What do we do with the outfield next year?

[Ennder]

Cameron has been the 2nd best position player on the team when you factor in defense, I think he is easily worth the extension.

 

having said that I'd like to see us sign a quality backup OF who is LH. He can give Cameron some extra rest and can give Hart some days off against tough righties. I pray we don't go with Gwynn in this role since he is terrible.

[BADGERJOBOB]

A balanced attack makes all the sense in the world in the NFL but almost none in baseball

 

I don't buy this, and i think the evidence is a) the recent slide in which everyone was struggling. You have to have more than one kind of hitter on a team b) the Chicago Cubs....they dont hit as many HR's as Milwaukee, but their hitters are just plain better. Guys like Theriot and Derosa, while certianly no allstars, will advance the runner to third with 1 out, something not one player on our team can do on a consistant basis. Most of our hitters....Braun, Fielder, Hardy, Weeks, Hart, Cameron....all swing as hard as they can and try to pull everything. That doesnt work on a consistant basis.

 

I'm scared as heck when Kendall, Counsell or Hardy come up with a guy on 1st and 1 out

 

Similarly, I get just as scared when theres a guy on third with one out and Cameron comes up. Or when theres someone on second with nobody out and Hardy or Braun or Weeks comes up. The lack of small ball has killed this team in the last month.

 

Paying $10 million for a guy that is the exact same hitter as 4 other guys just doesnt make sense to me. That money needs to be spent elsewhere. I would almost rather see Brantly in center next year than Cameron.

I agree 100%. I hate it when someone minimizes the importance of a strikeout. The Brewers seem to lack the ability to create runs when it matters. Our dive the past two years down the stretch does not stem from random bad luck but from not being able to manufacture runs when needed in tense situations. We strikeout way too often and fail to move runners over with productive outs. All outs are not created equal and we can't have a lineup littered with all or nothing type of players. We need more players who are better situational hitters and less players who continuously pull the ball to short for a ground out without advancing the runner from second to third or fail to hit an important sacrifice fly or hit meaningless grounders where the runner from third can't score with less than 2 outs. Almost everyone in our lineup seems to either lack the ability or lack of baseball sense out on the field. This team just does not value outs near enough with further proof of getting thrown out at varies bases at the most inopportune times. I'll gladly take a player with a little less talent but a whole lot more common baseball sense so we do need to replace some players as we really can't replace all of them. Centerfield and thirdbase seem to be the two areas where we can make those changes. Nothing againt Cameron but he is not what we need more of, other than his defense that is.

[giffted1]

I agree 100%. I hate it when someone minimizes the importance of a strikeout. The Brewers seem to lack the ability to create runs when it matters. Our dive the past two years down the stretch does not stem from random bad luck but from not being able to manufacture runs when needed in tense situations. We strikeout way too often and fail to move runners over with productive outs.

We do strike out a lot, but looking at the numbers, does it really matter? There is no correlation between K's and runs scored. Some teams like the Padres this season, do K a lot and score few runs, but other teams do not follow this trend. The Brewers are 4th in K's and 6th in runs scored in the NL. The Dodgers are 13th in K's (173 fewer than Brewers), and 13th in runs scored (58 fewer than Brewers). Now part of the Dodgers lack of runs could be due to playing in pitchers parks, but look at the Astros (11th in K's), (11th in runs scored), and they play in a hitters park.

 

There is however, a correlation between ops. and runs scored. So really, it doesn't matter if your team srikes out a lot or not. If they have a high ops., they're going to score a lot of runs.

[TooLiveBrew]

I understand these were generic examples, paul253, but I think it's a good example of perception v. reality:

 

Similarly, I get just as scared when theres a guy on third with one out and Cameron comes up. Or when theres someone on second with nobody out and Hardy or Braun or Weeks comes up. The lack of small ball has killed this team in the last month.

 

 

2008 -- Mike Cameron, runner on 3B & less than 2 outs: .316/.360/.526/.886

 

The Cameron-bashing this year borders on craziness imho. Yes, no one likes strike outs, but this has become a sort of 'forest for the trees' thing.

[paul253]

008 -- Mike Cameron, runner on 3B & less than 2 outs: .316/.360/.526/.886

 

Are you able to find any stats that show what percentage of time he drives the run in? I guess my point was, i dont really care if he get a hit or grounds out to second, as long as the run scores (obviously a hit is better), but the pure numbers dont really differentiate between a strikeout and a ground out to second. If in a game he comes up in that situation 4 times and strikeouts twice, singles, and grounds out to short...he's hitting .250 with 1 RBI. If he grounds out to second twice, hits a flyball to center and grounds to short...hes 0-3 with 3 RBI and a sac fly. I'd much rather have option number 2.

 

I just don't trust that when he is up we are going to score the run, because he won't shorten up his swing, but its not just him that does that, its almost everyone on the team. I think its just as much a fault of the hitting coach and manager, but a veteran like Cameron should know what he has to do. I'm not debating whether he's a good player or not....we can project what he'll bring to the table. I just don't think we need what he brings to the table because 4 other guys bring the same thing, offensively at least.

