What do we do with the outfield next year?

[OglivieHomePerm]

I am almost ready to join the "strikeouts are just outs" club, but I've got one last thing that I can't wrap my head around. When judging the effectivness of a pitcher, typically strikeout rate is one of the first stats to be referenced. If Strikeouts by the pitcher are considered a good thing, doesn't that inherently make them bad from the batters perspective?

 

And on the actual topic of the thread, I think that the Brewers outfield should be Braun Cameron and Hart, with our 4th outfielder being a left-handed batter who can play all 3 positions, a Gabe Gross type.

[kramnoj]

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

 

The thing that needs to be looked at here is who is available? If you don't pick up Cameron's option, who are the options that could replace him? That's not a rhetorical question.

 

Some here advocate Hart. I don't think there's much reason to believe that the Brewers support this. I think one of the reasons that LaPorta was traded was because the Brewers didn't see a spot on the Brewers team for him next year. If the Brewers were thinking that Hart could man CF next year, I don't see them trading away a 2009 starting outfielder for CC.

 

I wold guess that the Brewers were hopeful that Gwynn would progress enough that he could be the starting CF for 2009. Unfortunately that didn't happen. He could play the position defensively, but his bat would be projected to be awful.

 

If you look at FA, I don't think there's one FA CF that would be projected to have total plus value at CF, and if they did, they would cost a lot more than one year at $10M.

 

There's the possibilty of trades. Players like Juan Pierre, Gary Matthews, Coco Crisp. I don't want any of those players.

 

It's possible that Mevlin is scouring the minor leagues or major league benches for a pickup like Podsednik or Clark. If he can find that, I would be happy with that because he has had success in acquiring players off the typical fan radar that have provided value.

 

The Brewers would be hard-pressed to spend $10 million more efficiently in this offseason than they could on picking up Cameron's option.

 

Edit:

If Strikeouts by the pitcher are considered a good thing, doesn't that inherently make them bad from the batters perspective?

 

Someone may provide a better explanation than me, but I'll provide my understanding. Ks from a pitcher show dominance, and the less plays the defense has to make is going to improve the success of the pitcher. For a hitter, Ks have a high correlation to power. For the vast majority of hitters, you won't have power unless you have a swing that will translate to Ks. There is a limit. If you strike out more than once every three at bats, the chance of being productive when the ball is put in play is small. Also, major league clubs do a good job selecting the population of minor league players that will strike out, but will also have power. Players who strike out a lot without being productive don't really make it to the major leagues.

[trwi7]

I am almost ready to join the "strikeouts are just outs" club, but I've got one last thing that I can't wrap my head around. When judging the effectivness of a pitcher, typically strikeout rate is one of the first stats to be referenced. If Strikeouts by the pitcher are considered a good thing, doesn't that inherently make them bad from the batters perspective?

I don't think anybody has said strikeouts aren't bad for a hitter. Obviously they are, since the hitter made an out. The argument is about are strikeouts really that much worse than a ground out or a fly out. Obviously strikeouts are worse than a fly out when there's a runner on third and one out. Just like ground outs are worse than strikeouts when there's runners on first and second with one out.

 

One of the reasons strikeouts are looked at for a pitcher is because they don't have to rely on the defense behind them to make a play. If you have a terrible defense behind you, you're obviously going to want to strikeout as many guys as you can. If you have a good defense behind you, then it's still good to strikeout guys since even the best defenders make errors but it isn't as "necessary" to strike them out since the defense will help you out more.

[logan82]

Here is a link to an article in Baseball Prospectus on strikeouts and what they correlate to for hitters and pitchers. Strikeouts are one of those weird things that correlate well for pitchers, but not for hitters. I think streakyness was another one.

[rluzinski]

Ender, your example is comparing a sure out (SO) with a possible hit (ball in play). I'm comparing an out with an out. Take a player with a known OBP and SLG and his K matters little with regard to total offensive value of his performance. A K is so valuable to a pitcher because the alternative is a bip that was a 30+% chance of being a hit.

 

The more interesting and dificult question is whether a high K, high power hiter could increase his value by making adjustments. Could he sacrifice some power for more bip and and a higher OBP? That's hard to answer and depends heavily on the player in question. Who knows?

 

Strikeouts (almost) don't matter... when compared to another OUT!

[paul253]

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.

