Brewer 3B Options For The Rest of The Year

[dadofandrew]

Productive outs are probably part of it, as is even when Counsell K's, he might see 10 pitches, as he did today.

 

He's the "professional hitter" they discuss a lot, but without the success. He does look good up there, and works the pitcher.

 

Note Hart's HR again today. Protection exists, but barely. It's not worth discussing a tenth as much as it is brought up.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Productive outs are probably part of it, as is even when Counsell K's, he might see 10 pitches, as he did today.

That's another great thing I didn't even bring up. Does anybody have the statistics on how many pitches Counsell takes per PA as opposed to the rest of our team? It's nice to have players who can tire out the opposing starting pitcher early so they can burn their pen.

 

It's not worth discussing a tenth as much as it is brought up.

It is when there is a mistake being made of people taking for granted what Counsell intangibly brings to this team. It's tiime to sleep now.

[TheRealMattKain]

If anybody can name any specific game that Counsell has costed us in the last 2 weeks, please let me know,

That's kind of ridiculous since we've only lost 4 games in the past 2 weeks that Counsell played in, and by no means can we pin those losses on a single player. However, if you want to play by those rules and try to assign a loss to a specific guy, then we can come up with all sorts of ways to "blame" Counsell for losses:

 

August 4th: 6-3 loss to Reds

4th inning, runner on second, Counsell struck out

6th inning, runners on first and second, Counsell grounded out

Extra base hits in those at bats would have won or tied the game

July 11th: 6-5 loss to Reds

7th inning, Counsell grounded out

Homerun would have tied game

July 7th: 4-3 loss to Colorado

2nd inning, runner on first and second, Counsell grounded out

Big hit would have won or tied game

July 3rd: 6-5 loss to Arizona

8th inning, Counsell flied out

Homerun would have tied game

June 25th: 4-3 loss to Atlanta

3rd inning, runner on second, Counsell grounded out

8th inning, runner on third, Counsell grounded out

Hits in one or both of those situations would have won or tied the game

May 25th: 7-6 loss to Washington

2nd inning, runner on first and second, Counsell grounded into double play

6th inning, runner on second, Counsell lined out

Big hits in those at bats would have won the game

Now I know the above is ridiculous, but that's sort of the point. In baseball, you can very rarely, if ever, assign the win or the loss to a single player. You never really know what would have happened with a better hitter, a better fielder, a better pitcher, or a faster runner in any of the dozens and dozens of plays that comprise a baseball game. That being said, we do know that baseball is an additive game - the end result is comprised of a whole bunch of plays involving a team of players with different skills. It seems pretty logical that if you maximize the skills of the players on the field during the course of a game, you will win more games (What really confused me is when people say stuff like "we have enough power". No you can NEVER have enough power. In baseball you are not penalized for hitting more than 5 homeruns, you don't lose runs after every 7th double, you don't forfeit the game if your team hits two grandslams. Where does this strange argument come from? If you score more runs, you will win more games. There will always be 1 and 2 run losses that a homerun here or a double there could have won.).

 

With all that in mind, if I was a gambling man, I'd prefer Branyan in each of the above scenarios. Who knows? We might have one or two more wins if that had been the case.

[TheRealMattKain]

That's another great thing I didn't even bring up. Does anybody have the statistics on how many pitches Counsell takes per PA as opposed to the rest of our team?

This was posted a little earlier in the thread, but I'll update the numbers with a few more details. Here are the pitches per plate appearance for our third base options:

 

Counsell:

2006: 3.8

2007: 3.9

2008: 4.1

Branyan (my 2008 number from thehardballtimes is different than what the earlier poster listed)

2006: 4.2

2007: 3.9

2008: 3.8

Hall

2006: 4.2

2007: 4.0

2008: 4.2

 

Basically identical. If anything, you can put forth a pretty decent argument that Bill Hall sees the most pitches (in fact, it's not an argument - it's a fact). Counsell sees .3 pitches more per plate appearance than Branyan. Over the course of a game that is going to translate into one more pitch (.3 P/PA * 4 PA = 1.2 pitches) than Branyan sees. 1 extra pitch. Do we really think that that one extra pitch is going to tire out the pitcher or reveal some secret about his delivery that will help the other hitters? This is another case of perception vs. reality. People *think* that Counsell is a gritty battler that works the count, fouls off balls, and hangs in there for the good of the team, but the numbers show that this just isn't true. I still love Counsell's defense, but it doesn't make up for the fact that he brings absolutely nothing to the plate.