[DuWayne Steurer]

In 2008 Cameron has 19 AB's with a man on 3rd and less than 2 out, in those 19 at bats, he has 13 RBI (one being himself).

 

The (mis)conception is that most non-strikeout outs are "productive", when that just isn't the case. Craig Counsell and Jason Kendall should be proof enough of that.

[kramnoj]

I may be wrong, but I believe it would be slightly more accurate to say that Cameron has 25 PA with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 out. I believe the other 6 PA include 3 walks and his 3 SF in that situation. He does have 6 ks and one GDP in that situation.

 

Anyway, the real question is how much total value does Cameron bring to the table. A player might only come to bat with a runner on 3rd and less than out a couple dozen times a season. I would rather factor in how valuable a player will be over a season rather than look at how they do in 10% or less of their season.

[Ennder]

Strike outs are important in the fact that they tend to limit OBP. Scoring runners from 3rd etc is a really small part of what hurts you with a K.

 

The team as a whole has been up with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs 301 times the entire season. Out of those 301 times they got 169 RBI(1 per 1.78 PA) with 8 of those being HR. They struck out 57 times or 1 time per 5.28 PA.

 

The NL as a whole has 5329 PA with 3130 RBI(1 RBI per 1.70 PA) and 98 HR with 835 K or 1 per 6.38 PA.

 

If you give us league average RBI in those situations we are sitting at 177 RBI instead of 169 RBI or less than 1 win as a team.

 

Ks have a negative impact on OBP in general though so that is really where they hurt us.

[TooLiveBrew]

but a veteran like Cameron should know what he has to do.

 

Like get on base 36% of the time & drive in a lot of runs in said scenario?

[logan82]

Ennder wrote:

Ks have a negative impact on OBP in general though so that is really where they hurt us.

All outs have a negative impact on OBP. How are strikeouts worse than any other out?

 

I think we would be better off if Hart had been striking out more this year instead of hitting into double plays.

[trwi7]

All outs have a negative impact on OBP. How are strikeouts worse than any other out?

If you hit a groundball or a little flair some of those might fall in or sneak through. You don't have that possibility with strikeouts.

[Ennder]

Ennder wrote:

Ks have a negative impact on OBP in general though so that is really where they hurt us.

All outs have a negative impact on OBP. How are strikeouts worse than any other out?

 

I think we would be better off if Hart had been striking out more this year instead of hitting into double plays.

AVG is largely a function of BABIP and when you strike out you don't put a ball in play. Strike outs do limit your AVG which in turn limits your OBP. It is extremely rare to find a .300 hitter who strikes out a ton. Strike outs are a tricky subject. If a player keeps everything about himself the same and just lowers strike outs he will become a better hitter. That happens to some players with age. But a strike out itself is barely worse than a normal out so a guy like Cameron should be judged by his raw stats and not worry about the Ks. If two players have the same OBP/SLG the one who strikes out less probably has a marginal edge in value but even a minute edge in OBP/SLG easily offsets a large difference in strike outs.

 

So in one way Ks are a bad thing and in another way they really aren't. All depends on the context you are looking at.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think for most players, especially one that hits for more power than say, anybody not named Juan Pierre or Craig Counsell, cutting down on strikeouts means being less aggressive at the plate. Would the resultant possible gain in OBP be worth the possible drop in SLG? There's really no way to measure that.

 

If you look at the top 10 players in MLB in OBP this year, 7 of them have struck out 90 or more times.

[tigerbrew]

Think I might let Cameron go to cut cost, and go with a Braun, Kapler and Hart outfield in 2009.

[logan82]

Ennder wrote:

If a player keeps everything about himself the same and just lowers strike outs he will become a better hitter.

Pretty much what I thought. I think this sentence is the key. I am going to continue giving very little attention to strikeouts unless comparing a player to himself in different years.

 

I think it would be hard for a player to cut down on strikeouts and keep everything else about his approach the same. Assuming 500 at bats and a .300 BABIP, every 10 strikeouts a player would cut down on would result in 6 points of batting average. In my opinion, it would take a drastic change in approach to get any significant gain in OBP. The resulting change in approach would also likely cause a big negative change in SLG.

[paul253]

The (mis)conception is that most non-strikeout outs are "productive

 

They aren't necessarily productive all the time, but a strikeout is the least productive thing you can do. Its nothing more than skipping a batter and adding an out...nothing goood ever comes from a strikeout. At least something might happen if you put it in play. A runner might advance....the fielder might boot it, or misjudge it. Having a lineup full of guys that strikeout is a big waste, especially because when they arent striking out they have a hard time making one of those "productive outs". Your right toolive, a lot of it is perception, but when they really need to hit the ball to the right side, like in the 12th inning of game three against Chicago, they simply cant do it. And it costs them games.

[trwi7]

but a strikeout is the least productive thing you can do.

Double plays disagree.

[paul253]

In a sense, but it kinda depends on the situation. If you have guys on first and third with nobody out and the pitcher on deck, I'd rather see a double play than a strikeout because the run will score. If you strikeout now the pitcher bunts and you have to hope for a 2 out hit, or you have to rely on the pitcher to drive in the run.