 

I could be completely misunderstanding what you're saying, so I'll apologize ahead of time if I am...but I dont see how a guy on second with nobody out is no more likely than a guy on first with nobody out. That chart you provided.....I have no idea how to read it, but from what it looks like to me is that if there is a guy on second with nobody out the team scores on average 1.14 runs per inning, and when theres a guy on first with nobody out the teams score an average of .89 runs. That would mean the team is more likely to score with the guy on second, wouldnt it?

 

I admit, I hate strikeouts. They are useless and a waste of an at bat. I dont know how they affect runs scored. In the case of Cameron, the reason I dont want him next year, as I've said all along, is that he doesnt provide anything offensively that 3 or 4 guys dont already provide......25+ HRs, 70+ RBI, few walks, lots of strikeouts. He may be able to swipe some more bases than Hardy and Fielder, but probably comparable to Hart and Braun. Why pay him so much money for him to provide something we already have. Who do I want to replace him? I honestly dont know. I'm hoping Brantley has a big spring and maybe even Gwynn heats up.

 

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

 

The small ball philospohy is designed to get at least one run, but its also designed to keep tacking on runs. How many times have we seen the Brewers score 4 runs in the first and go scoreless the rest of the game because of their inability to get back to back hits? A lot of times, tacking on those 1 or 2 extra runs late in the game helps put it away, especially with a shaky bullpen, and we cant do that. It's harder to have the big innings later in the game because the other team will change pitchers 3 times to get better matchups. Our inability to hold leads killed us last season, if i remember correctly. Yeah the bullpen was bad, but they didnt add extra runs, which can demoralize a team. Then when we go into prolonged slumps, like we did in early September, we have literally offense because we cant even get that one run in.

[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).

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.

 

Well yeah I know. But Ks alone do not determine run production - that's my point.

[kramnoj]

Brantley's translation for his 2008 season is .307/.361/.379. That would put him in the middle of the pack of OPS among MLB CF this year. I guess the question is how good is his defense expected to be? He's only played 64 games in CF total the last 2 years. Baseball-reference doesn't tell me where he played in the OF in 2006. I think it's asking a lot to expect a 22 year old who hasn't seen time in AAA to make the leap and play a position that he hasn't even played half a season at over the last 2 years. And if he isn't ready, or gets hurt, that leaves us with whoever our 4th OF is or Gwynn to step in.

[Baldkin]

Tony Gwynn is not the answer. He OBP'd .328 and OPS'd .659 in AAA this year.

That does not translate to him being BETTER than that in MLB next year.

 

I'll be very sad if Cam isn't running down gappers and taking away hits in CF again next year. I love watching him play the game, I've never seen anyone so smooth in CF.

[mancl]

Does it make any sense to move Hart to lst base, where he started his career, if they traded Prince? It seems the Brewers have more possibilities for a corner outfielder for the future- Cain, Gillespe, Gamel than they do lst base - Gamel.

[Never Outhustled]

I admit, I hate strikeouts. They are useless and a waste of an at bat. I dont know how they affect runs scored.

Subtract 1 run per every 100 K's. So if Cameron K's 100 times more than another OF, he has cost his team 1 more run. Then compare that 1 run to how many more runs he produces by having a higher OPS than many OF's and most CF's. That will show that Cameron is a very useful player.

[lukevan]

Cameron has improved the defense so much. And he adds 25+ HRs? Who else has a CF that can do both of these? Short term, I'm just fine with $10 million. Brantley could be supremely ready by 2010.

[clancyphile]

My thoughts:

Right Field: Stick with Hart

Center Field: Stick with Cameron

Left Field: Look for a Brady Clark/Gabe Gross type who can bat second or seventh, because if I were managing, Ryan Braun moves back to third base.

 

It will be easier to find a corner outfielder who can provide a decent OBP/OPS than it will be to find a third baseman. Cheaper, if a trade becomes the preferred avenue of approach as well.

[TooLiveBrew]

That chart you provided.....I have no idea how to read it, but from what it looks like to me is that if there is a guy on second with nobody out the team scores on average 1.14 runs per inning, and when theres a guy on first with nobody out the teams score an average of .89 runs.

 

You're reading the chart correctly for the two scenarios you just described... but the discussion was about sacrifices or 'productive outs'... so you want to look at a runner on 1B with no outs v. a runner on 2B with one out.

 

Runner on 1B, 0 out = .898

Runner on 2B, 1 out = .689

 

 

Why pay him so much money for him to provide something we already have.

