Has the short bench already cost the Brewers?

[kramnoj]

The point is that it certainly could have hurt the Brewers. Because of the short bench, Yost was forced to go with a player less likely to suceed than one he would have used (Dillon, I would guess?) in a crucial situation. Just because it ended up not costing them a game doesn't mean that it's optimal, or even not bad.

 

I'm not disputing anything you are saying. What I thought was silly was saying that Counsell got an out, Surprise! You could say the same thing about most at bats.

[DougJones43]

The point is that it certainly could have hurt the Brewers. Because of the short bench, Yost was forced to go with a player less likely to suceed than one he would have used (Dillon, I would guess?) in a crucial situation. Just because it ended up not costing them a game doesn't mean that it's optimal, or even not bad.

I'm not disputing anything you are saying. What I thought was silly was saying that Counsell got an out, Surprise! You could say the same thing about most at bats.

Some situations are more likely to fail than others. Agreed? Counsell vs a LHP is very likely to fail, so, as the poster pointed out, it wasn't surprising to see him fail there. A RH batter would have been less likely to fail there. Continually pointing out that most at-bats don't produce a "positive result" doesn't really change the fact that some situations are statistically less likely to fail than others.

 

Doesn't it make sense that the Brewers would want to consitently give themselves the *best* chance to succeed? Or should they just say "most at-bats fail, so it doesn't really matter who we send out there..."

[kramnoj]

"Some situations are more likely to fail than others. Agreed? Counsell vs a LHP is very likely to fail, so, as the poster pointed out, it wasn't surprising to see him fail there. A RH batter would have been less likely to fail there. Continually pointing out that most at-bats don't produce a "positive result" doesn't really change the fact that some situations are statistically less likely to fail than others.

 

Doesn't it make sense that the Brewers would want to consitently give themselves the *best* chance to succeed? Or should they just say "most at-bats fail, so it doesn't really matter who we send out there..."

 

Why would you ask me if I agree with something I already agreed with? It would have been no surprise to see Dillon fail in that situation, just as it was no surprise to see that Counsell failed there.

 

This is obviously less than optimal roster contstuction. Nobody disuptes that. But with the situation the Brewers are currently in, I'm not going to fault the Brewers for having 14 pitchers. We've had to use all of them, and right now it looks like we will get the start out of Sheets that we would have missed if he were put on the DL. I personally think that one more Sheets start is much more valuable than a handful of AB spread over a few games.

[DougJones43]

I'm not going to fault the Brewers for having 14 pitchers. We've had to use all of them...

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning, and just think of how much an extra bench player could have helped us during that timespan. I'm quite certain the options, flexibility, and potential production provided by an extra bench guy would have far exceeded McClung's contribution of one inning pitched.

[kramnoj]

I'm not going to fault the Brewers for having 14 pitchers. We've had to use all of them...

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning, and just think of how much an extra bench player could have helped us during that timespan. I'm quite certain the options, flexibility, and potential production provided by an extra bench guy would have far exceeded McClung's contribution of one inning pitched.

Clearly the Brewers like McClung's future, and they weren't willing to release him so that they could have a position player for a few ABs. I can't disagree with that.

[DougJones43]

I'm not going to fault the Brewers for having 14 pitchers. We've had to use all of them...

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning, and just think of how much an extra bench player could have helped us during that timespan. I'm quite certain the options, flexibility, and potential production provided by an extra bench guy would have far exceeded McClung's contribution of one inning pitched.

Clearly the Brewers like McClung's future, and they weren't willing to release him so that they could have a position player for a few ABs. I can't disagree with that.

Looking at his career statistics, I think it's pretty easy to disagree with that, and disagree with him even being on the roster to start the season.

[kramnoj]

"Looking at his career statistics, I think it's pretty easy to disagree with that, and disagree with him even being on the roster to start the season. "

 

I agree that his past is not exciting. But I trust Melvins opinion on Seth's future over my own. If he thinks that Seth has a future with the team, his future value will make up for the last week or so.

[Electric Elf]

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning, and just think of how much an extra bench player could have helped us during that timespan. I'm quite certain the options, flexibility, and potential production provided by an extra bench guy would have far exceeded McClung's contribution of one inning pitched.

