TheCrew07

Bah... 81 runs in the midwest league? Boo for more editing issues.

Could you do your magic and find about Romanski like X mentioned? I know I wasn't the only one who wanted to see his name in a box score as something other than a DH?

I just had to get that out there early so I can be consistent... or something, and yes to hate on you slightly cause I figured that would get a rise out of you!

I vow to send daily complaints to Dish Network until they give me the MLB network. I don't care what package it goes in, I have the most expensive one anyway, just gimme my damn channel already. It seems that every time a channel I really want comes out, Dish is the last to add it but if the cooking channel 3 goes HD they're all over it.... scrubs. Yes I'm bitter, I was hoping to have it by opening day at least. Edit. Also I vow to stay firmly on the bandwagon of my boys and not jump ship like a rat when they struggle mightily for a month or two... Brent Brewer I'm sorry!

I want to say I'm surprised to see Cain in AA and Brewer in A+, but if they play well they'll get their respective bumps after the first half and in Brewer's case there's no reason to push with Escobar and Hardy in front of him. With a yearly progression that puts Brewer in AAA halfway through 2010 and with Hardy gone in 2011 the discussion about SS had the potential to be pretty interesting. I'll call my shot and say that if Escobar and Brewer are on the MLB roster together Brewer will be playing 2B or 3B.

Why does that have to be fans perspective vs that of a statistician? I would argue that a linear progression would take the grey area out of the various metrics. It should pretty obvious that all errors are not equal in their consequence or in the difficulty of making the play. Instead of side tracking this even further, I made a post here if you care to comment further.

I wanted to break this out into it's own thread. This is some "fan boy" opinion of the system, I've actually taken the time to understand how it was created and exactly what it does. I feel it leans too heavily towards range because it uses weighted averages that don't cancel out. UZR is primary based on fielding zones and uses retrosheet data as opposed to STATS data, if you're interested enough to care the differences are well documented elsewhere. To begin the following is from MGL's explanation of his metric. He's only working with the data that's available to him and I feel the zone concept is the main problem. Instead of true positioning data the 2 systems mentioned above provide zone data. This turns what could be an easy linear weighted system into weighted averages described below using ROE and non-ROE errors. If the data was provided relative to the position of the fielder, a very simple sliding scale would work wonderfully. Basically the calculations are all averages from the start. An average fielder makes so many plays in each, take the percentages either way for runs saved and bingo you have + or - runs for each zone. Again keep in mind that all this is done using weighted averages between runs and hits, etc. It's not possible to make the distinction between plays (easy or hard) so adjustments are made on the handedness of batter and pitcher, speed of ball, runners on base and outs, park factors, and G/F tendencies of the pitcher, Since the field is broken into zones, range and fielding must be configured separately, and the range factor is somewhat loosely cacluated based on the total number of plays. This isn't a flaw in the methods as much as it is the way the data is reported. If balls in play were recorded as + X from the fielder it would allow much simpler calculations at all relative ranges giving a much more exact set of data as well removing many of the adjustments, such as shifts for example. In part 2 he goes on to detail how the adjustments are done which is fairly fascinating in itself but outside the scope I want to discuss. Early on he's assigned essentially equal value to range and fielding, I'll agree that range is a fundamental component of defense, I don't personally feel it's as valuable as the ball being fielded. It doesn't how many balls a player can get to if he doesn't convert them into outs. The way UZR is constructed a player like Hall will come out as a + defender because range is considered an equal partner, when I feel range is only significant beyond "average". Since we're talking fielding zones there's no context and while intuitively it makes sense that the better range a player has the more outs they will convert, I'm just not sold that working the equation backwards gives you a true representation of range. This is why I would favor a sliding scale based on range... the closer the ball is to the fielder the greater the negative impact and the farther away from the fielder the greater the positive impact. This would allow for a true measure of the value range, as opposed to the communities' best guess. Lets say we're measuring by feet, is it reasonable to expect all MLB quality fielders at 3B to make a play on a ball 6 feet away? 7? How far out do we go until we reach + range, range beyond average? Shouldn't just the outs made at + range factor into the discussion about how valuable range is? At the + range we're also dealing with the fewest number of chances, meaning it's statistically less relevant in comparison to the rest of the leage, the plays made will determine good, to great, to elite defenders, but the percentage of plays will be relatively small. The small percentage of plays at range shouldn't make range approximately as value as actually making a play in my opinion. Unfortunately the data is what it is, and the metrics do the best they can with what they have, but I think it's certainly open to debate whether or not Hall is a + defender at 3B when his errR component of defense at 3B is -2.2 but his rngR is a 6.2. In fact, Bill doesn't have a single positive fielding calculation within UZR at any position in any year, range accounts for all his positive value as a defensive player as measured by UZR. Since I'm not convinced that range carries equal value to fielding, it's fair to debate whether or not Hall is actually a good defender and at the very least it's reasonable to question his poor fielding habits.