[rluzinski]

I don't know how many times I've posted that table showing the negative run value of a K and BIP out in every base/out situation. It's based on the results of thousands of MLB games and it clearly shows that there's little difference on the balance. If that's not good enough, then nothing will be.

 

The Cubs score a lot of runs because Theriot and DeRosa make the right kind of outs? I would think it.s because of their NL leading OBP (.355!) and the fact that they have a SLG higher than the Brewers. Get on base, move runners over. That's the foundation of scoring runs, not small ball. The Brewers do half of that well, which is why they still have an above average offense, despite having a ton of Ks.

 

The facts just don't support what you guys are saying. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the suject has been studied in great detail. Now, if you want to argue the benefit of putting more balls into play (that may or may not result in an out) over a K, that's a completely different argument. A good projection system knows that a batter's K rate is very important. Some seem to confuse the two, however.

[paul253]

Get on base, move runners over. That's the foundation of scoring runs, not small ball.

 

Isn't that the definition of small ball?

 

I remember thinking during thar brutal 4 game sweep in Milwaukee that the Cubs seemed to have more hits to the opposite field then the Brewers had total. The reason they score all those runs and have a higher OBP is because their entire team isnt swinging for the fences like our team is. And they are willing, if not prefer to, hit the ball to the opposite field, which is something we don't. While our hitters might be more talented, and have better "potential", their hitters are just plain better.

 

That all being said...why spend $10 million on a guy, Cameron, that does exactley what everyone else does? Why not get some balance?

[TooLiveBrew]

Part of the problem imo with 'Small Ball' is that it isn't defined well, if at all. The best way I understand to this point is that 'Small Ball' necessitates OBP (there's no such thing as a 'productive out' with no one on base... it just gets called 'crappy hitting' then), yet seems to value one run over multiple runs. Anytime you're happy and/or readily willing to give up outs to advance runners 90 feet, your chances at run scoring decrease. A runner on 2B with 1 out is NOT giving a better chance even at scoring just the one run than a runner at 1B with no outs.

 

One other thing I seem to get from 'Small Ball' is that you play to avoid double plays as much as possible. Ok, can't find a ton of fault there... but the trouble then becomes that putting runners in motion can result in a lot of bad outcomes, too. A sort of 'delayed double play', if the runner is thrown out on a hit-&-run (runners don't get good SB jumps on h&r's... they delay a bit longer) & the batter follows with an out, a line-out double-play where the runner is caught off 1B, a batted ball hitting a runner in motion that otherwise would not have been near the ball, etc.

 

I think 'Small Ball' is another way of saying, 'Play to avoid outcomes that really really irritate some people'. I understand the rationalizing in terms of feeling better ('hey, at least he didn't strike out'), but when it's broken down in terms of the ultimate objectives of the offense... don't make outs, score runs... 'Small Ball' actually decreases the chances.

 

Here is Baseball Prospectus's Run Expectations generator. You can select any season & see what the run expectancies are for all the base-out states.

 

 

That all being said...why spend $10 million on a guy, Cameron, that does exactley what everyone else does?

 

No one else does exactly what he does. He's a better hitter than Corey Hart at this point, and plays far better defense at a premium position. If you want to argue that 2009 is not the right season in which to 'take a shot', and therefore we should let Cameron move on, I can get on-board with that. But to submit that he's the 'same' as 'everyone else' is just way off-base.

[rluzinski]

Sorry, I meant moving runners over via a walk or hit, not making outs. If you want to argue that a player getting on base more than Cam at the expense of power might be more valuable, that's more than reasonable. That's not what people are arguing though. It's always "his OBP and SLG is decent but he strikes out too much." That's the wrong way to evaluate offensive performance, as a player's K rate has only a very small impact on his offensive value, relative to his OBP and SLG. This has been looked at every which way (historical data at the season level, inning level, simulations and they've all concluded that K rate correlates to scoring so weakly that the vast majority of run estimators ignore it altogether. Perhaps some teams can better control when they make certain kinds of outs, better than the average team. Again, though, we are talking about some small effects.

 

The higher the run scoring environment is, the less value productive outs have. A double is a productive out without the out. Blame the small parks and large playersif you don't like it. I'm not sure that I do.

[homer]

If K's were a detriment to scoring runs than Texas would be near the bottom of the runs scored list. They are first in MLB in runs scored and 6th in Ks (tied with your Milwaukee Brewers).

[sbrylski]

I think we should start doing more Baltimore Chops. Maybe that's the key.

[Ennder]

If K's were a detriment to scoring runs than Texas would be near the bottom of the runs scored list. They are first in MLB in runs scored and 6th in Ks (tied with your Milwaukee Brewers).

K's most certainly are a detriment to scoring runs, just other things like OBP and SLG can easily outweigh them. The Brewers do strike out too much and they don't BB enough, but they hit for enough power to offset a lot of the problem. If you took the Brewers and left them with the same exact power and same exact BB rate and somehow magically made them strike out 0 times they would be a much better hitting team. Obviously that is not realistic but you get the idea.