McClung was used because at that point there was no way of knowing if he'd pitch one inning...or five. Such is the nature of extra-inning games, and that was exactly the sort of spot in which one would use a long reliever. (The Dodgers got some very good work and a good at-bat out of Chan Ho Park last night in exactly that role.)

However, I do believe the team either needs to get Sheets on the DL or get him pitching.

[silversurferr]

Pinch hitting with Counsell against a lefty is a good idea? Cmon.

[jeffy]

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning...

Was it known on April 17th that this is what would happen over the next 10 days?

[jeffy]

Call me old school, but I actually remember a time when managers weren't afraid to use backup catchers to pinch hit.

 

Use Mike Rivera.

I remember a time when there were typically 10 pitchers on a team (4 starters) and they often had 3 catchers. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

But, I agree that Rivera should be used for pinch-hiting...and yesterday he was.

[Fatter than Joey]

I personally think that one more Sheets start is much more valuable than a handful of AB spread over a few games.

 

I disagree. If you put Sheets (or any starter for that matter) on the DL for 15 days -- the maximum amount of games that the you would be disadvantaged at would be 3. If you keep that starter on the active roster for 15 days at the expense of a bench player/PHer, the maximum number of days that you would be disadvantaged is 15.

 

In this case Sheets has already missed one start, so if he would have been put on the DL Apr. 19th, he would have only missed 2 starts (he wouldn't pitched on the 23rd in either case). Given the Brewers SP depth, I certainly would have given up 2 strarts by Sheets, than to be hamstrung on the bench for 15 days.

[kramnoj]

"In this case Sheets has already missed one start, so if he would have been put on the DL Apr. 19th, he would have only missed 2 starts (he wouldn't pitched on the 23rd in either case). Given the Brewers SP depth, I certainly would have given up 2 strarts by Sheets, than to be hamstrung on the bench for 15 days"

 

I don't understand what you are saying here. If Sheets starts on Tuesday, the Brewers will have been short for 9 days. You think 9 PH ABs is worth more than one Sheets start?

[Fatter than Joey]

You think 9 PH ABs is worth more than one Sheets start?

 

If I had to chose between Sheets missing 2 starts, or the Brewers having their current roster situation for 15 days -- I'd DL Sheets in a heartbeat. Not having Sheets hurts us for 2 games, not having a RHer off the bench hurts us every game.

[kramnoj]

You think 9 PH ABs is worth more than one Sheets start?

 

If I had to chose between Sheets missing 2 starts, or the Brewers having their current roster situation for 15 days -- I'd DL Sheets in a heartbeat. Not having Sheets hurts us for 2 games, not having a RHer off the bench hurts us every game.

 

That's not the choice the Brewers are facing, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[sgtcluels]

But on some level it is, they brought up another pitcher (Stetter) when Sheets was "uncertain". They could have DL'd Sheets to free up a slot for a Bench player causing him to miss 2 games. I think you are missing the point FTJ is making.

 

And yes, I think it's hurting us. The lack of options to PH is annoying.

[kramnoj]

But on some level it is, they brought up another pitcher (Stetter) when Sheets was "uncertain". They could have DL'd Sheets to free up a slot for a Bench player causing him to miss 2 games. I think you are missing the point FTJ is making.

 

And yes, I think it's hurting us. The lack of options to PH is annoying.

What point is FTJ making that I am missing? He keeps talking about the Brewers being short for 15 days. That's not the scenario. I'm not saying that being shorthanded hasn't hurt us. Of course it has. The relevant question is whether an extra Sheets start makes up for it. I think it does.

[DougJones43]

As I pointed out earlier, the Brewers have used Seth McClung exactly one time since April 17th. That's a ten-day span. I think one of the other 13 pitchers could have handled that one inning...

Was it known on April 17th that this is what would happen over the next 10 days?

 

Yes. It should have been pretty evident that they weren't going to need to use their 14th pitcher very often, if at all, during April. Every other team seems to have known.

[endaround]

The problem isn't the bench so much as Yost. We finally have a righty starter which means we could have both a left and right handed option on the bench. What does Yost do? Starts Counsell so that there are only RH pinch hitters available.