Hmm, at least Trejo and Lawrie are in the infield. Here's hoping a couple of pitchers move up to make room for the kids.

I have the feeling it's going to negatively impact my life in some way, like I'm worse off for having viewed it.

He might not have the instincts for it, but athletically he's capable of playing every position on the field, his scores were very good. His speed isn't elite, but it's adequate.

yea that's the same link i found, i'm sure it was here in the transaction thread as well, i just missed it. i'm intrigued though, and good catch on him getting some PT with Nashville. If he has a decent arm and power potential I'm really intrigued.

I guess let me ask you this... if it's proper to assign weight to how far away a ball is from a fielder then wouldn't be it fair to assign weight in reverse order for a ball that gets through? That's my point.. if you assign a weight to range, then you have to properly negatively weight the other side of the equation to balance it out. If you're going to give due credit for making the play (rightly so), then shouldn't we also heavily penalize for booting the easy play (rightly so)? It should be a sliding scale both ways should it not? A ball getting through a fielder should be a sliding scale from heavily penalized to least penalized the farther away from 0 we get. The reverse would be true for a play made, the farther away the ball is from 0, the greater the value of the play. Lets say a fielder makes 1 of 10 plays at max range, it is fair to only give him credit for the ball he caught? or do we assign a slight negative value for the 9 balls missed as well? What's fair? The only thing that shouldn't be balanced is a throw... Without even taking the negative consequences of a bad throw into account (the possible extra bases) because the next best alternative to an out is eating the ball which is typically scored a single. I would like to see metrics begin to include some situation weight with them... like when a 3B throws a DP ball into RF and the runners end up at 2nd and 3rd for example as opposed to the olay on the same possible which would only allows runners to move up 90 feet to 1st and 2nd. I realize part that becomes team orientated as in are the other players appropriately backing up the throws, but I hope you see my point.

X I know that name as a football player.. he got in trouble and lost his ride at Illinois didn't he? Did he play baseball as well? If so when did we pick him up? edit. Did my own research and wow it is the same guy. I wasn't sure what to make of his arrest at the time, the story was bizarre, including his initial refusal to take a plea deal and I quit following the story and lost track of him. I totally missed the signing this winter, he's obviously toolsy if he was a D1 WR, does he have any power? Wouldn't Helena make more sense than being a bench player in an already crowded TRat outfield?

