TheCrew07

I wouldn't have used it people wouldn't go off the deep end regarding a couple of comments without any context to place them in and ignoring what the man was quoted as saying afterwards. In Villy's case he basically said he wasn't happy with the results thus far and was going to sit down with the player and his position coach to come up a strategy, then he prompty did just that. Where's the problem? Additionally posters start questioning the man's intelligence utilizing statistics that look flawed even at a passing glance to anyone who listened to or watched the games... that was a rational and reasonable stance considering the limited information we had on the subject? I shouldn't be surprised I guess after how much time I've spent on this site, but the criticism in this case was so obviously flawed, basically it boils down to people quibbling over a single statement in which Macha didn't recall a single 2 inning performance... that's the only innaccurate statement he's made all spring... again he hasn't even managed a game for real yet and stones are being cast. What makes anyone on this site that much smarter, more qualified, or better at managing a professional baseball game? The vast majority of us didn't play sports beyond high school unless there's a statistical anomoly in play here... many of us have never even coached at the high school level where wins and losses truly start to matter... I find it very interesting how people with very limited personal experience are so sure their opinions are accurate assessments of the situation given how far from the game most of us are. What's defensive about pointing out glaring weaknesses in someone's arguments about another man's mental capacity? Upset? Seriously? I'm the only one continuinually pointing that people are making brazen posts using flawed statistics so I'm upset? I have no allegiance to Macha, my record as far as Yost is concerned is out there, I liked him but I absolutely despised his bullpen management. I also believe that Maddux had quite of a bit of input on those pitching moves, I've been always been curious why people around here saw it as merely a Yost issue. Your record in regards to Yost is pretty clear, and you're misuse of statistics was a major factor in many people's opinions regarding both issues that Macha is being questioned on. The way I see it I'm not the one who should be defensive... The older I get the more interested I get in the truth, or the facts. When I see someone misrepresented it doesn't matter matter if it's someone I regularly butt heads with on this site, a player, a manager, or a friend I'm going to take a stand for the truth. That's all of I've done in this thread... I feel bad about the way I worded my post toward's logan, I didn't intend to single him out, especially since he wasn't the one who initially brought up the "counting issue". So logan, I do apologize and I hope my subequent post made my intentions more clear.

The point was it's not like he's been ripping the cover off of the ball as you've said on numerous occasions... I'd take the over as well, because if he hits worse, he likely won't be in the lineup.

BABIP doesn't tell the whole story, it's not like he was unlucky... way too many pop ups and such for him last season. His line drive percentage was the lowest of his career, and it's not trending positively.

What's makes us think we'd have better numbers than the coach? So he forgot he pitched more than 1 inning once... the world isn't going to come to an end. I don't see where Macha qualified Villy's appearances or innings pitched with a number? I know bashing the manager is fun and all, and sooner or later some clown will put up a FireKenMacha.com... if there isn't one already... it's Spring Training, why are we getting so bent out of shape over nothing? I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism once the games count for real. We have no context of the quotes, only the quotes to go on, a writer's interpretation of said quotes, and said writer doesn't exactly have a good track record...

It's not an accusation... it's very difficult to find accurate ST numbers, I had a heck of a time finding anything reliable on Luis Pena all ST. 2 other posters took the time to research the game logs, the information is in the other thread. Reply 1 Reply 2

logan's numbers were way off, Macha didn't make anything up in regards to Villy...

I get what you're trying to say, but pitches per plate appearance doesn't prove Macha wrong, just like the pitch counts you posted yesterday which I'm sure were incorrect. Weeks will see quite a few pitches per PA as does Hall, and I don't think Hall is a particularly patient hitter. I'm no fan of Kendall's offense but I think it's fair to say that he'll give you a pretty decent AB each time up, he just doesn't have much left in the tank, so not much good comes of those ABs. I selfishly wish the team had a different option to leadoff as I don't think Weeks is thriving in that role by any stretch. Is Kendall the answer? Without being too hateful I don't think so, I really wish the team still had Brantley, the system doesn't have a good player for that role in the pipeline anymore. OBP jsut isn't an organizational strong suit at this point in time with only Green and Gillespie showing a solid BB ratio ratio in the minors. That's not to suggest that Gamel, Salome, Cain, etc won't develop some patience, but it's not anything I'd rely on.

