But My Big Brother's Wearing a Dress

[1992casey]

Isn't the word "ridiculosity"? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Anyway, creative thread titles are way cool. Candidates for title changes would be (but wouldn't be limited to):

• titles like "Please read," "Question," "Rickie Weeks," etc.
• titles that contain half a sentence in the title and the other half in the post
• titles that sound like the teasers you hear on Entertainment Tonight

[Thurston Fluff]

Up the thread, the comparison was made to Tony LaRussa last week. Didn't his team also blow home game after home game to a key divisional rival? Yes of course. But St. Louis's management left the talent cupboard bare for T. La R. by spending all their money building that unnecessary new stadium. Tony's pitching staff and outfield were held together this year by strings and chicken wire supplied by Dave Duncan and Tony himself. No one expected them to still be in the race because the talent just isn't there. Joel Pineiro? Ryan Ludwick? Todd Wellemeyer? Kyle Lohse? Braden Looper? Skip Schumacher? They've overachieved, in a big way so far. Tony's Manager of the Year, hands down. Even if they slide back to .500, he's still got the trophy.

 

Everything you say here is correct but irrelevant to point I was trying to make. If I'm correct what you're saying is LaRussa is working with inferior talent compared to Ned. I agree. But the relative talent level of the Cards vs the Brewers is similar to the relative talent level of the Brewers compared to the Cubs. If LaRussa couldn't so much as win one game at home vs the Brewers that is every bit as bad as the bad as Ned not being able to do so against the Cubs.

[rluzinski]

It's a shame that those Cardals games weren't statement games. I thought they were but what do I know?

 

Of course, the Brewers can go 0-20 in statement games, as long as they still make the playoffs.

 

And Casey, I think you need to go to "Bulletpoints Anonymous". http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Thurston Fluff]

I think the Brewers get all flop-sweaty and fail in critical games because the sense of urgency is not instilled in them, and I'm afraid the motivation thing is on Ned.

 

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as critical series until September. The only way something is critical is if failure means elimination. Critical condition = failure is death. This is far from that situation. Last time they were this far back they closed that gap pretty quickly. Certainly didn't take two months to do it.

 

That said for the sake of argument lets assume it was critical. Then the Cards was as well. They succeeded 50% of the time. The one guy that you would think would have the advantage with regard to getting guys up for big series in LaRussa. That didn't happen so perhaps the "get up for a big series," concept is overrated all together. Each time the better team won. That seemed to be the most important factor.

[logan82]

It's a shame that those Cardinals games weren't statement games. I thought they were but what do I know?

How could those have possibly have been statement games? We weren't playing for anything in them.

 

If he hustled, he'd have been safe at first

 

If Soriano make anything but a horrible throw the play isn't even close.

[giffted1]

But there ARE "statement games" like the ones at Shea Stadium last May, the late July series at Wrigley last year (when Kevin Mench was selected by Ned to bat in the 9th against a tiring righty reliever, with Jenkins available on the bench), against Boston on national TV this May, and this week's 4-gamer against Chicago, with a chance to shut their fans' pieholes. And in those cases, the Brewers appeared unprepared for the deeper scrutiny, frightened by the bright lights like a mouse in your kitchen at 2 AM.

I'm not sure what is achieved by assembling a list of self-proclaimed "statement games" and pointing out the team's failures in them. It's not hard to find other "statement games" (the recent series in St. Louis comes to mind) where the Brewers played very well.

But even after these titanic failures, Yost keeps saying "but we're still in first place" and "we're doing just fine."

Well, we are doing just fine.

But there ARE times to summon up your very, very best for THIS game or for that one, to stop a losing streak, or to compete in your own stadium with a crowd that's 2/3rd's Cub fans. And I just don't see Ned's Brewer teams doing that...which could prove to be the difference between a very talented team that finishes close to the top, and one that just steps on the throttle and "goes for it."

Last night's barrage of Chuck James would appear to be an example of the team summoning up the best to stop a losing streak.

[dvoiss]

I think the Brewers get all flop-sweaty and fail in critical games because the sense of urgency is not instilled in them, and I'm afraid the motivation thing is on Ned. Of course, all games count as 1 out of 162, and you can't get too high or too low.

