Is This Years Team Better Than The 2005 Team?

[MickeyDavis]

After the 2005 season everyone was ecstatic. 81-81. Brighter days ahead. Now 3 years later the hopes are not of a .500 record or a winning record but the playoffs and World Series. So just how much better is the 2008 team than the 2005 team? I know you can't really compare a full season to one that's only 1/3 completed. But I'll just throw some stuff out there and you can make your own conclusions.

 

 

First Base - Lyle Overbay vs. Prince Fielder. Overbay was solid, hitting .276 with 19 home runs and 72 RBI's. I think most of us expect Prince to surpass those numbers. Overbay was superior in the field.

 

 

Second Base- Rickie Weeks (rookie) vs. Rickie Weeks. Just about this time in 2005 Spivey was traded and Weeks was called up (some would say rushed up). In 96 games Rickie hit .239 with 13 homers and 42 RBI's. If Rickie has those numbers after 96 games this season I'd be happy. His fielding, while still spotty, is much better now than it was then.

 

 

Shortstop - J.J. Hardy (rookie)/Bill Hall vs. J.J. Hardy - Hardy's season was cut short after 124 games. He struggled in the early part of the year but eventually had his average up to .247 with 9 homers and 50 RBI's. Hall split his time between shortstop and third base, hitting .291 with 17 homers and 62 RBI's.

 

 

Third base - Bill Hall/Russell Branyan vs. Bill Hall. The Hall of 2005 was a better hitter than the Hall of 2007/2008. Branyan hit .257 with 12 homers and 31 RBI's in 85 games.

 

 

Catcher - Damian Miller vs. Jason Kendall - Kendall has been great behind the plate and has been solid with the bat. But Miller had a decent year at the plate, hitting .273 with 9 homers and 43 RBI's.

 

 

Right Field - Geoff Jenkins vs. Corey Hart - Jenks hit .292 with 25 homers and 86 RBI's in 148 games. Corey could hit .300 this year but we'll see about his power numbers.

 

 

Center Field - Brady Clark vs. Mike Cameron. Clark was solid, hitting .306 with 13 homers and 53 RBI's.

 

 

Left Field - Carlos Lee vs. Ryan Braun - Lee played every game, hitting .265 with 32 homers and 114 RBI's. Braun should exceed those numbers. Lee was horrible in the field. Braun is still learning the position

 

 

Bench - Cirillo/Helms/Moeller/Magruder/others vs. Rivera/Counsell/Kapler/Gwynn/others - Helms hit .298 and Cirillo hit .281. Not much from the others.

 

 

Rotation: Sheets/Capuano/Davis/Ohka/Santos vs. Sheets/Suppan/Gallardo/Bush/Villanueva/Parra - Sheets missed about 10 starts and had a 3.33 ERA (about the same as this year so far). Capuana and Davis were very good, Cappy went 18-12 with a 3.99 ERA and Davis had an 11-11 record with an ERA of 3.84. Ohka came over in the Spivey trade and started 22 games, going 7-4 with an ERA of 4.35 (I'd love that from our #4 starter now). Santos was 4-13 with a 4.57 ERA.

 

 

Closer: Turnbow Vs. Gagne - Turnbow, 7-1 record, 39 saves, 1.74 ERA. Nothing more to say.

 

 

Bullpen: Wise/Santana/Bottalico/de la Rosa/others vs. Torres/Riske/McClung/Motta others - Wise was solid with a 3.36 ERA. The others were all around 4.50

 

 

[bigredrobbo]

Oh, for flip's sake, of course it's better. They might not be playing well AT THE MOMENT, but, come on, it's not even close.

 

Exactly the same group of players could be 10 games better off, sitting on top of the division and I guarantee there would be a post along the lines of "Is this team better than the 1982 team?".

[MickeyDavis]

Last year's team finished with 2 more wins than the 2005 team did. We'll see how this years team fares. And of course this years team payroll is double what it was in 2005.