I know we don't agree on rental player deals and likely never will, but how do you figure that statement is correct? If we improve the defense, the pitching, and maintain similar run production won't the Brewers win more games? A couple of months ago I posted numbers but the teams that made their runs in this decade did it in years where their defense and pitching were as good as their offense. People point to the Cardinals as proof that anything can happen in the playoffs, you just need to get there, and that's partially true. The Cards shortened their rotation (their pitching was horrible all season) and get almost flawless SP through the playoffs to go with their excellent defense and solid offensive production. The Phillies won the series the year their pitching was the best, the Brewers made the playoffs the year they had the best pitching and defense to go with their run production, and so on. I used ESPN's stats page to do the research but it was pretty obvious that winning in the post season requires excellent production in all 3 phases of the game. Assembling an offense that's capable of winning 95 games doesn't mean much if we don't have the pitching and defense to go with it and the cupboard is pretty bare after Jeffress. As far as the whole rental player idea goes, I don't mind deals here and there if they are that one key piece that's missing but the Brewers haven't put together a roster yet that's been that close.. Last year I was looking at what the rotation would be this season which is why I argued for a longer term solution than Sabathia, the year before Linebrink wasn't going to put the Brewers over the top in 20 innings. My point on trying to make a yearly run at a Sabathia type deal is that it bleeds the top of the system dry of prospects, fans shouldn't have the expectation that a deadline deal to improve the club is going to happen every year when the team is contention. If they do make the deal yearly eventually we're going to hit a 3 year period where the cupboard is bare. We should absolutely trade off depth for positions of need, but I'd rather acquire lasting solutions because I pretty much know exactly what I'm going to get. Dykstra and Frederickson might turn out to be excellent additions, we'll see.. but I'd rather have a 3rd stud at the top of the rotation that those 2 guys in Appleton. We'll get enough extra picks when our players walk in FA like Hardy and Fielder... my gut feeling is that Melvin plans to ride out Hardy and Fielder into FA.

So do LaPorta and Brantley, I think X was talking more guys that were just given away like Sarfate or part of trades that weren't all that highly thought of like the Linebrink deal. The others were trades where we got pretty good value out of the MLB players, though that deal with AZ looks like a stinker now as none of the good MLB parts are with the team anymore, as does the Gross deal from last year. At any rate, none of those were as bad as Melvin getting Villy for Franklin and Estrada. If only he'd realize we didn't care that they were traded, only who they were traded for... trading for draft picks is the DEVIL!

Ennder, that's not really the issue though. I think pretty much everyone understands the value of a K in comparison to another out. However when we're talking situational baseball, as in a specific situation, then there is a certain set of data that's going to have to be tossed out. So where as it may correct to say that across baseball 100s K = 1 run, there are many situations where it just doesn't ring true. Just about any ball in play with a runner 3rd and less than 2 outs gives the offense a chance to score a run, where a strike out doesn't. Certainly pop ups and the rare line drive double play need to be factored in but it's not accurate to make a blanket statement about K's not mattering when it's the best possible outcome in that situation for the defense and least best for the offense. There are plenty of situations where the K isn't the worst possible outcome, but in the case Patrick presented it's right up there.

I have to agree with Patrick here, 100 Ks is equal to one less run? Compared to what would be the question? Fly outs? Ground outs? All other types of outs? I could see 1 win... if a win is truly 10 runs... but 1 run? I would think whomever did that study had some faulty logic, anytime a runner is on 3rd with less than 2 out it potentially costs a run. With a runner on first I can see the argument, but with runners in scoring position the whole "K's don't matter" argument doesn't hold up to me because all situations are just not equal. A hitter that would K 200 times in a season only costs his team 2 runs even though he fails to put the ball in play in 40 percent of his ABs?

yes yes The third question I'm not sure of... are these people working for my company? If so then yes, if not then no. In theory lowering cost allows my company to remain competitive possibly lowering the cost of the services we provide, which may allow our customers to save some money, thus saving some jobs out in the world. I would have said yes to third under the scenario I propose if my company wasn't doing business with so many of the companies that got bailouts.. my tax dollars have done enough so I'm not willing to take a pay cut for them as well.

I've been quietly following him, I was hoping for better.

Not me, I was hoping he'd get moved so he could progress as fast as hit bat will allow.

Do we know for sure those pitch counts are accurate? Would it be to much to ask for real games to start before we start bashing Macha? I have a hard time getting worked up about anything that happens in Spring Training outside of major injuries.