 

But we don't already have Cameron in that sense. We have other players at other positions. This isn't an investment portfolio, where you diversify for the sake of not relying on one specific element of the market. This is a lineup of 8 position players, where you want the best possible answer you can find at each of the 8 spots. Brantley in 2009 is not going to be better than Cameron, and TGJ is still going to suck. And, as has already been addressed, finding comparable or superior production to Cameron for less than his $10M price tag in free agency is not a likely scenario at all. Now if you somehow trade for Grady Sizemore or someone that's a pre-FA player who can provide equal or superior production to Cam, of course that's a different story.

 

 

he doesnt provide anything offensively that 3 or 4 guys dont already provide......25+ HRs, 70+ RBI, few walks, lots of strikeouts.

 

This has become totally warped by your admitted hatred of strikeouts. Cameron's BB total is 3d on the team, and you're neglecting the fact that he's amassed that tally even with missing almost a full month of the season.

[rluzinski]

Take 9 batters who all have the identical line: .275/.340/.410/.750. In 700 PA, each will make about 460 outs. What I'm saying is, the type of the out those batters make will have only a small impact on total runs scored by that offense. And unless you could control when the strikeout and nonstrikeout guys get to bat,it really matters little if your offense is diversified, SO wise. Having a diversified bench would help, so you can call up the contact hitter to hit with a runner at 3B and 1 out, and you can call the K machine up with runners at 1st and 2B up with 1 out. The majority of the time, there's either no one on and/or 2 out, in which case, it doesn't matter at all.

 

Cam's projected line is what matters and it could be negatively influenced by his higher K rate this year.

[bjkrautk]

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.

Just to add, there's an important distinction that needs to be drawn here. You're correct in pointing out the average of the aggregate runs scored based on a situation, in which the number of outs tends to have a greater marginal impact than the base-positioning of the runner. The natural counterpoint, however, is that by sacrificing the runner from first to second, the probability of scoring at least one run does actually increase. (I'm sure someone can dig up the chart that goes along with this...I'm at work.)

 

We can debate when (or if) it's best to play for a single run, or the frequency with which Sveum does so (too often, based on the last week, in my humble opinion)....but that's the theory behind the practice.

[Fatter than Joey]

I admit, I hate strikeouts. They are useless and a waste of an at bat

 

I think that there is a lot of confusion about strikeouts -- I am hoping that this will help bridge the gap for some people.

 

1.) Adam Dunn Fallacy -- "Adam Dunn sucks because he strikes out a lot" -- Some players strike out a lot but provide very tangible offensive value to their team. Sure, it would be awesome if Dunn struck out 40 times a year -- but it is part of his batting approach -- he is consistently in the top 10 in K's and OPS in the NL. He strikes out a lot, but there isn't a team in MLB that wouldn't want his bat in their lineup somewhere. Certainly there are players that strikeout a lot, that flat out suck like Michael Bourn, but we cannot be quick to hate on power hitters like Dunn that K a lot but BB and mash HRs as well.

 

2.) Hitting Behind the Runners Fallacy -- A lot of people get excited when a guy like Craig Counsell hits a grounder to the 2nd baseman moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd with 0 or 1 out(s). As awesome as that is, it really is a situational luck of the draw. That is, if the runner is on 1st when Counsell hits his Yosty groundball to the 2b, it is likely a 2xplay, if the runner is on 2b, then Counsell moves the runner to 3rd. Now, if Counsell truly has the ability to hit the ball behind baserunners at will, then it is certainly better to groundout than it is to K with a runner on 2b and 0 outs, but my guess is that he is going to hit the same crappy groundball, no matter what, it just helps you when the runner is on 2b, and kills you when the runner is on 1b. It is more likely that there is going to be no runners on, or a runner at 1b, than a runner on 2b.

 

3.) A Player's K rate -- As some of you may recall, I took some heat earlier this year for giving Cameron a tough "grade". I based it on his increased strikeout rate, which was way higher than his career rate. K rates and BB rates should remain pretty constant year to year (unlike BA). If a player K's 20% more in 2008 than he did in 2007, that entirely sucks and matters. It is a good idea to keep tabs on a players K rate and BB rate -- If Adam Dunn strikes out 165 times year in and year out -- his OPS and production has probably stayed consistent -- If he strikes out 210 times the following year -- I can guarantee his OPS has taken a noticeable hit.