[DrWood]

the team SHOULD be better, there is more talent, but I can see that it might not do better than that team.

[BrewCrewForever]

I think this 2008 team is better, but I actually thought that 2005 team was pretty darn good. 2005 Bill Hall was awesome .292 AVG and 17 HR's I would take that and Branyan this year then just 2008 Bill Hall. If Sheets doesn't miss all those starts that team would have been above .500, maybe with a better record then the 2007 team.

[MickeyDavis]

There is more potential, we'll see about more talent. I'd like to think that in 3 years, with the payroll doubled, that we could actually do much better.

[MickeyDavis]

I think this 2008 team is better, but I actually thought that 2005 team was pretty darn good. 2005 Bill Hall was awesome .292 AVG and 17 HR's I would take that and Branyan this year then just 2008 Bill Hall. If Sheets doesn't miss all those starts that team would have been above .500, maybe with a better record then the 2007 team.

You could be right. I don't know the answer to this but I don't think it's cut and dried. I was tired of debating Melvin/Yost and thought I would look back to see just how far we have (or haven't) come since we doubled the payroll.

[DrWood]

You could be right. I don't know the answer to this but I don't think it's cut and dried. I was tired of debating Melvin/Yost and thought I would look back to see just how far we have (or haven't) come since we doubled the payroll.

 

I hope you're not Mark A.

[brewizard]

Shortstop - J.J. Hardy (rookie)/Bill Hall vs. J.J. Hardy - Hardy's season was cut short after 124 games.

 

That's not how I remember it. I think that is factually incorrect.

[MickeyDavis]

Shortstop - J.J. Hardy (rookie)/Bill Hall vs. J.J. Hardy - Hardy's season was cut short after 124 games.

 

That's not how I remember it. I think that is factually incorrect.

Yeah you're right. The injury was the next season. But Hardy playing 124 games is correct and so is Hall filling in the rest (he had 221 AB's at shortstop in 2005).

[joepepsi]

Hardy was healthy all of 2005; he just didn't play every day.

 

I think in 2005 I was saying, "this is as good as Bill Hall will ever be. He's a good utility guy, but once the arby years kick in, he'll be too expensive to be worth keeping." In 2006 I thought, whoa, was I way off on this guy; Hall's legit. Now I'm beginning to revert back to my original thinking.

 

We're not 1/3 into the season; 73% of the games remain to be played. I've been as frustrated as anybody at times this year, but it's still so early in the year that any team, even the Brewers, can change the season around with a hot run of 15-20 games. Look what the Astros have done the last couple weeks. No way they are really that good. Last year after 44 games the Cubs had the exact same record the Brewers do now: 20-24. A month later, on June 21st, they were worse, 7 games under .500, 32-39.

 

I think the 2008 team is much better than the 2005 team. However, it is true that not every player develops or improves. We shouldn't be surprised if some of these kids never live up to the potential we thought. At this point we can't be sure who that might be. If I had to guess, I'd say we've probably seen the best of Bill Hall, and maybe Hardy. Hardy should continue to be a quality major league ss for several years, but I'll be stunned if he ever hits 26 homers again.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Can we add that the 2005 team tremedously overachieved while the 2008 team is tremendously underachieving?

[FVBrewerFan]

2005 team was better. Very simply, the rotation was better, and the closer was better. The rest is just conversation. Sheets is athe constant. Cappy/Davis/Ohka/Santos far better than Suppan/Villy/Parra/Bush. Not even close. 2005 Turnbow vs 2008 Gagne- again not even close.

 

I think what we're seeing is the margin of error is very small for this team. Gallardo makes a huge difference.

[rluzinski]

A bad player can have a good year, so are we talking about talent or results?

[adambr2]

2005 team was better. Very simply, the rotation was better, and the closer was better. The rest is just conversation. Sheets is athe constant. Cappy/Davis/Ohka/Santos far better than Suppan/Villy/Parra/Bush. Not even close. 2005 Turnbow vs 2008 Gagne- again not even close.

