rluzinski

Has the league figured out Sheets, so to speak? And by that I mean, has the league figured out how to not look foolish by Sheets' curve, to which Sheets has adapted in order to remain successful I think it's pretty obvious that Sheets has struggled with his command at times this year. He's been in the league for years, so the idea that the league has just "figured him out" this year doesn't make much sense, IMO. Strikeouts aren't "better" outs for pitchers; it's just that they are good indicators of future success. K's are better because they are an out almost 100% of the time. A ball in play results in an out about 70% of the time.

Good to see Brewerfan nation isn't over reacting over one loss.... The game sucked! New game tomorrow!

I'd like to think Melvin could do something more with $9 mil, personally. How about toll that over to the 2009 budget and resign Sheets?

This sure is a nice way to start the series. The only thing I "demand" of the Brewers this series is to take at one. They are well on their way. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

There is very clearly one case the IBB. the 8th spot clearly boosts walks, and any place where you have a big dropoff in production is a case were you might see an IBB spike Bonds having been the most dramatic example. Yes, IBB do go up for the big boppers that aren't protected. I've mentioned it elsewhere but should have said as much here. Like end said, we could make the argument that Hart is being protected by Hardy: #1: 1.125 OPS Of course, it's more likely that it's just a coincidence.

Since 1977, home teams have won 54% of their games: =0&scorediff=http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/alien.gif LINK It's why I add 4% to my series win probabilities to the home team. Why do they have an advantage? I remember reading that it had nothing to with the "batting second" advantage but I can't find the link and could be completely wrong. I've always attributed it to the psychological advantage.

I'm not stating that if there is a big discrepancy in Hardy's numbers that it conclusively proves anything, just that I think there IS a big discrepancy there, contrary to what Russ is saying. I'm not saying there isn't a discrepancy, just that we can't assume it was a result of batting before Fielder (correlation doesn't automatically mean causation). If Hardy had stayed in the 3 spot he almost certainly would have seen his number go down anyway. I mean, he was on pace to hit 50 HRs or something ridiculous. Again, I can't prove anything either way but I'm not going to just give Fielder credit for inflating Hardy's or Braun's numbers. How come when shaky numbers support a given theory, they are embraced as proof but well done studies that go against traditional baseball thinking, are scoffed at? Kind of convenient, no? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif If anyone is curious, here's the 2006 averages by position in the batting order: [b] BA OBP SLG OPS[/b] #1 .279 .343 .418 .762 #2 .284 .345 .425 .769 #3 .284 .364 .485 .849 #4 .283 .371 .502 .874 #5 .280 .351 .477 .828 #6 .268 .329 .439 .769 #7 .267 .323 .426 .749 #8 .256 .321 .383 .704Really, the issue of protection is yet another baseball anomaly. That is, it makes perfect sense in reality, but not on paper. Just about all "traditional baseball thinking" makes perfect sense and sounds completely reasonable. That doesn't mean the net effect that's assumed is correct. A pitcher being distracted by a base stealer come to mind. It may be true that a pitcher gets distracted but why not also the batter? And if the batter is being distracted more, the net effect would be to actually help the pitcher. Or maybe, the pitcher decides to dig a little deeper and add a couple ticks to his fastball, since getting Braun out is that much more important. Anecdotally, we've all witnessed a pitcher give a little extra to try and get an important out.

It's not exactly that simple. I've seen some studies suggest that the #3 hitter should be a little weaker (they come up most often with 2 outs, after all). Also, it does pay to have more walks in the ! and #2 spot. The biggest sin the traditional lineup commits is having a relatively weak batter in the #2 spot. Really, it doesn't make much difference anyway, though.

I've read several studies on this subject of protection and all have found about the same thing, not much. There might be some effects but nothing that has been picked up statistically. It's fair to say that the effect is typically grossly overstated by announcers and fans. Here's a link to a study that tried to find evidence of protection: LINK He sums his conclusions as: Maybe Fielder is helping Hardy and Bruan but we shouldn't just assume that he is. The effect just isn't pronounced enough. Of course, if Prince isn't protected himself, he might be intentionally walked more often, which isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Here's a Ken Rosenthal article on the subject. He takes a more diplomatic stance on the topic: LINK

Hart really has no chance. Timing is a big part of getting all-star recognition. Really, there's so many things that go into who makes it that has nothing to do with actual talent that it makes the whole thing pretty silly to begin with. I guess that's why I don't get too excited over Brewer players going. It just means those players will be more expensive to resign.