No mention of Cain who may crack the lineup next year or Lucroy? I'm not a BP subscriber anymore so I'm unable to read anything regarding the Brewers.

Jinx! I'd rather Counsell and Kendall save some of these hits for the season...

This is going no where fast, we're right back where we start. You're continually talking about skills, I'm talking about things like batting stance, weight transfer, hand position and so on at the plate. On the turn it's simple footwork and throwing mechanics... I never claimed to have the reaction time to hit MLB pitching, Rickie has repeatedly proven he does. You have no proof that he isn't.. it's a logical explanation for his lack of results given his work ethic. Again, what has he changed significantly at the plate since he's come up from the minors? What proof can you offer than it doesn't affect his swing? I know it injured it him and set his career back, that alone would have stopped me from doing it. What? I never said that nor do I think that, you may have inferred that at some point. Every report we have is contrary, that he works very hard with his coaches, maybe too hard. It's hard for us to be objective about our performance, sometimes we miss the obvious because we're too close to it. My assessment of his swing aside, his coaches obviously think the issues with his swing are correctable, citing many of the issues that various posters discussed over the winter, and it has been reported as such. You're making much more out of my comments than I intended, I'm willing to accept the opinions of people much closer to the players than I am, and I haven't seen any player or coach, from the Brewers or otherwise say that Weeks isn't immensly gifted. Friend and foe alike seem to be unanimous in that regard. Sure... I'm not sure what to say other than Rickie has one of the quickest bats I've ever seen, he's immensely talented. I've repeatedly said it's up to him to fulfill his potential, I'm not quite sure how that has become placing blame. I'm saying that when a player repeatedly makes the same mistakes and doesn't seem to improve, he's earned his criticism... that's it... but you're right, it's my fault he drops the ball or throws it away while making the turn. Seriously... who's fault is it that he's not executing the routine with precision? I agree that Brewers rushed him, I argued against his call up, but ultimately we're all responsible for our own success or failure aren't we? I feel that I am, I'm not going to blame my parents, my boss, or my friends when I fail or make mistakes. I'm going to take ownership of it and move on... I agree that Weeks doesn't have good baseball instincts if that's what you meant, in my opinion neither do Braun or Hall, but it's hardly a lack of intelligence. Was Tony Gwynn a smarter person, or just a smarter baseball player because he tracked pitchers and pitches in his notebook and was able to remove the uncertainty from his ABs with regularity? He knew the pitchers and cathers better than they knew him... I will agree that the only thing holding Weeks back is the mental side of the game because he's more physically gifted than most, but that has little to do with intelligence. One of the better former Brewer pitchers out of the bullpen and a former closer for the Brewers had a severe learning disability, having watched him play sports from High School through MLB he managed to maximize his gifts inspite of it all. I posted about him before, but I'm not going to give his name because the disability is not common knowledge as I've never seen it reported in the press, and I'd rather it come from him or his family than from me. If Weeks never becomes more than he is then many of us were wrong and you're right it does happen all the time in all level of sports. Maybe he just doesn't have enough of the mental game to allow his physical talents to take over. I'm not willing to cede that point at this time... that this is all he'll ever be when so many of the adjustments he should make (in my opinion) are so minor. I'm not blaming him because I expect more of him, I have no problem taking ownership of my opinion that he's playing below his natural talent level, I'm saying that Weeks is ultimately responsible for his production at the plate and in the field, nothing more, nothing less. The tough thing about all of this is that bad habits are the hardest thing to unteach, muscle memory is very difficult to overcome, it takes constant perfect repitition to undo. For example I have a hard time teaching kids to tackle with their head up when they are willing, they just naturally put their head down if they aren't concentrating on it throughout the tackle. There's so much going on that kids have a hard time focusing in on keeping their head up and eyes open instead the ball carrier hanging a move, his speed, the proper angle, etc... which would make them a better defensive player if they were a consistent tackler. It's the same idea when fixing a swing, there are so many other things going on that's it difficult to focus through the noise on the 1 or 2 things that will make the biggest difference. That's where the tee can become helpful for a hitter... or sled to teach tackling in my case. About the only thing I can say with certainty is that all athletes are different, and there's never a single garunteed way to make the light go on, as a coach we just keep attacking issues from different directions hoping we'll eventually get through. It's not a negative reflection on Weeks or anyone else, it's just the nature of the beast.