 

I think what we're seeing is the margin of error is very small for this team. Gallardo makes a huge difference.

What??? Are we talking about actual results, or expectations? With the way the rotation has been, it's pretty easy to say that Cappy/Davis/Ohka/Santos was better than our #2 thru #5 this year, but I sure don't think many would have told you at the beginning of the season that they would take those 4 over Suppan/Villy/Parra/Bush, and I can guarantee you no one would have preferred the bottom two (Okha, Santos), over Parra and Bush at the beginning of this year. Why would we have been building our rotation to get worse over the last 3 years?

 

2005 Turnbow vs. 2008 Gagne looks like a landslide now, but I'm sure we were hoping, if not thinking, it'd be close at the beginning of the year. I'm sure there isn't a fan out there who thinks Prince isn't as good as the .276/19/72 that Lyle put up in 2005 -- it's not like we can say that they're pretty close to equal just now just because Prince hasn't been as good as hoped so far.

 

If we're just comparing raw results, there's really no point in doing this. Hindsight is 20/20. Obviously Villy has been awful so far, but I'm sure we were thinking in spring training that his career sub 4.00 ERA would look a lot better than 2005 Tomo Okha.

[Dragonbait]

Lets also take into consideration the talent level of the division that year.

 

HOU, STL were much better that year (course both are doing alright this year)

 

PIT, CIN are teams that werent as good as they are supposed to be this year

 

And i have no idea how the Cubs did that year off the top of my head.

[MickeyDavis]

What??? Are we talking about actual results, or expectations?...

 

If we're just comparing raw results, there's really no point in doing this. Hindsight is 20/20. Obviously Villy has been awful so far, but I'm sure we were thinking in spring training that his career sub 4.00 ERA would look a lot better than 2005 Tomo Okha.

Who cares what anyone thought in spring training? Spring training expectations are meaningless. It's results that matter. It's not hard to look at the 2005 season, the results, the payroll (half of this year) and the players on that team and compare it to the actual (not what we wished for in spring training) results from this season.

[Ennder]

The 2005 team played way over it's head so not sure the comparison is fair. As expected almost everyone on the team regressed in 2006 and you saw the results that didn't come as a surprise to me one bit.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Interesting comparison. I'm much more confident that the bats will far exceed the 2005 performance by year end and even more confident they will over the long term. The pitching is a different question. Maybe that starting staff maxed out as well as could be, but the current starters have yet to prove they can be any better. Much of that has to do with losing a solid #2 starter in Yo. Sheets is awesome when healthy, Soup is Soup and Parra seems to be coming on. Everyone else is either injured (Yo, Cappy), has untapped potential (Villy) or is nothing better than a 5 (Bush). Gagne v. Turnbow...this is a hole that just wasn't filled this year. I can't blame Melvin for taking a one year shot, but it appears the experiment has failed. I think the rest of our bullpen is rather solid.

[rluzinski]

It's results that matter. It's not hard to look at the 2005 season, the results, the payroll (half of this year) and the players on that team and compare it to the actual (not what we wished for in spring training) results from this season.

 

So, what's the point of this thread? Anyone can look at win% and conclude that the 2005 team was "better". And if the current Brewers creep over .500 at some point, they'll then be better... until the lose another game, then they are the same.

 

As Ender said, it was fairly obvious that the 2005 team had performed better than their actual talent justified and they predictably regressed in 2006. Actual talent and on field performance does not perfectly match each other over a game, month or even a season. When the Brewers started off 24-10 last year, it was obvious that they did not have the talent to keep that pace up (although it was surprising that they actually played well below average after that point). When the Cubs were well below .500, it was obvious that they had the talent to be above average.

 

To give another example, here are what the top 3 teams in the NL Central are on pace to win:

 

Cubs: 98 wins

Cardinals: 91

Astros: 87

 

Would it really be bold of me to predict that none of those teams will finish with that many wins? But if they realy are as good as they've played, why can I make that prediction so easily?

