Why Do Some Want to Fire Melvin?

[trwi7]

I wonder if Macha is being pressured by Melvin or others to rack up as many wins as possible

Was listening to WTMJ right before Brewers 360 and they made it sound like Melvin wanted to see some young guys but Macha hasn't done it. Melvin will be on tomorrow so maybe they'll ask about it.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'll defend Macha to a point. Ahead of Gamel, he's playing a 26 year old rookie. Now many say that because McGehee wasn't a high level prospect and Gamel has been, that Gamel should get the call ahead of McGehee. That would have been true back in May, but given what McGehee's done in the major leagues, he's upped his status considerably and now the only real difference is the 3 years in age and that one bats left and the other right. They are both "prospects" now. That's not to say though that he shouldn't play Gamel ahead of Counsell on the days McGehee sits. It's not like Counsell doesn't understand the situation and it's why he should have been dealt to a contender last month regardless of any return. It would have been a favor to him and freed Macha of the temptation to use him over a younger player. I think a case also can be made because Gamel struggled so badly in Nashville that he needs a fresh start in spring training to work on his problems and that starting him everyday now might hurt his confidence more.

 

As for Escobar, I don't think Macha deserves much blame. He didn't create the situation. I think it's fine that he's putting Escobar based on matchups and also giving Hardy some starts for scouts from other organizations to see. My guess is even with Escobar at number one on the chart next year, that whoever is managing will have a veteran backup to play a couple times a week. In an ideal world, I think they'd like bringing back the versatile Lopez to play 2 games per week at each of the 3 If positions next year to take pressure off of Escobar, allow Weeks to work his way back and hit down in the order, and give either McGehee or Gamel days off against tough matchups.

 

There's no defense for Macha playing Kendall so much though. If Rivera's going to have any role or chance to compete for a bigger role next year, he should be playing 4 times a week now.

[MJLiverock]

I can see McGehee getting AB's, he deserves it and they may be trying to get him some ROY votes. I do wonder why he can't play a few games at 2B again to get Gamel in at 3rd and sit Lopes who is always mentioned as having hurt legs. I think the team knows by now what Lopez briings and seeing some more McGehee at second may add something.

 

I can't understand the Rivera situation at all. There is zero reason to play Kendall this much right now. Would it really tear Macha or Melvin's heart out to see Rivera play 4 or 5 times a week for a couple weeks?

[Invader3K]

Just playing Rivera 2-3 times a week would be a huge workload increase over what we've seen from him this year. I don't think it would hurt too much given there's only about three weeks left in the season.

[MJLiverock]

Kendall is in the line up again tonight. It just baffles me, to the point of irritation. Why does he need to start 12/15 games thus far in September?

[joepepsi]

It's infuriating, the Kendall love. If he was truly good or provided some stability for a beleagured pitching staff, I could understand it. But he's been pretty terrible all year behind the plate. That he is still playing means only one thing, he'll be asked back next year.

[jackalope02ca]

McGehee has made Gamel expendable. And that isn't a bad thing. It gives us a lot of versatility and more trade options. It also allows us to send Gamel back to AAA to start next year and see if McGehee is more than just a one year wonder which I'm beginning to believe he is. If Gamel can start off hot in AAA he could be the centre piece of a trade to get a pitcher mid season.

[TheCrew07]

McGehee has made Gamel expendable.

The same way Hall made Hardy expendable? It seems to me I've read this argument hundreds of times before..

 

Lets not put the cart before the horse here. McGehee has had a wonderful season, I'm extremely pleased with what he's done, but I'm not going to jump on his bandwagon yet. He's not overly athletic, has no track record of success, but he does seem to have a very nice compact swing. Just because he was better than Gamel this season, doesn't make him the best long term option for the team.

 

This could be the first year of a player on the rise, or it could be Hallesque flash before fading back into mediocrity. Mat has more power than Casey, is more athletic than Casey, and bats from the left side, but doesn't have Casey's plate discipline, which is a big plus. I also think given enough time Gamel will be the better defender of the 2 if he can fix his silly throwing issues. If Gamel doesn't fix his throwing issues then maybe there's room for both with McGehee at 3B and Gamel at 1B(down the road) or RF.