But what makes you think the Brewers failed because these were "critical games"? There were periods back in May when they played just as poorly in "non critical games". Maybe they played poorly because they played poorly. It doesn't necessarily mean they choked. Or that Ned didn't have them motivated. Maybe they just slumped at the wrong time. Nobody really knows for certain why they played so poorly.

[LouisEly]

You sit there and get pies tossed at you for 4 goddamned days straight, and you can't say anything. It was torture.

 

I feel your pain. I had to sit through four days with a drop-dead gorgeous colleague who is a big Cubs fan, and not only did I have to deal with the torture of finding out she is married again (the second time in about two years) I have to sit and listen to her ask what the score of the game was last night.

 

Anytime some smartass asks you what the score was just say, "Brewers - 19, Cubs - 08".

 

(Or I say, "Hey, at least the Brewers have been to the World Series... in my 59-year-old father's lifetime.")

[GenoSeligPrieb]

One at a time, starting with Backup:

 

"the relative talent level of the Cards vs the Brewers is similar to the relative talent level of the Brewers compared to the Cubs. If LaRussa couldn't so much as win one game at home vs the Brewers that is every bit as bad as the bad as Ned not being able to do so against the Cubs."

 

I see your point, but I can't agree with the comparative talent gap angle. The Brewers are a LOT closer to the Cubs than the Cardinals.

 

T. La R. and Dave Duncan are doing David Blaine-type stuff this year. Raise your hands if you thought the 2005/2006/2007 stat averages for Joel Pineiro, Todd Wellemeyer, Ryan Ludwick, Aaron Miles, Skip Schumacher, Braden Looper and especially Kyle Lohse would have brought this much success in '08. If the talent's not there, but the results are almost the same as a team like the Brewers, with a lot more bullets in their gat, than it comes down to how the 2 teams are prepared and motivated.

 

And by the way, the Brewers/Cardinals series featured a 2nd place team hosting a 3rd place team. Monday through Thursday, it was the runner-up, only 1 game back, hosting the leader. That's more pressurized, wouldn't you think?

 

"It's a shame that those Cardals games weren't statement games. I thought they were but what do I know? "

 

I hear ya, Russ, I hear ya! I know where you were going with this, but as I mentioned above, a 3 @ 2 matchup is not as pressurized as a 1 @ 2. I'll grant you this: After the fact, current history (is there such a thing?) may indeed show that those 4 games in St. Louis DID turn out to be statement-makers. But at the time? Not as much as the Cub series we just blew.

 

"I'm not sure what is achieved by assembling a list of self-proclaimed "statement games" and pointing out the team's failures in them. "

 

Gifted1:

 

I think what I achieved was to provide examples of the Brewers getting enough positive hype to be noticed, and earn some national exposure, only to shrink like violets in most cases. Games on Fox, on ESPN...they draw not only fan attention from all over the country to your club, but also national media. Hell, your whole family can watch THOSE games. Positive national exposure is a healthy thing. And besides, if you perform as your talent suggests you can, in high-profile games, the whole team's image gets a boost. Your players may actually stick around and not bolt for the door as soon as contractually able, if they're getting high-profile hype from USA Today, ESPN, Fox, SI....Hell, you may even attract talent based on wider recognition. Blow those games, and it's tougher to shake the same old small market, weak franchise image we've held for decades.

 

 

But even after these titanic failures, Yost keeps saying "but we're still in first place" and "we're doing just fine."

 

"Well, we are doing just fine. "

 

- Going from first place on Saturday, to 5 games back in 5 days,

- Providing a huge confidence boost to the Cub players,

- Starting slumps for Hardy (his OPS is down 38 points since that Cub series started), Hart (his OPS is down 23 points since then), Braun (down 16 points), and Kendall (down 15).

 

That's not fine.

 

Thank goodness for Atlanta, because if we were facing a competent team this weekend, I don't think we'd have won the first 2.

 

"Maybe they played poorly because they played poorly....Or that Ned didn't have them motivated."

