rluzinski

But besides that, the things that really seem to matter like home vs. road splits and strength of schedule suggest that they will give us a chance. Did someone look at the SOS of the remaining games? As for the home/away games, it's not going to make much difference. A couple games maybe, and IMO, I'm being generous.

Im saying he is frustrating because he is hitting .246 since last year. First, you are still using the wrong tools to try and measure offensive value. Second, he's had a total of 163 AB last year and has been great over a palty 13 AB this year. Let's not try and spin that and act like he's been bad for 2 years now! Let's be objective. His 2008 Marcel projection (only uses 2005 to 2007 stats): .237 / .336 / .452 / .788 That projection is based off a mostly AB where Branyan had the platoon advantage, so no need to adjust it to his current role. Petco Park might hurt that projection a bit as well but that's probably nitpicking. SO, let's just call that his expected performance for this year in a platoon. Is that great? Nope. Is it terrible? Nope, although you would conclude that it is, if you only looked at BA. The average NL 3B hit a little better than that in 2007 (which includes backups), so to expect even average performance from Branyan this year is probably pushing it. The only real measuring stick should be against this, though: Is it better than Hall's expected performance against RH pitchers? Unfortunately, the answer is, probably.

ERA is what goes up when players call the official scorer and get him to remove their error. Down with ERA!

I think this is a "must lose" game. Think about it. If they win this won, they'll probably will win tomorrow (with Sheets), which means they will obviously not have the killer instinct to get the sweep on Sunday. If they lose today and win tomorrow, they'll be able to win on Sunday and have the needed momentum to do well in the upcoming series against Arizona. In other words: momentum - killer insinct > killer instinct + Doug Davis ("cashed arm" version, not the cancer survivor one)

"Pretty ABs" and Success are not mutually exclusive. Correct. I'd love to have my entire team filled with great hitters that also have very entertaining ABs. If I have to choose one or the other, however, I'll take the guy who regularily flails at the first 3 pitches if his overall production is better. Some fans can't seperate the two and usually come to the conclusion that Adam Dunn is overated.

Branyan has hit into only one career double play. It occured when a CFer brought a would-be HR back into the park and doubled up the runner who had already crossed home play. True story.

Ok maybe garbage is a little harsh, he is just so frustrating. What's more important to you? Your team having the best chance to win or their batters having the most entertaining ABs? I'd love them to be the same thing but often they are not in MLB.

Why do people hate descriptive titles so much?

Edit: After looking at it again, did I understand the situation correctly? Does the chart mean the "CS" is the guy going from 1st to 2nd, the guy going from 3rd to home, or both? I would think it's any "CS" event occurring in that situation, so both. I suspect that most are the 1st to 2nd variety. You should be able to check those numbers using this: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html 1.243 (1 & 2,1 out) - .387 (3, 2 out) = .856 (compared to the .95 of the previous table). Probably a few of those CS were the 3-H variety, which would be more costly? EDIT: From checking the chart rluz shared, the safe SB was a .38, but a CS there would have been a -.60. Nearly double the value, but in the negative direction! Yikes. Boy am I glad Hall was safe. Really, in that case, RE is pretty inconsequential. You only need 1 run. You are better off looking this: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html Runner on 2B with 1 out scores at least 1 run 41% of the time. Runner on 3B with 1 out scores at least 1 run 66% of the time. No runner and 2 out scores at least 1 run 8% of the time. Turn that into win%: Chance of winning before SB: 71% (50% + .5 x 42%) Chance of winning after SB: 83% (50% + .5 x 66%) Chance of winning after CS: 54% (50% + .5 x 8%) That agrees with the actual results pretty well: http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search/?start_year=1977&end_year=2006&team=H&inning=9&outs=1&expectancy[bases]=2&scorediff=0 A SB adds 12% to the win%, a CS subtracts 29%. If I'm doing to right, a CS is 2.4 times more costly than a SB is beneficial. You better be darn certain your SB attempt is going to succeed in that situation.

