and a few relievers away from that. Just looking at some updated projections for some current Brewers, things look interesting.
-
That's pretty close to an average starting pitcher that gets around $8 mil a year in free agency. If you have 5 starting pitchers that haven't hit free agency and are all at least average, you are doing really well for yourself. If you talking about an ace who is twice as good as a an average starting pitcher, it's really dependent on how many decent starting pitchers a team has and what they are paying for them.
-
I suspect that the Brewer told Wolf that they would be using his spot in the rotation to audition some younger guys. They may have given him the option of going into the bullpen or being released and choose to be released. Just guessing though, obviously. I would rather have Wolf in the pen that Hernandez, for sure. Personally, I couldn't care less about under-performing players being "held accountable" for bad play. I only care about the Brewers doing what's in their best interest going foward.
-
Everyone knows that less errors are better. Everyone knows that a higher fielding percentage is better. The point is that it is just one part of what makes a fielder good or bad; not screwing up routine plays.
-
Just like the voters. Add in that he's having a good offensive season and there's no reason for him not to be considered. Well, if we are just talking about what the voters do, they care about three things: 1. Hitting Prowess 2. Errors 3. Previous Fielding Reputation I believe that ARam has little chance because of #3.
-
I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.
-
The "Most Valuable Player" award has everything to do with context of performance, so there is no contradiction. Everyone knows it's not the "Highest Projected Context Neutral Performance Player" award. I think "MVP is a slightly more elegant name than "HPCNPP" anyway. Cameron is saying that Cabrera has performed very well in clutch situations this year. He is not saying that Cabrera has a clutch skill that we should expect him to exhibit for years to come.
-
Extrapolation of a handful of AB over 3 years (and omitting his 2012 data from Arizona because it doesn't support your argument). That's at least 3 statistical rules being broken. Let's see how many major league AB we are talking about here: 2009: 79 AB 2010: 42 AB 2011: 33 AB I am looking at all the data (including what he's done in the minors) to come to the conclusion that we should expect him to hit OK for a back up SS (which isn't saying much). His rest-of-season ZiPS projection is .211/.290/.400. He might get another 50 AB with the Brewers this year. Inconsequential. Again, you quoted Ransom's numbers with the Brewers this year and suggested that it is your expectation for him going forward. Not exactly a hard sell to call that faulty logic. Now, let's start focusing on what REALLY is the cause of the Brewers' 2012 woes, Garth Iorg!
-
Your expectation for Ransom going forward is simply what he's done for the Brewers in 155 AB this year? You just ignore everything else he's done in his career, including what he did this year with a different team? What kind of logic is that? Ransom isn't anything special but he's maybe a .300/.400 batter and an average defensive SS. That isn't bad at all for a backup. If your expectation is higher, you need to do some benchmarking.
-
Carlos Gonzalez: the Coors Field wonder
rluzinski replied to The stache's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
My simulator in Miller Park has Braun a little better against lefties than Gonzalez against righties. Of course, as a lefty hitter, Gonzalez gets to have the platoon advantage much more often. -
The average SS has a terrible stick. Ransom starting at 2B or 3B is pretty painful but as a backup SS, who cares?
-
It was raining for 5 min before the roof even started to close. So now I'm stuck here wet while watching Wolf suck.
-
Wow, 5th row behind home plate to watch Wolf start and Ransom/Ish at 3B/1B. Thanks RR. Depressing.
-
Statistical studies suggest that players peak around 27 OFFENSIVELY. Other studies suggest that defensive peaks occur very early in a player's career. I don't know how steep the average decline is though.
-
I agree that we should get back on topic. A moderator could split off this clutch discussion into its own post. I will also point people to a couple of clutch threads in the statistical analysis forum: viewtopic.php?f=70&t=11661&p=317318&hilit=clutch#p317318 viewtopic.php?f=70&t=3849&p=147484&hilit=clutch#p147484 I believe that alien ghosts created the universe.
-
Let's not devolve this into a worthless semantic-based argument. If you want to define a clutch player as one who doesn't perform worse than their aggregate numbers in high leverage situations, more power to you. I do not believe that to be the generally accepted definition, however. To take out any of the ambiguity regarding how these studies define the term "clutch", they are looking for players that perform better than their average expected performance in high leverage situations. Again, semantics. I am acknowledging the fact that a high school player has a higher probability of choking than a professional player. I do not believe that baseball announcers are celebrating Jeter's ability not to completely choke when they claim he is clutch, however. That quality would not differentiate him from the vast majority of professional baseball players, after all. So, the average person thinks 99% of professional baseball players are clutch? We'll apparently have to agree to disagree about what is the standard definition of clutch in professional baseball. That appears to be the only thing we are disagreeing on with regard to this subject, really.
-
I agree 100%. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is more correct to say that there is little or no statistical evidence that "clutchiness" is a persistent skill in professional baseball. You do realize that the data being used is from games that were played by human beings, right? Data derived from simulations would only be useful for providing a "clutch-neutral" baseline. To their dismay? The gentlemen doing these kind of studies want nothing more than to find evidence of a clutch skill in certain players. It would increase their ability to predict individual performances Doesn't that describe every batter ever? Batters don't have to bat 1.000 in clutch situations to prove a clutch skill exists. They simply have to perform better than an average player to a statistically significant degree. I think that is both true and obvious, isn't it? These kind of studies are typically performed to gain insight regarding the expected performance of professional baseball players. We don't really care how they compare to some guy who played a couple of years of division 3 baseball.
-
I don't think Gomez is going to get much in a trade even if a GM thinks that he's arrived. They are only trading for one season of Gomez. Actually, until he recently figured out how to hit again, yes, he was part of our problem this year... By that definition, every batter has been part of the problem at least 60% of the time. The point is that while Weeks' aggregate stats aren't up to his standards, they aren't bad either.
-
I think you have it completely backwards. They've been outscored by 10 runs for the whole year. This team is not that bad at all. I think they have simply under performed and should be expected to be better going forward. But if you think they haven't hit the proverbial bottom, I will be happy to take the over on their current win %
-
Aramis's contract was very backloaded. The Brewers are on the hook for at least $30 mil for 2013 and 2014 (assuming they take the 2015 buyout). Unless we project him to be a 4 WAR player for the next two years, I don't think his contract looks very good going forward. I'd just keep trade Hart (or trade him at the 2013 deadline, assuming the Brewers aren't in contention). Why not then just fill those other holes mentioned above with prospects and hope that they pan out, while keeping the known commodities of Hart and Ramirez? I would only advocate trading them if the return is worth more than their net value. In Armis's case, I don't think he has any net value. If you traded him for nothing, you theoretically net the $4ish (WAG) negative net value his contract currently has. Of course, you need to find players that have a positive net value to make up for his loss.