 

Did you see Rickie Weeks sauntering back to 1st base when that liner was hit to Soriano? Hell, he STILL could have made it back easily with a half-run stride. But he just "surrendered" after re-touching second base, and was still out, even after Alfonso's bad throw was bouncing around near the first base bag. Did he appear to you to be "motivated" to try as hard as he could, because his manager would endanger his playing time if he didn't go all out? Me neither.

 

I still don't know why Ray Durham isn't being given a chance. For a leadoff man, his OBP is 46 points higher than Rickie's, his OPS is still 77 points higher, he's a switch hitter, so matchups don't affect him, you won't see HIM dogging it, and I think he can turn a DP instead of jumping back and sidearming the throw to first.

 

 

Now, with today's announcement from Ned, does anyone think Dave Bush deserved to become the full-time 5th starter over Seth McClung? Bush was just godawful during this "audition", giving up 10 earned runs in 12 1/3 innings (that's a 7.30 ERA), while McClung beat St. Louis in his start, and pitched poorly in his 2 relief appearances, which suggests that, for now at least, McClung would be better suited to starting for a while, while Bush has failed again lately in a regular rotation slot.

 

Is there a motivation to do your best if you get chosen by Ned, regardless of how you perform, and/or how well your competition on the depth chart, does?

[TooLiveBrew]

I feel your pain. I had to sit through four days with a drop-dead gorgeous colleague who is a big Cubs fan, and not only did I have to deal with the torture of finding out she is married again (the second time in about two years) I have to sit and listen to her ask what the score of the game was last night.

 

Why does she have to be gorgeous? The universe clearly hates you, LouisEly, and I object. You deserve much, much better! At least she could be horridly ugly, so you could at least think, 'Well, at least she isn't super-hot'.

 

 

I still don't know why Ray Durham isn't being given a chance. For a leadoff man, his OBP is 46 points higher than Rickie's, his OPS is still 77 points higher, he's a switch hitter, so matchups don't affect him, you won't see HIM dogging it, and I think he can turn a DP instead of jumping back and sidearming the throw to first.

 

Well, Durham has only hit RHP this well this season, so to say 'he's a switch-hitter, therefore his swing has no weaknesses' is off-base. And of all the Brewers to call out for not hustling... you pick arguably the hardest-working & hardest-hustling one? Wow.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"Well, Durham has only hit RHP this well this season, so to say 'he's a switch-hitter, therefore his swing has no weaknesses' is off-base."

 

TLB:

 

You're right. A statement that claims "therefore (Durham's) swing has no weaknesses" IS off-base.

 

Only I never thought nor typed that.

 

Re-read the post, m'friend. I alluded to the fact that a switch hitter is not as prone to problems against either a righty or a lefty facing him. Believe me, if Ray's swing had no weaknesses, he'd be Ted Williams.

 

"And of all the Brewers to call out for not hustling... you pick arguably the hardest-working & hardest-hustling one? Wow."

 

OK then, please explain how that complete surrender on the basepaths, on the liner to Soriano, resembled a player who hustles. I'm not saying Weeks is always dogging it, but on that play, he apparently stopped trying. For all we know, maybe he does usually care. But to say he's arguably the hardest-working & hardest-hustling Brewer is tough to back up when we see evidence like that.

 

And last year, after the team demoted Rickie to the minors for 8 days, he came back with some good habits the rest of the season, even drawing 4 walks in his first game back. To me, that suggests he can be motivated by the loss of playing time. If a dope like me can see stuff like this, why doesn't Ned try scaring him into stepping it up a bit?

[TooLiveBrew]

OK then, please explain how that complete surrender on the basepaths, on the liner to Soriano, resembled a player who hustles... For all we know, maybe he does usually care. But to say he's arguably the hardest-working & hardest-hustling Brewer is tough to back up when we see evidence like that.

 

Seeing this... that we don't see Rickie busting his butt every single game... just makes me wonder how objective you're being. For anyone that watches the majority of Brewers games, the one thing you absolutely cannot call into question is whether or not Rickie routinely hustles. It's appalling to me that anyone would try to argue otherwise, but then again, the 'proof' is one play that sticks out in the memory. It's only tough to back that statement up when you give one play the weight of a thousand moons.

 

 

And last year, after the team demoted Rickie to the minors for 8 days, he came back with some good habits the rest of the season, even drawing 4 walks in his first game back.