 

In no way am I trying to diminish McGehee's accomplishments and contributions, it's just he doesn't have as much upside as Gamel,,, but upside has nothing to do with who will be the better major league player, I just think it's way too early to call that race yet. It's sort of like telling me Narveson is a better pitcher than Parra... well yes... and no...

[logan82]

What makes you say McGehee has better plate discipline? Gamel has "struggled" to a .336 OBP this year and has a career .374 OBP in the minors. Do you have an aversion to strikeouts?

[TheCrew07]

It's not really a "stats" thing, and is hard to quantify. I do think he K's too much looking and even then he has a K rate similar to Braun, but has walked much more than Braun in his career. Casey is of a put the ball in play kind of guy this year, he hasn't K'd much, but still walks nearly 1/10 PAs, he doesn't seem to make as many "unnecessary" outs... for lack of a better term off the top of my head. It's not that Mat is statistically an undisciplined hitter, I've argued that he's exactly the type of hitter this team needs more of in the past. From watching the games, Mat gives up too many outs with the bat on his shoulder, it's almost like he's trying more to walk in that plate appearance than to put the ball in play, he doesn't seem to like that inside corner fastball at all, I think McGehee has the better approach of the 2 at this time, if it's very close or a strike he just hits the ball where it's pitched and if it's off the plate he takes his walk.. Casey just hasn't made many mistakes at the pate this season.

 

Did that make any sense because I'm struggling mightily to explain this idea? If not just consider me an idiot and move on..

[logan82]

It made sense, but I disagree. It still seems you care how outs are made and it really doesn't matter. All that matters in the end is how often outs are made and how hard you hit the ball. It may make players and fans feel better if a guy flies out 4 times in a game, but an 0 for 4 with 4 strikeouts is the same as an 0 for 4 with 4 flyouts except in some very specific circumstances which don't occur frequently.

[Invader3K]

I know an out is an out, but at least a flyout puts the ball in play with a chance to make something happen...a strike out doesn't give you any kind of opportunity at all. There's the difference.

[logan82]

Only in very specific situations. Situations that don't come up very often. The difference is even smaller when you take out the at bats with hits or walks.

 

Edit: Fielder has 42 PA with a guy on 3B and less than 2 outs.(I am assuming he leads the team in PA with a guy on 3B and less than 2 outs, if he doesn't he will be close) Unless you are talking about one guy who strikes out every single time vs a guy who flies out every single time, it will make very little difference over a whole year. A handful of runs over a whole year.

[owbc]

It seems to me that it is better to have more strikeouts if it means that you hit the ball hard in play more often. A shortstop isn't going to misplay a Jason Kendall ground ball very often, but he is more likely to misplay a sharp grounder or line drive. I also agree that Gamel seems to take too many pitches right down the middle, but it seems easily correctable if he just swings more. I recall JJ Hardy being like that initially as well.

[NievesNoNO]

Melvin has done a nice job, but I think he's at kind of at an opportunity for a turning point in his career. He's proved he can assemble a good offensive team both here and in Texas. Now, can he be a little creative and get the pitching it takes to go with the bats? If he can't in the next year or two then I think it's time to look in a different direction.

 

With runners on base strikeouts do matter. Nothing good comes from a strikeout, at least if you put the ball in play you can advance the runner or force the other team into an error. Maybe that's a little old school thinking and I know there's a split in opinion on this, but pitchers pitch different and teams play different with runners in scoring position.

 

That said, there are some players I don't care about strikeouts. For the Brewers there are only two, Braun and Fielder.

[jhart05]

I think Melvin has done a decent job.

 

These things killed them this year:

 

Injury to Weeks

Injuries to Suppan and Bush

Hardy forgetting how to hit

Parra forgetting how to pitch

 

 

I would guess he was hoping for a scenario like last year. Stay in it 'till the All-Star Break, then make a big trade to get a #1 Starter. There was/is not a lot of room for error with this starting staff. When you loose three of them, and don't have much sitting in AAA, that's a lot to overcome. Even if those three are of the #3 to #6 type starters, you would hope to get by with them 'till you can add that extra arm, considering what you have (or thought you had) on offense. Didn't work out this year.