 

4.) K vs. Bad AB/Plate Approach -- I think a dude can get frustrated when he watches a K during a "bad AB", and then someone tells him "K's don't matter". We have all seen a lot of bad AB's and plate approaches for the Brewers over the last few seasons. I think you can have a great AB and K, I think you can have a bad AB and popup. Having bad AB's and K'ing does matter and sucks -- but so does having bad ABs and popping up or hitting into 2bs. If you are unsure what I mean by "bad AB" I would suggest watching Bill Hall the next time he faces a RHP. Going 0-4 with 4 Ks could mean you had 4 terrible ABs or it could mean you had 4 decent ABs against tough pitching. It would be nice if some stat guy somewhere kept track of "Good AB rates", which is what I would do if I ran a team -- that is to say, if you K'd because you had a bad approach to your AB, I would DFA you, but if you K'd but got good hacks in, I'd keep you around. In short, some K's are the result of a poor approach to an AB, and those K's suck, but not anymore than a pop-up or nubber to the P.

[TooLiveBrew]

The natural counterpoint, however, is that by sacrificing the runner from first to second, the probability of scoring at least one run does actually increase.

 

Thanks for bringing that in. I would grab that chart... but I don't know where to find it. I think one of my fundamental disagreements with whatever Small Ball is would be that (esp. with how the game is played now) I hate the concept of giving away outs in the pursuit of single runs at a time.

[rluzinski]

tangotiger.net has many wonderful charts. You want run frequuency, not expectency.

[DuWayne Steurer]

To heck with small ball. Give me Earl Weaver baseball everyday. 2 walks and a 3 run homer.

And I'm going to add to FTJ's fallacy list.

5. Tiny scrappy white guys are good at "small ball".

I get savagely sick and tired of Schroeder, Anderson (and Sutton before him) talk about how Counsell "is so good at moving runners over" and "is really tough with 2 strikes" and "can be counted on to make contact every time up there"

Well, 41 k's in 240 at bats isn't awful, but that's not a great K rate for a guy that hits for no power at all. Also, with runners on this year, he's hitting .206 with a .255 SLG%.

And if we throw Tony Gwynn out there next year, that's exactly what we'll be getting.

 

[joepepsi]

Earl Weaver philosophy:

 

More runners score from 1st with no outs than from 2nd with one out.

 

If you play for one run that's all you'll get.

 

Pitching, defense, and three homers win games.

[MJLiverock]

I like the playing for 1 run when down by one run or tied late in the game. Especially when the team's worst hitters with no power are due up like Kendall and Counsell. Staying out of the DP and setting up the game tying or winning run to score on a single hit is worth something rather than leaving him on 1st and praying you can avoid the DP and get 2 hits out of the worst hitters on the team.

 

Smalll ball in the 2nd inning no, but it has its place in the 8th and 9th.

[DuWayne Steurer]

There is some merit to playing for one run late in a game, and I think most would agree. Especially when it's Hall/Counsell and Kendall. However, one could also argue that pinch hitting for those guys with someone who can actually.......hit has just as much merit as bunting for the sake of staying out of a double play situation.

[jhart05]

"What do we do with the outfield next year?"

 

 

Absolutely nothing.

 

Pick up the option on Cameron, he's been the best defensive Brewer CFer in many years, just don't bat him any higher than 6th.

Leave Braun and Hart where they are.

 

But maybe give Hart a few more days off. (I'm speculating that's the reason for his stinking up the place in September. Just not ready to play 150+ games yet.)

 

Also, I've sat in Sec 103 for over 20 games this year, Hart is not ready to play CF. He does not read the ball coming off the bat well enough to be able to cover all that ground in CF for an entire season. Not yet at least.

[MJLiverock]

Hart was a guy I thought would really bust out this year but he has really struggled in the second half. He seems to get a pass with the focus on Hall/Counsell, Weeks, Kendall but Hart has been borderline bad in the second half. His OBP is .275 since the All Star game, that is horrid for a corner outfielder.

 

September has been bad but the previous three months were only .310, .301, .292. For all the flak Braun gets for not walking enough he looks like Rickey Henderson compared to Hart. Hard has 27 walks in over 620 PA's, about 1 out of every 23 PA.

 

I don't know if I can just chalk it up to being worn out in September since it has been a 4 month stretch. He has been able to come up with extra base hits but he hasn't been able to get on base with any regularity.