Sheets watch (closed in deference to new thread)

[Tbadder]

This is a classic case when the contradictionis true. Game 1 is as important as game 162. But it is also true that 162 is mor important than game 1. It's all down to context.

[TooLiveBrew]

Well said, Tbadder.

 

 

For years Sheets was the best player on a losing team. In my opinion, Sheets will never be the best player on a WINNING team.

 

How good Sheets is & was has only to do with his contribution to a team's winning & losing, just like any other player. Imo any more context than that is fans shaping the perspective of certain players to match up with their (the fans') emotions.

[rluzinski]

Sheets is probably a true 3.5 ERA pitcher that had a 3.54 ERA after CC arrived, while pitching hurt over much of it. I'm not even exactly sure what people are suggesting but the notion that Sheets underperformed isn't even true. And I'm not even going to get into whether Sheets is clutch or not. I think it's all completely silly and irreleant. Teams are going to project ERA and IP. That's it.

[Fatter than Joey]

This logic states that game 162 is more valuable than game 1.

 

It is more important, but how it probably should be stated is that winning game 162 is probably going to be a lot harder than winning Game #34. Which is why we had CC start that game instead of Seth McClung.

 

Like in a 88-87 basketball game every point matters, but getting those last 3 points to go from 85 to 88 as time is running out -- is certainly going to be much harder (for the average player) than they would have been earlier in the game.

 

Mathematically 1=1 so I see the "logic" argument -- but I think it should be obvious that each +1 win comes at a different degree of difficulty, and hence you need players that can win those hard games to go from 85 wins to 90 wins.

 

I do not believe that players have "clutchy attributes" like they might in a video game, but I do think that some players are more likely to perform at their ability in pressure situations than others may be.

[rluzinski]

Fans can't even agree from year to year who the clutch players are and how they determine it in the first place isn't exactly scientific. Heck, the playoffs showed me that Bush is clutch and CC and Suppan aren't, right? I mean, it's when the Brewers needed them more than at any other time, no?

 

I don't completely discount the notion of clutch but the way fans define, quantify and value it is out there, to say the least.

[yoshii8]

Here is a pretty good article on Sheets. It says the Brewers have kept the doors open on a Sheets return. It also looks like Mike Maddux really wants him, and Texas might make a run at signing him. That would be an interesting fit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com...s&source=MLBHeadlines

[Roscoe Chill]

Garbage? Really? Sheets wasn't available for the team's first post season berth in 26 years, which didn't surprise anyone, because he wouldn't have been available if that first post season berth in 25 years occurred in 2007 (which was almost the case) either. All games COUNT the same, but when you're in a pennant race in September I don't think it's a stretch to say that those games are more important than the ones in April. It's definitely not garbage. Does it mean Sheets isn't "clutch?" No. It means Sheets can't stay healthy. I think if you continue to argue that he can stay healthy, the facts are laid out against you.

[Diskono]

Game 162 when win and your in, lose and you go gome... is more important than game 1.

What if the Brewers had lost game 1 though? They might have been out of it before game 162 started, or at the very least needed some Wes Helms magic to force a tie-breaker. Similarly, if the Brewers had won a couple more games here and there in May, they could have had the wild card wrapped up well before the last day of the season. Every game matters exactly the same amount - if this weren't the case, some games would be worth more wins/losses than others.

[Patrick425]

What if the Brewers had lost game 1 though? They might have been out of it before game 162 started, or at the very least needed some Wes Helms magic to force a tie-breaker. Every game matters exactly the same amount - if this weren't the case, some games would be worth more wins/losses than others.

 

I agree completely with this. I also remember reading something about this and how some managers take advantage of other teams "relaxed" approach early in the year.

[TooLiveBrew]

Sheets wasn't available for the team's first post season berth in 26 years, which didn't surprise anyone, because he wouldn't have been available if that first post season berth in 25 years occurred in 2007 (which was almost the case) either.

 

Yeah, stupid guy that was our best SP to begin the season, and pitched through an injury & turned in 198.1 IP of 139 ERA+ work! He gets hurt sometimes! Booooooo!

 

Honestly, there's no way this team makes the playoffs without Sheets, and he notched a workload right aroung that magical 200 IP tally that fans like to see. I really don't understand why people piss & moan about him so much. Yovani got hurt -- BOOOO! Sabathia didn't pitch well in the playoffs -- BOOOO! But at least he was there -- Hooray!

[sveumrules]

mark buerhle | 1796.1

CC sabathia | 1659.1

roy oswalt | 1622

roy halliday | 1576.2

jon garland | 1555.2

mike mussina | 1553

barry zito | 1517.2

tim wakefield | 1458

johan santana | 1457

ben sheets | 1428

 

those are the leaders in innings pitched from 2001 though 2008, the entire time ben sheets has been in the majors. i think the numbers speak for themselves in terms of how much sheets has toed the rubber compared to his contemporaries over the course of his career. also despite missing significant time to injury in 2005/6/7 (he ranked 3rd, 4th, 4th on the team in ip those years) he has managed to start 221 games. by comparison CC has started 254. that's an average of about four starts less per year.

 

i'll end this post with a nice ben sheets coincidence. he's tenth on the list above. he's also tenth on the all time single season k/bb ratio list with his 8.25 from 2004. 264 k, 32 bb.

[Menace II Sobriety]

Thank you, Sheets is a stud and deserves to be treated as one. It sucked that he had the arm injury from being rode hard and put away wet from Yost but it doesn't discount his ability or effectiveness throughout most of last year.

 

It isn't easy to get named the NL starter at the all-star break. While the injury really hurt the Brewers chances in the playoffs that can just as easily be on the training staff and bad management as this injury prone dialogue we always read about.