 

 

"Well he should have got some more pitching last off season."

1) Who was available for what they could afford?

2) That player still has to WANT to come to Milwaukee.

[jeffy]

With runners on base strikeouts do matter. Nothing good comes from a strikeout, at least if you put the ball in play you can advance the runner or force the other team into an error.

 

Fine, but with runners on base, putting the ball in play instead of striking out, can also lead to a double play. Once this year putting the ball in play even led to the Brewers turning a triple play.

[jwill535]

How about a bowling analogy. I feel better about my game if I am hitting the pocket but leaving the 10 or 7 pin verses missing the pocket and leaving pins or splits. As with lining, grounding or flying out, hitting the pocket and leaving the 10 or 7 pin means I am throwing good, just not getting the right pin action(direction of the a hit ball). Missing the pocket or striking out gives me no chance to succeed and means that my throw(swing is off). Any coach or scout will tell you that there is a lot to be seen in how the ball is hit when a guy makes an out.

[Baldkin]

From http://bases.nbcsports.com/2009/09/when-is-a-strikeout-just-like-any-other-out-always.html.php

"Among all hitters with at least 400 plate appearances this season, the 10 guys who strike out most often have an average OPS of .938 and the 10 guys who strike out least often have an average OPS of .753."

 

So, yeah. I'll take the guys who strike out.

You can't compare a foregone conclusion over one that hasn't been determined yet. The chance of a hit is always better than an out.

 

This isn't little league where the guys who strike out all the time can't hit.

[Ennder]

Strike outs are obviously the worst result in the game overall but if you are going deep into counts and taking walks and if you are swinging hard and turning those hard swings into extra base hits then the strike outs that come along with it are not a bad result.

 

A guy like Michael Bourn striking out a lot is just terrible, a guy like Fielder doing it isn't that big of a deal. So it isn't so simple as to say strike outs are bad, you have to take it in context of what you are getting with the strike outs.

 

If Gamel walks more and hits for more power than McGehee then the extra strike outs just don't matter. It is too early to tell if this is true though.

[kramnoj]

These things killed them this year:

 

Injury to Weeks

 

I'm curious about this. I don't think it had that much of an impact. Brewers at 2B hasn't been a problem. I suppose it led to the trading away of two players that could have been used for a different trade later on, but I can't see how it killed the Brewers this season.

[PeaveyFury]

Brewers at 2B hasn't been a problem.

 

Thanks to a very astute waiver claim, re-signing a player that many people didn't want re-signed, and making a great trade that many people were unhappy was made at the time.

 

(Bringing the thread back to the actual topic at hand, instead of 'strikeouts are bad or not')

[TheCrew07]

If the Brewers manage to pull some comp picks out of Lopez then my view of that trade will change considerably as we'll have the opportunity to draft better talent than we gave away. However, the deal fixed a symptom, but not the root problem, which is our pitching. A pitching staff is comprised of pitchers that for the most part lack the skills necessary to pitch late into games on even a semi regular basis.

[Invader3K]

The Lopez trade was a good one, and it's an entirely separate issue from the pitching. I doubt either of the guys traded were going to pull much back in the way of starting pitching in a trade.

[NievesNoNO]

Ennder wrote:

A guy like Michael Bourn striking out a lot is just terrible, a guy like Fielder doing it isn't that big of a deal. So it isn't so simple as to say strike outs are bad, you have to take it in context of what you are getting with the strike outs.

Well said.

 

Do people think that Melvin will acquire the pitching required to compete for a championship?

 

I'm skeptical, as his track record doesn't really suggest that's a strength of his. I appreciate and even like what he's done. He's made the Brewers relevant again, but maybe he's brought them as far as he can get them and it's time for someone else to refine what's there. I would give him two more years if we're not really close then it's time to move on.