Without a doubt nesting dolls! or no?

Grammar nazis! I originally wrote it as Counting Crows... but it looked wrong and didn't sound right so I added the "The" to the start... who knew...

Hmm, maybe I can get my buddy to Tivo them for me, I dumped Time Warner long ago for Dish Network. FSN would rule for me personally, too bad. Brainerd still does work for FSN doesn't he? He always does the state High School All-Star Football game for FSN, or at least he has the past 3 seasons, so I thought he was still working there is some capacity.

Very true, Salome is an excellent example of that. However if you're not fundamentally sound and you're getting poor results, maybe it's time look at correcting what's easily correctable. Some people are gifted enough with hand eye coordination to be able to able to overcome mechanical flaws in their shots/swings and some aren't. I don't see how Rickie is ever going to make consistent contact with his current approach. I've never been a big Svuem guy, but I felt he nailed Rickie's swing in his comments in the paper.

I wasn't looking to place blame, it is what it is. He is ultimately responsible for his play, it's one thing if a guy just isn't very good, but that's not his issue. Weeks' issues all revolve around fundamentals, and anyone can be a fundamently sound player, regardless of the sport. I figured you would come back with a statement similar to this and I was kicking myself for not explaining better. Hard work doesn't really do anyone any good if they work hard on negative behavior, it's not uncommon, it happens at all levels of sports. Practicing to do some incorrectly only ensures similar or worse results going forward, to get a different result we need to take different action. Bare with me while I give an example. I have a 6' 7" DE that I coach in football, in basketball he plays the post, as 6' 7" is a good size HS center in this area. This kid really wants to play college basketball, but he's not the best athlete around. he actually doesn't even start, though I think his minutes are much more productive than the player he's playing behing. I took him out for dinner (I have a deal with my D Lineman that if any score a touchdown I'm taking them to dinner and this particular kid scored a defensive TD) and we had a long talk about what he wanted to do. I told him that I believe he has the frame to play football at the next left level at which point he opened up to me about his basketball aspirations. I recommended to him that he chase down his dream and we got into discussion about role models, dedication, commitment, etc. I've stayed on his case, every day for the rest of the football season and every time I watch them play basketball or I see him at a girls game I make it a point to ask him what he did to chase down his dream that day. He's a great kid and he's been working his tail off to get better, the only problem is that he's dilligently working on reinforcing negative habits. His shot has way too much motion in it, which makes it's hard to repeat and it takes too much time, no matter how much time he spends shooting the ball he's never going to shoot well enough to move up doing what he's doing. He's simply reinforcing and teaching his muscles to shoot a basketball incorrectly, and he's not a good enough natural athlete to overcome such poor mechanics (this also brings up an interesting coaching dilema I've been pondering, am I out of line taking it upon myself to take this kid and a couple of others into the gym to work on their game because they aren't getting what they need from their basketball coaches after our lifting program?). In the same way I don't how anyone can say that Rickie is unfairly criticized when he doesn't even give himself a chance to be successful because he's going about his business the way he does. He could spend all day every day in the cage and never become a better hitter unless he fixes some very correctable issues related to his balance and timing. Working your rear off to reinforce negative behavior simply doesn't get anyone closer to their goal, and actually only helps build a sense of hopelessness when tangible progress between the lines doesn't take place. If any given player isn't fundamentally sound they'll reach a point where they quit having success, and then they'll lose confidence, so they'll have less success... it's a negative spiral... but the flip side is true as well, if you start having some success it builds your confidence, which in turn creates more success. A wise man once told me that going about your business the same exact way every day and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity... what appreciable change in his approach at the plate has Rickie made? What has Weeks started doing differently around the bag to improve his turns on the double play? He's still doing the same things wrong around the bag that he was doing 3 years ago. Is it mental or is it physical. Your doctor example isn't really applicable, you're talking about a difference in natural gifts, as in difference between a Braun and a Clark, one who's very talented and one who gets the most out what he already has... I've already addressed that issue. Weeks' has abundant talent, his averagish play is entirely within his control, and again when someone doesn't make tangible improvements in certain fundamental aspects of the game, he opens himself up to criticism. His fielding has improved, he does much better getting himself in position to field balls, but other areas of his game haven't improved at all, particularily getting to line drives, plays around 2B, and at the plate. There's no way that Rickie's natural talent is that of a 10 HR hitter for example, he should hit at least as many JJ. He may never play at the level many of us think he's capable of, but it won't be because he's not physically gifted, it will be because of whatever is going on in his head.