[Fear The Chorizo]

how much of 10 pitch Counsell strikeouts are him being a professional hitter, and how much of that is him simply being bad at making solid contact on hittable pitches? Give me a paycheck and a bat and I'm suddenly a professional hitter too - that doesn't make me a good one.

 

It's one thing to work the count when a pitcher's not giving hitters strikes to hit - it's another to foul off a series of good pitches to hit in RBI situations. I'd have no problems with Counsell if he wasn't being used so much as a corner infielder, and hitting 6th in this lineup, no less. His role should be a defensive replacement in the late innings, and a backup middle infielder.

 

it's also tough to quantify him costing us no games by citing how well the offense has hit lately, since I think that goes hand in hand with the Brewers facing bad pitching lately, too. Nationals, Reds, injury-riddled Braves? Not exactly teams loaded with aces and lock-down bullpens right now, if you ask me.

[joepepsi]

I calculated the numbers of our 3 headed monster at 3rd base. Here are Counsell, Hall, and Branyan combined numbers for only those games they played 3rd:

 

498 PA; 447 ab; 224avg, .296obp, .465slg pct. .761OPS.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

it's also tough to quantify him costing us no games by citing how well the offense has hit lately, since I think that goes hand in hand with the Brewers facing bad pitching lately, too. Nationals, Reds, injury-riddled Braves? Not exactly teams loaded with aces and lock-down bullpens right now, if you ask me.

That's exactly why it's the perfect time to play Counsell right now. Offense is not at a premium against bad pitching, but we can always use defense on this team because it has a track record of being horrid.

[brewjihad]

But that's the point. If the rest of the offense is scoring runs at this point, then Counsell is fitting perfectly into our lineup right now because his lack of run production is not being exposed. But at the same time, he's playing good defense and filling a team need. The main thing people need to remember is that this is just temporary. If the offense goes back into the tank and I'm sure it will if Braun misses extended time, Branyan will be back.

 

I'm trying very hard to understand this concept. It's acceptable to play a worse player because the other players are playing well, so the worse player's impact isn't as noticeable?

 

Using this theory, (using analogies to other Wisconsin sports teams)

 

- the Bucks could start Dan Gadzuric at center when the other 4 starters are scoring a lot, because Gadzuric is marginally better than Andrew Bogut at getting steals.

 

- the Packers could start Kregg Lumpkin at running back when the passing game is going well because Lumpkin is a marginally better pass blocker than Ryan Grant

 

Counsell hasn't 'costed' the Brewers victories, but that is not the point. The point is if Ned continues to use Counsell as the lefthanded member of the 3B platoon, he will eventually cost the Brewers a victory- and that's absolutely inexcusable.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I'm trying very hard to understand this concept. It's acceptable to play a worse player because the other players are playing well, so the worse player's impact isn't as noticeable?

I don't see what's so tough to understand about the concept. Counsell is a better defender than Branyan and the team need is defense and when runs aren't at a premium why not go with defense? I feel like I'm repeating myself.

[And That]

I'm trying very hard to understand this concept. It's acceptable to play a worse player because the other players are playing well, so the worse player's impact isn't as noticeable?

I agree... is the inverse also true, that if the team is not playing well, is it ok to not play your best player?

Counsell is not as good offensively as Branyan or Hall, and might not be better defensively either. There is just no reason to give him much of a chance to make professional strikeouts, gritty weak throws or yeomanlike foul popups. A start a week to keep him fresh, sure... more than one in a row at third base with better options, no way. The goal is to maximize production at all spots in the order, not just be happy with 7-8 of them.