All misplays are not equal because of the difficulty of the play, and what happens after it. If a fielder drops a double play ball, the offense was just given 2 more outs to work with in addition to putting a runner in scoring position. While it's a single misplay, the statistical significance of the error magnitudes greater than if the bases were empty. If a player makes a throwing error the runners will likely move up, where as if an infielder boots a ball generally the runners aren't able to take an extra base. In the same way generally speaking when an outfielder makes an error the runner is generally getting an extra base or 2. When all misplays are treated equally, the context of the situation is lost, thus baseball in a vacuum. This is basically the same issue I have with pitching analysis, the context of the pitch is lost, the intended location, did it hang, etc? I get that the sample sizes help filter the noise, but sample size doesn't eliminate it. Can we agree through playing experience that it's easier to field a ball hit within 1 step either way because you can easily place your body in front of the ball? Can we agree through playing experience that the farther away from your initial position the ball is hit, the harder it is to field? Can we agree that there is a certain range to the right and left that we expect all MLB position players to be able to make plays on, an average range if you will? Each position on the field will have a unique range associated with it, for lack of a better term I'll call it a box. Can we agree that majority of the defensive plays a position player will be asked to make will fall within that box to the right and left? If you'll agree to all of the questions above then will you agree that how a player defends his position should be based on where he has to make the greatest percentage of plays? If not then there's really nothing to discuss, because that's my whole point. Range isn't a skill as much as it is a tool... if you have 2 players who field their position equally within the "box" then I agree range and plays made outside of the box is the best way to determine who's the better defender. However, if player X fields his position equally crappy inside and outside of the box, the player shouldn't be rated a better defender because he can get to the occasional ball that player Y doesn't. What if Player Y has similar range as Player X, but didn't have as many opportunities to make plays outside the box because balls weren't hit there as much over the course of his career? Let's flip this around, why should the relatively small number of plays made beyond what a player who has average range will make be more statistically important than the plays made within the box? Because the degree of difficulty is higher? What's the statistical significance of a play made outside the box vs in? Why should the area of largest variance with the smallest number of plays be considered the most statistically significant factor in assessing someone's defense? Is that 1 extra step either way worth more than solid glove work? If so how? In Hall's case, I feel better about a ball he has to work hard to get to because he's not going to be nonchalant about it and he's not going to mess around holding the ball. He could be an excellent defender in the same way that he could be an excellent baseball player, but he's not, he's flash over substance. He likes to show off his arm, he'll be lazy (unfocused, nonchalant, whatever) and olay the ball hit right at him, but then he'll make the occasional fantastic diving play that very few other players will get to. I'm not sure how the fantastic carries more value than the routine, but it does in UZR. Also I'm using the term misplay because so many plays that should be errors aren't, like when an OF misjudges the ball initially, manages to get to it and get a glove on it but doesn't make the play. It's a play the OF "should" have made but instead at least 1 runner has moved into scoring position. In any case I agree that any metric is better than nothing, but that's not my point. My point is that people keep treating metrics and projections as absolutes, when they are just another piece of the puzzle. Metrics have built in bias just like people do when making observations, BABIP comparisons favor HR hitters, UZR favors range... all metrics have a bias because someone is out there trying to decide the "best" way to measure value, they are never going to be perfect. It's the not metric I take issue with, it's the people who want to say player A is better than player B because his VORP is 8 points higher. Is that really the case? Can it be proven to be true? Assign values to players all you want, just don't try to convince me that pitchers get hurt because PAP says so (instead of violent repetition of non ergonomic movement), a fielder is better than another because UZR says so, or a hitter has more offensive value than another because his VORP is higher... sport just like life aren't that black and white...sometimes it will be true, sometimes it won't.

The rosters haven't been updated on MiLB.com yet, all the roster pages are still mostly last year's rosters, or were as of the end of last week. I highly doubt given his performance last year that Caleb is repeating A ball.

I say this stinks if it in any way impedes the progress of Lo Cain who hopefully gets a mid season bump to AAA

Effectively wild or nibbling? I'd guess the latter.

This is really a matter of opinion, UZR isn't the end all be all... just because UZR likes player A better than player B, it doesn't make it so, or make it true. Back in the day when we were debating Hall vs Hardy at SS, I was always of the opinion that I wanted a player who coverts every play he could get to, I used the 99 out of 100 analogy, than a player would make the fantastic plays but will boot the easy one occasionally. Which is why I always came down on the Hardy side of the fence even when metrics didn't like him so much. Certain metrics have evolved to the point now where Hardy is viewed very favorably defensively so there isn't much to discuss, but going into 2006 it was a very hot topic around here. I prefer consistency, I'll take it over flash every single time, not just in a baseball, in every sport. It's extremely difficult to win with inconsistent players, and defense is the one aspect of baseball that lends itself to consistency, the odds are not stacked against you in the field like they are at the plate. If a player doesn't consistently execute the routine play I don't think he should be considered a good defender. It doesn't matter if it's Weeks or Hall, if they fail to execute the routine I will not consider him a good defender. Can you make a mathematical arguement that he is? Sure, you can treat all situations and misplays like they are equal but that's baseball in a vacuum, it's a tough sell to me that those mathematics carry through to production or lack there of in the field. In all my sports watching through the years, and it's an emabarrasingly large percentage of my life, I've only ever seen one player do everything fundamentally wrong and become an all-star/HOF caliber player and Favre played in the NFL. Occasionally a player's immense physical ability allows him to overcome shortcomings in other areas. I'm on record that I believe Hall may be the best natural athlete on the team, but it would be a stretch to suggest to me that his ability overcomes the rest of what he does. They last 2 years no single player on the team has gotten less out of more ability than he has. It doesn't matter if it's in the field, at the plate, or on the bases, he always seems to sabotage the good with the horrendous "what the heck was he thinking" type mistake. UZR says Hall is a + defender, that's a fact... but if Hall is actually a good defender isn't that black and white and I think is open to debate. This is where I disconnect with the statisticians... posters will go to a blog or site and see a well thought out theory, good methods, good discussion, and treat a metric as fact when in truth it's simply a hypothesis. There is some fascinating work being done, but all these metrics are a work in progress are not absolutes, and I think it's important to keep perspective of their place in baseball. If you were a scout on another team would you think Hall is a good defender? If you were going to draft him would you? If you were BA how would you rate his defense vs his tools? I'd think they'd all pretty much say the same thing, he has good range (which is a tool) but is a poor defender. The question then becomes how important is range? What's the proper mathetical weight for range as a component of defense as a whole? I personally believe that they are giving players too much credit for the least statistically significant factor, which would be plays at the extremes of range, because the fewest balls will be hit there. It's an excellent way to separate defenders who are similar up a to a certain percentage going left or right. However a misplay on a ball hit right at someone is not the same as misplay on a ball that a player has to utilize all his talents to get to. The routine play should carry a higher weight than that of the fringe play.