JJ would sign here if the Brewers offered enough money, in that I have no doubt. In the end, it usually comes down to money... That being said, knowing what we know about the situation, that Hardy was never offered an extension by the team nor did he open negotiations with the team on an extension, I feel it's reasonably safe to say that lack of interest in an extension means nothing is going to happen. I personally feel the team missed it's window if they wanted to sign Hardy to a multiyear that included a team discount. At this point he's much too close to FA to be signing any contract that is below market value, if I were his agent I would advise him against it. Is there hope that he still might? I guess sure, in the same way that there was a very small chance of Sabathia resigning with the crew. However just as I felt with Sabathia I feel that both Hardy and Fielder will walk in FA, I've been of that opinion for sometime and nothing that's happened the last 12 months has changed my opinion. Since I see it as reality that Hardy and Fielder are going away, losing their production is a given, which is why I don't consider this arguement as prospect vs MLB Player at all. For me the issue is once again getting the best value in losing the MLB player. For example I feel we missed our window to move Hardy this last off season, now he's too close to FA to get an established young pitcher for him, so we're now talking about getting prospects for him. There's no way I'm into moving Hardy for another back of the rotation starter. We have a ton of 4/5 types, even before we acquired Wright and Green, I'm looking for top of the rotation talent, Parra quality and above. To me the issue is if 2 draft picks are worth more than 2 prospects? In the Hardy example Escobar or Brewer will take his place in '11 anyway, so the production issue is really moot. The question is if it's better to ride out Hardy's production for a season and get draft picks, or move him for talent that's closer to being MLB ready which can have a more immediate impact while we still have other pieces in place? This is somewhat similar to the Sheets conversation over the winter... it takes 2 to tango... would Hardy be willing to sign a below market contract to stay in Milwaukee and does the team have any interest in spending that much money on him when there are 2 players in the pipeline right behind him at AAA and AA? Is it even in the team's best interest to make that deal with cheaper alternative's behind him? It's easy to say there's no replacing replacing Hardy or Fielder's production so they should be resigned but that sort of statement ignores the financial ramifications of the move as well as if the player would even be willing to stay? Milwaukee isn't in a position to overbid for players, that's just not realistic. I'm not sure why losing Hardy and Fielder spells the end for the offense anyway... we'll downgrade 2 positions offensively, but we'd upgrade the defense and offense at other positions off setting the loss. For example in the near future C is going to get a significant offensive upgrade regardless of which prospect lands the starting gig. All these moves will happen in conjuction with each other, which is why I think the team will actually be better in '10 or at the latest '11 than it was in '08. See all the moves together... Escobar/Brewer for Hardy, Gamel/Green for 3B, Gamel/? for Fielder, Green/Lawrie for Weeks, Cain for Cameron, Salome/Lucroy for Kendall. The combinations of players will work themselves out in time but I see this club being better defensively and at least holding the status quo offensively, if we can add some better talent to the rotation I'll really like this team going forward.

I am suggesting that everything that Rickie struggles with is directly within his control. His approach at the plate, his issues defensively, etc... Again, his raw tools are obvious, the only thing that limits Weeks is whatever is going on his in head. I've said before this isn't an issue of work ethic, I'm not sure why when a player of Rickie's talent gets criticized for not reaching their potential people tend to assume "lazy", I've never suggested that in any post. I've clearly stated that he gets in his own way... for example the bat waggle, even after injuring himself he continues to utilize it. To me, that's simply not a wise a decision. We discussed his approach at the plate in great detail over the off season and many of us were criticized by other posters because there was a lack of statistical evidence to support our claims. However come spring his coaches are talking about all of the exact same issue and TH is reporting them in print. Weeks' flaws are very correctable, but all the hard work in the world won't help someone if they don't fix the root cause of their problems and certainly won't make a difference if the person doesn't buy in to the program entirely. There seems to be a notion that all observation is flawed when I don't feel that's the case. Any somewhat educated fan sitting in the stands could see how off balance Rickie was at the plate if they paid close enough attention, my father pointed it out to me. It's not like we're dealing with quantum mechanics here.