 

In the here and now of the MLB we have an opportunity to sign a top flight pitcher that already one below league average deal to sign with us at a below market rate. We were all in love with CC and what he did to get us to the playoffs, but personally I would rather resign Ben at half the years and half the cost per year of CC.

[Postseason2006]

Considering he's been out late in the year during our stretch runs, I would think that would be another valid argument about his importance.

[Menace II Sobriety]

Considering he's been out late in the year during our stretch runs, I would think that would be another valid argument about his importance.

Or that could be a direct correlation to how he was mishandled by the staff. Tell me truthfully, How did you feel when he pitched a one hitter on opening day in 2007, or how did you feel every time he took the mound the first half of last season before CC went on his tear.

 

I felt confident as heck that we had the best pitcher on the mound in most every if not every (don't know the matchups) occurance. CC to the Brewers is like dating Marissa Miller, no matter who you date next is never as good as what you had.

 

I would wager that CC never goes on a run like that again in his career. He is capable and very well could do it again, but that was a special time and can not be expected to repeat.

[Roscoe Chill]

If Sheets is so great (dependability factored in) then why aren't we hearing about this huge offer to a guy that has been around for 8 years? Why are we only hearing that the Brewers "haven't shut the door to his return?" I'm not saying "Boo" to Ben Sheets, I'm saying a spade is a spade, and Ben Sheets can't be counted on. Is he really good WHEN HEALTHY? Yes. But a team like the Brewers can't depend on a guy like Ben Sheets in the form of $50 Million plus. Again, we keep having these discussions (arguments) about Sheets and his injuries, and there are so many people who gloss over the health of Sheets every time, except we were having the same discussions (arguments) two or three injuries ago. Was he able to go in the 2008 post season? No. Would he have been able to go in the 2007 post season? No.

[PeaveyFury]

If Sheets is so great (dependability factored in) then why aren't we hearing about this huge offer to a guy that has been around for 8 years? Why are we only hearing that the Brewers "haven't shut the door to his return?

 

I don't think this is a fair point at all, as the Brewers have made it very clear (especially in Tom H's latest blog) that their priority is CC, and when they get a feel for what is going on with him, they'll turn to Sheets.

[Roscoe Chill]

With all due respect, if the brass really thinks like a lot of you here do on Sheets and his dependability, they wouldn't be "waiting until CC makes a decision." Because sad to say, CC isn't coming back, and the Brewers in all honesty already know this. They made an offer, but it's not going to end up being a legitimate offer. That's not a knock on the Brewers, but if Sheets was all that (again with dependability factored in) the priority wouldn't be chasing a pipe dream in Sabathia, it would be Ben Sheets. They understand he breaks down, and that's a good thing.

 

EDIT: And quite frankly, I don't get the impression Sheets would be too keen on being the 'fallback option.'

[southpaw121505]

Crap, I just lost a long post because I wasnt logged in when I hit enter, here's my jumbled thoughts:

 

If we dont sign CC, I'd love to have Sheets back. I don't think we can get him on a one year-prove-yourself-then-hit-jackpot-deal, someone will give him a decent offer that we'll have to match or beat. I'd offer 3/45, or 48, with an option. Not sure if that is enough, if it is I'd do it, here's why: I think his "injury history" will scare a lot of teams away, which is fair. I'm not trying to make excuses for the guy, but he has had some unlucky weird injuries. I honestly think he's more unlucky than fragile. If that's true, you'd have to think his luck changes at some point and he has a few totally healthy 30+ start years in him. If he does, he's probably underpaid. Even if he misses 4-8 starts I still think his contract is ok, not a disaster.

 

If I'm way off on those numbers then feel free to disagree, but if we can get him in that ballpark I'd do it. If he has relatively healthy years we have an underpaid ace, which is so rare.

[Roscoe Chill]

I agree, he might be unlucky, but at 30 going on 31 next year, is it really to be expected that his luck will change?

[lukevan]

The question is: is there another viable guy to go after for the rotation that would be a better option than Sheets that won't deplete the major league team? Some out there are not as good as Benny and some are just as "injury prone" as Sheets. If the choice is sign Garland to a 4 year deal or Sheets to a 3 year, I definitely go for Sheets.

[Roscoe Chill]

But I raise the question again, why are they chasing the unrealistic option in Sabathia rather than just going after Sheets then? The answer to me is simple.

[lukevan]

You may see it as unrealistic but Melvin must think there's still a chance they can sign Sabathia and it's obvious they can't afford both on long term deals, hence not going hard after Sheets just yet. Plus teams are going to be a little more wary on Sheets than Sabathia, giving the Brewers a little more time to see what they would want to offer him. FWIW, I think the Brewers have at least a shot at signing Sabathia if he allows them to counter.

[Ennder]

But I raise the question again, why are they chasing the unrealistic option in Sabathia rather than just going after Sheets then? The answer to me is simple.

 

Because it isn't unrealistic.

[valpocrewsader]

mark buerhle | 1796.1

CC sabathia | 1659.1

roy oswalt | 1622

roy halliday | 1576.2

jon garland | 1555.2

mike mussina | 1553

barry zito | 1517.2

tim wakefield | 1458

johan santana | 1457

ben sheets | 1428

 

those are the leaders in innings pitched from 2001 though 2008

Is that really a complete list? I looked up Jeff Suppan and it seems like he should be on that list, around 1600 IP. If he's missing from the list, who else? Or maybe I'm missing something....

[Postseason2006]

Here are the pitchers so far that have more innings pitched over that stretch 2001-2008 than Sheets.

 

Pettite

Maddux

Randy Johnson

Livian Hernandez

Jamie Moyer

Derek Lowe

Kevin Millwood

Tim Hudson

Tom Glavine

Javier Vaczquez

 

Possibly More to follow...