Branyan isn't talentless... He's got tremendous power, I won't take that away from him.

Usually in sports you earn a spot by being good. Too bad the Brewers aren't in a position to choose players on that basis.Maybe someday you'll quit hating on him and realize he actually has value.

I vote Gamel for a platoon role in June! CC can be his late inning defensive replacement if necessary! I'm thinking a more solid plan there never was...

Simply put no.

I was thinking about this as well after reading Hammer's comments, and is it really possible to draft OBP? Maybe with college kids you can, but with the top HS kids like Lawrie it seems like you're always going to be drafting the hitting tools in average and power and hope the player develops good patience. The competition is so poor relatively speaking that it seems like it would be very difficult to do. A good eye/good strike zone judgement will not necessarily equal a patient hitter like Brantley and he's the only HS OBP machine we've had come through the organization outside of Prince, and his OBP is more a function of his power in my opinion. I'm not convinced that the lack of OBP and defense is as much an issue on the drafting philosphy side as it is a player development issue. I guess the OBP issue could be a philosphy thing because we have so many aggresive hitters, but I like players that have an aggresive attitude, I'm not sure exactly how to go about changing their approach without changing their attitude. The team has had great success with it's position players, so I have a hard time changing what isn't broken. It's an interesting discussion topic none the less. edit. Gah, I meant to say after rereading the thread after I read Hammer's comments. Also, I meant to suggest that I'm not sure OBP is a tool like Arm Strength where either you were born with it or you weren't. Some guys are naturals, but I think every player can get better if not good if they buy into the importance. The key though is keep making good contact, I wouldn't want to trade OBP for SLG as previously mentioned. I think with experience and confidence players can become more well rounded at the plate without sacrificing other parts of their game.

What's about FSN's responsibility to it's share holders to run a profitable business? I haven't seen any inside knowledge of advertises revenues or a profit margin on Brewer games. It's quite possible that they've pushed the HD broadcasts as far as they can go for this season. They did dig themselves a hole by creating the expectations for this upcoming season, but the marketplace has changed drastically in the last 6 months. I wonder if people forget that Milwaukee is the smallest market in MLB because in the end it all goes back to supply and demand. What happens with the Brewers isn't really comparable to Atlanta, LA, NY, CHC, etc. It's like when people talk about a "deep pockets" owner... like that matters at all, it only matters what margin the owner is willing to risk running at. The Brewers don't spend more because Mark A. is rich, the Brewers spend more because Mark A. wants to win and is willing to toe the profitability line hoping things work for the best. How much money the owner has isn't any more relevant to payroll discussions than comparing FSN WI to the YES network. I've had HD for a very long time, since before my satellite provider even offered a decent HD package, I can live without HD for another season or two. I didn't get my various HD TVs specifically to watch the Brewers, I got them for sports, movies, and gaming in general. I can see where if you purchased a TV with the idea of viewing the Brewer games in HD then you'd be upset, but who's really at fault in that case?

Isn't that what he'd be doing as he'd be getting the majority of the playing time as most pitchers are RH? His splits don't suggest he'll need to be platooned in the future, but as I said the more I think about the idea it seems the most painless way. If he's hitting like he can, it will be awfully hard to justify keeping him down in AAA, we all want to maximize our window with the special players, or guys that could be special is probably more accurate, but the organization also has to keep what's best for the player in the mind as well. They have to balance both sides, and generally speaking teams don't hold a prospect back. It happens occasionally like with Howard, but there's not a top 5 player in front of Gamel at his position. I know the Rays are doing it with Price, but that's very understandable, they have to limit his innings somehow regardless of what he's saying about it in the press, sometimes the player needs to be protected from himself. If Gamel doesn't make a serious push I'm alright with him spending the year in AAA, but if he hits and his D continues to improve he'll have earned the right to make his mark.