My problem with valuing stolen bases and speed in general is the pressure it puts on the pitcher. Is the pitcher going to be less apt to throw a breaking ball when the delivery to the plate needs to be quicker?... Does it take pitchouts and the free ball it gives the batter into account? I'm really not sure how you can formulate that... I don't think it's a HUGE part of the game, but I don't think it gets enough credit in statistical circles. Studies that have tried to make all the necessary adjustments and have come to a surprising situation. On average, whatever the negative effect that basestealer has on the pitcher's performance is apparently not as large as the negative effect that it has on the batter. If I remember correctly, having any base runner at 1B helps the batter by opening a hole (especially for left handers), so that adjustment is made. when you just focus on the base stealing specialists, the average batting performance goes down. Now, I can't seem to find that article but here's one that concludes the effect is probably real but very small: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/base-stealer-intangibles-part-1/ http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/printarticle/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/ Of course, that's "on average". I'm sure there are some pitchers that suffer more on average (although it might be hard to determine who because of sample size issues) and I'm sure there are some batters who could give a darn (did i read that vets ignore base runners on average)? Either way, we are talking about a run here or a run there. Not as large as common sense might suggest. I hope someone else is aware of the studies I recall but can't find.

But as that study points out, the called strike zone covers more area that the textbook one, especially for Rh batters. I'd assume that fact hurts the offense but it depends on what part of the 'contested" strike zone that batters get the most production from.

Does his vegetarian diet cause him to hit more groundsballs as well: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/4613_1B_season_full_9_20080528.png So, he's hit only half the mount of HRs that we would have expected so far and his FB rate is down about 12%. It's fair ro say that he's displayed less pwoer so far. Whether he actually HAS less power is impossible to say. Using straight statistics, if I had to guess how many HRs he'll finish with, I'd probably start by just looking at his preseason projection (Marcel says 33 in 521 AB) and assume he'll hit at that for the rest of the year. That means he should already have 12 HR but really only has 6. He'll have, what, maybe another 375 AB? That's about 23 HRs added to his current 6. That's 29 HRs if we think his power production this year has been a complete fluke and does not justify adjusting his projection. In actuality, we have to adjust our expectations down going forward somewhat? 25?

Opening Day 2005 The 480' was in 2004. No video that far back.

He is a super sub but he had a good 2-3 months and still is living off of that. I'm no Hall appologist but that's a load of crap.

You mean nothing magical except the chance to strikeout 5 times vs. 4? Good point. Cameron should lead off!

Well, unless there's a K/wildpitch, at least they can't strike out more than 14 times!

So you like Weeks at the leadoff spot? He's going to bat somewhere in the lineup, so what's the difference? Kendall or Hardy aren't much better anyway. Nothing magical about the leadoff spot, guys.

I would think the opposite. If it actually lands somewhere, you can easily measure the distance from home plate. If it hits way up on a wall, that is where you have problems. There isn't a video of where the ball even lands at Miller Park, is there? The only time I've seen an outside view is during the home run derby. This place tries to be more exact about the calculations: http://www.hittrackeronline.com/index.php?h=MIL&p=&b= They only have 5% of 2005 done and I can't find the Branyan HR.

The Maddux one is the one I was referencing, how accurate is 480' though? It's definately just an estimate. They note where the ball lands and try to adjust for its trajectory. If it lands outside the park, it's more of a guess than anything else.

I thought he hit Hardy's name, not his own? The story is already epic enough! No need for embelishment!

I'm tired of these strikeouts A dribbler to 1B would have made you feel better?

Back to back sac flies...6-3! Heh, and 4 outs.

I'm just going to pretend that the running miscue didn't happen and Branyan's walk just loaded the bases for Hardy. Come on. Grand Slam!!!

Once agian the teams lack of fundamentals shows right through. Why do these plays constantly happen with the Brewers but not with good teams. O come on now. We's seen other teams run into all kinds of outs already this year. Pujols had 3 in one game, didn't he? Are the Brewers worse than average? Maybe but no team doesn't look foolish at times.

All of the sudden, McClung has a 4.80 ERA and is a terrible pitcher again. But he was hot. Gatta ride the hot hand.