 

It was related to his wrist healing up far more than any demotion/promotion. Weeks draws BBs... he's quite good at it.

 

 

A statement that claims "therefore (Durham's) swing has no weaknesses" IS off-base.

 

And so is saying that, 'Since he's a switch hitter, matchups don't affect him'. Check his career splits. His performance v. RHP should not be expected to continue.

[rluzinski]

If I have to wait two months to know if a game was a statement game, I guess I don't even know what a statement game is.

 

The series against the Cardinals propelled the Brewers into a playoff position. The Cubs series gave them the opportunity to directly play for a better playoff position.

[Thurston Fluff]

- Going from first place on Saturday, to 5 games back in 5 days,

- Providing a huge confidence boost to the Cub players,

- Starting slumps for Hardy (his OPS is down 38 points since that Cub series started), Hart (his OPS is down 23 points since then), Braun (down 16 points), and Kendall (down 15).

 

That's not fine.

 

True it is not fine to have those things happen to you. On the flip side of that coin it is very fine that even immediately after all those things happen the team still has a better record than all but one team in the league. They must have done a hell of a lot of fine things overall to compensate for such a bad week. For my part I think the larger body of work this season is more indicative of how well the team, and Ned, are doing than one week where they stumbled.

 

If the talent's not there, but the results are almost the same as a team like the Brewers, with a lot more bullets in their gat, than it comes down to how the 2 teams are prepared and motivated.

 

I'm not so sure this is true. If it was why didn't the 07 Cardinals play at the level they are this year? They pretty much sucked last year with essentially the same cast of characters. Certainly the same talent level as this year. Not even the World Series winning Cards team of two years ago played this well. Does that mean the Cards team of 06 weren't motivated enough to win as many games as they were capable of? I say no. It wasn't lack of motivation last year and it isn't a sudden surge in motivation this year. So the conclusion you made seems to indicate La Russa managed to lose his motivational abilities them back or there is a third explanation that has nothing to do with a managers motivation or preparation. I doubt La Russa is schizophrenic so I think his teams success of lack of it is due to something other than his ability to motivate.

 

That leaves us looking for the third reason for the Cards this year.

 

The third alternative and one I'm starting to think is really the case for the Cards is enough of those crappy players are having the proverbial career year this year that they are carrying the team places the very same group, with the same manager, same everything, could never duplicate again.

If the third is true then the two teams are closer ability wise this year than you might think. The only difference is one team has the potential to continue this type of performance for years the other is more or less a one year wonder never to be duplicated again no matter who is manager.

 

I don't want to imply that motivation or preparation is not important by any means. I think preparation is essential. I also think Ned prepares his team well. Motivation to me is different in baseball than it is in any other sport. In baseball motivation is something that a player has to have daily. If he plays poorly one day he has to be motivated to do better the next. Again if a player does play poorly one day I believe Ned does motivate them to play better the next. I do not believe motivation is something that only shows itself in important series or the proverbial big game. In fact motivation for big games can mean they try to do too much and don't play within themselves thus leading to poorer results.

[lukevan]

My reasons for Cardinals 2008 success:

 

Ankiel and Ludwick are better players than previously thought or projected. You've got a productive Troy Glaus at 3B instead of Scott Rolen in a down 2007 season (127 OPS+ for Glaus as compared to 89 for Rolen in 07). Pujols is hitting even better than he did last season with a .450 OBP. I'm not crediting LaRussa's motivational skills as the reason the offense is suddenly better.

 

The starting rotation has completely surpassed preseason expecations but they already had a good defense which helps stabilize the rotation, not to mention a great defensive catcher. I'd credit the Cards GM more than the manager for the rotation.

[TooLiveBrew]

Yeah, Glaus has been very good for them, and really isn't as injury-prone as some label him -- that's a serious power bat to pair with Pujols. With Ankiel, Glaus, Pujols, and Rasmus on the way (down season/power outage in Triple-A so far is a bit puzzling, but his BB rate is still solid), the middle of St. Louis's lineup could be very productive for the next 3-5 seasons

[LouisEly]

The universe clearly hates you, LouisEly, and I object.

 

Finally, someone else sees the world I live in.