 

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Counsell is not as good offensively or defensively as Branyan or Hall.

Really? Branyan is better defensively than Counsell? That's news to me. How do you come to that conclusion?

[And That]

Well, Branyan's RZR is better than Counsell's this year, granted it's a very small sample size. Branyan certainly has a better arm. At best, it's a wash, and offense cancels out any possible advantage Counsell has.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Well, Branyan's RZR is better than Counsell's this year, granted it's a very small sample size. Branyan certainly has a better arm. At best, it's a wash, and offense cancels out any possible advantage Counsell has.

I think that pretty much proves that defensive statistics are very much flawed. Do you really think Branyan is better defensively than Counsell at 3B from what you've seen on the field this year?

[And That]

I think that pretty much proves that defensive statistics are very much flawed.

Because they don't agree with your point?

 

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

You didn't answer my question. I'll type it again:

 

Do you really think Branyan is better defensively than Counsell at 3B from what you've seen on the field this year?

[endaround]

I think that pretty much proves that defensive statistics are very much flawed. Do you really think Branyan is better defensively than Counsell at 3B from what you've seen on the field this year?

Yes. Counsell's arm has fallen off from where it was even last year and his range isn't that important at 3B. Hall is the best of the three mostly because he can not only charge balls quickly but get off a strong throw, not always accurate of course. All of them have enough range to dive on balls up the line or near the hole. The defense difference just isn't there at 3B. Yes Counsell is a better SS but thats because his range becomes more important.

Add to all of this is Counsell's 37, even great players fall off quickly at 37 if they play everyday. Counsell has never been a great player and hasn't been an everday player since 2005. Of all the players likely to get worn out he would top the list.

 

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

How about the ability to charge bunts and slow rollers? That certainly is a range factor. I'm not sure if defensive statistics take that into account. I would give Counsell the nod at that over Branyan in that department.

[And That]

You didn't answer my question. I'll type it again:

 

Do you really think Branyan is better defensively than Counsell at 3B from what you've seen on the field this year?

You didn't answer my question either. Oops!

 

Yes, I think Branyan is better. Craig might have a hair better range, but the guy is turning 38 in 9 days (he's even admitted he can't/shouldn't play every day) and Branyan's arm is much better. The marginal difference in range between the two is outweighed by the marginal difference in arm strength IMO, and any marginal defensive differences are vastly outweighed by Branyan's bat.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

You didn't answer my question either. Oops!

I asked my question first and you answered my question with another question. You seem to do that a lot.

 

If you think Branyan is better than Counsell defensively, then yes Branyan should be in there vs righties all the time, but that is where we differ in opinion I guess.

[endaround]

How about the ability to charge bunts and slow rollers? That certainly is a range factor. I'm not sure if defensive statistics take that into account. I would give Counsell the nod at that over Branyan in that department.

Yes Counsell can get to those balls but he doesn't have the arm strength to do anything with them anymore.

 

[And That]

I asked my question first and you answered my question with another question. You seem to do that a lot.

It's part of the Socratic method. You still haven't answered my question!

 

Counsell has stated the team would be better if he weren't playing every day. By his own admission, he shouldn't be in there this often. He has a bad throwing arm. He can't hit much. I'm not even sure exactly what the argument for keeping Counsell in there is... charging bunts and productive outs?

[rluzinski]

I'm not sure why we even need to argue about defense. Make Counsell the best defensive 3B in the league and Branyan a little below average and Counsell still can't match Branyan's overall value.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Yes Counsell can get to those balls but he doesn't have the arm strength to do anything with them anymore.

Obviously he does because he's been making plays on the bunts and slow rollers. I don't recall even the slightest miscue by Counsell this year when he's played 3B.

 

[endaround]

He isn't making those plays. An since Counsell has an error at 3B I'm not sure how much to trust your memory.

[Fatter than Joey]

He already has an error in only 15 total chances