Lot's of teams have one good half and one bad half. Fans love to just guess at why that is but it's nothing more than that; a guess.

If the Brewers hadn't blown those 2 games in Texas, they'd have a winning record on the road and we probably wouldn't even be talking about this. Tiger fans are probably wondering why their team is doing so much better on the road this year. There might be a specific reason or it might just be dumb luck. Sometimes it HAS to be just luck.

Here's some raw numbers: [b] Record RS/G RA/G Pyth Rec[/b] Home 30 - 13 5.3 3.8 28 - 15 Road 16 - 19 4.4 5.0 16 - 19As for why it's been so pronounced, I don't know if it has anything to do with the makeup of the team. Could just be a coincidence. EDIT: How do we isolate the variables and come close to an actual answer? I'd submit that only Russ knows for sure! There's already a lot of uncertainty with a team's record after only 78 games. Take a pretend team that had exactly a 50% chance of winning all of their 78 games. While you'd expect a 39-39 record, there would be 1 in 3 chance they'd have over 43 wins or under 35 wins. Now you want to analysis to samples half that size? Statistical noise could be the only reason (although it's only one possible explanation). Anyone have the strength of schedule home and away?

Run, Forest!

I remember this chant/mantra from last year when everyone assured me he wouldn't be back for '07. You didn't hear it from me and that was a completely different situation anyway. Jenkins had guaranteed contract for 2007. The only guaranteed money for 2008 is a $500k buyout.

We don't have to pick that up, it is a club option. I think end meant that Griffey would be unlikely to accept a trade to a team that didn't pick up the option right away. and I think if we can afford to pick up the option on Jenks in 2008, we can afford Griffey. I don't think we'll see Jenkins or Mench on the team next year.

No matter how you slice it Griffey is an upgrade over Jenkins+Mench -- looking at the whole year or the last couple of months. Most likely, sure. But Griffey is 37 and a year removed from an .801 OPS. It's a stretch to assume Griffey will finish with a .960+ OPS this year. Going forward, I might expect a .900 OPS from Griffey and maybe a .825 OPS from our LF platoon. Of course, I'd also expect some kind of injury to Griffey as well...

When does LaRussa have to pick the starting pitchers? Sheets has two more starts before the all star break. If he has 11 wins by then, he's in.

How ever in 2008 Jenks+Mench > Griffey. ($$wise) so we could afford Griffey in 2008 and 2009. You are comparing guaranteed money to non-guaranteed. When you are talking about an injury prone 37 year old outfielder owed at least $16.5 mil more, that can't be ignored. The Brewers owe Jenkins and Mench a guaranteed $500k after this year. It's quite possible neither are with the team next year. Huge difference. Jenkins OBP has dropped off from April, as well as his SLG -- He did have 6 HRs in May so that helped out a lot -- but currently in June he is a .741 corner OF that is platooned with a .678 OF -- both supposedly getting favorable ABs. Griffey had a .770 OPS in April. You could say that he turned it around or you can accept that stats fluctuate wildly from month to month. It makes more sense to just look at the entire year's worth of stats, IMO.

This series is a lot more important to the Cubs than it is the Brewers. The Cubs basically need to sweep the Brewers to make any significant headway on the division race. I'd love YO! to take this first game, since it means the Cubs couldn't be any closer than 6.5 games back by the end of the series. It would also been Big Ben could sew up the series win on Saturday.

Matt Wise Career vs, Lefties: 137 IP, 104K, 39 BB, 217 BAA Wise should be the one brought in for the especially tough lefties but is also good enough to finish the inning. Shouse should be used as a strict LOOGY (one batter and done). Villy (2+ inning situations), Yo, Turnbow and Cocco the main arms in the pen, with Spurling filling in lower leverage situations.. Latin Cappy sent back to AAA. For the playoffs, you'll essentially have 1.5 of the starters in the pen, so there's even more quality arms in the bullpen. I just don't see why the Brewers need to trade for bullpen help. Other than adding a RH corner outfield bat, I can't see how Melvin can really easily strengthen this team.

A little off topic but his goofy approach gives him a BABIP similar to what you might expect form a knuckleballer: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/42_P_season_full_7_20070627.png

How many stars would you give Wise with regard to being able to get lefties out?

Pretend he wrote 15 minutes. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Somehow i feel that having Prince behind him doesnt hurt either. I think it's pretty over stated, though.