[MickeyDavis]

So, what's the point of this thread?

There are numerous threads/posts on this board comparing how players have done from year to year and what progress, if any, they are making. Weeks, Hardy, Hall, Hart, et al. They are all subjective. I thought it would be interesting to go back 3 years and look at everyone, especially since our payroll has doubled during that time (and we will soon be approaching a payroll plateau).

[FVBrewerFan]

2005 team was better. Very simply, the rotation was better, and the closer was better. The rest is just conversation. Sheets is athe constant. Cappy/Davis/Ohka/Santos far better than Suppan/Villy/Parra/Bush. Not even close. 2005 Turnbow vs 2008 Gagne- again not even close.

 

I think what we're seeing is the margin of error is very small for this team. Gallardo makes a huge difference.

What??? Are we talking about actual results, or expectations? With the way the rotation has been, it's pretty easy to say that Cappy/Davis/Ohka/Santos was better than our #2 thru #5 this year, but I sure don't think many would have told you at the beginning of the season that they would take those 4 over Suppan/Villy/Parra/Bush, and I can guarantee you no one would have preferred the bottom two (Okha, Santos), over Parra and Bush at the beginning of this year. Why would we have been building our rotation to get worse over the last 3 years?

 

2005 Turnbow vs. 2008 Gagne looks like a landslide now, but I'm sure we were hoping, if not thinking, it'd be close at the beginning of the year. I'm sure there isn't a fan out there who thinks Prince isn't as good as the .276/19/72 that Lyle put up in 2005 -- it's not like we can say that they're pretty close to equal just now just because Prince hasn't been as good as hoped so far.

 

If we're just comparing raw results, there's really no point in doing this. Hindsight is 20/20. Obviously Villy has been awful so far, but I'm sure we were thinking in spring training that his career sub 4.00 ERA would look a lot better than 2005 Tomo Okha.

 

 

I'm looking at mainly results, but also potential. I believe many people here had unrealistic expectations for Bush and Villy in the rotation and Weeks, Fielder, Hardy, and Hall for position players. (Ok, not that many people here are huge Hall fans.) I just don't think the overall talent is as good as many think it is. That Sheets/Cappy/Davis rotation was pretty special looking back. If we can't use hindsight, I don't think anyone would have thought Cappy would have fallen off the cliff. Suppan is not doing anything Ohka or lots of other guys could do. Santos is Vargas...Bush...McClung...etc.

[TooLiveBrew]

If we can't use hindsight, I don't think anyone would have thought Cappy would have fallen off the cliff.

 

Capuano actually had some peripheral numbers that indicated his 18-win season was a lot of luck. Remember, 'fallen off a cliff' = pitched with a ligament tear in his elbow... not exactly just some huge loss of skill.

[joepepsi]

I thought it would be interesting to go back 3 years and look at everyone, especially since our payroll has doubled during that time (and we will soon be approaching a payroll plateau).

The dollars per win ratio is a legitimate concern when looking at a .500 team or one that is rebuilding. For instance, it doesn't make sense to pay Sexson $10 million for a 68 win team. You can actually build a .500 win team on the cheap, as Melvin showed us. But it very difficult to build a playoff caliber team without spending a lot more dollars per win. Each win over 85 or so often comes a high cost. When you're playing for .500 it's in your best interest to audition closers among a bunch of schlubs you find on the scrap heap. When you're playing to win 90+ games, it's tough to justify that strategy; you have to pay a lot for a "proven" closer. You also can end up paying more each piece of the roster.

 

If the 2008 team were playing for .500, Gagne, Cameron, Kendall, Mota, Counsell, and Torres wouldn't be on the roster. Probably not Suppan either. Instead you have a catching corps of Rivera/Rottino, Vargas in place of Suppan, Nix in CF, hodge-podge of NRI's and minor leaguers in the bullpen, Nunez at utility. As fate would have it, that roster might play as well as the current roster has so far; but no one, not even the most homer fan among us, would see it as a playoff team.