Have the Brewers improved this offseason?

[GAME05]

adding Gomez and Escobar also means that Weeks should be able to hit lower in the order, where i think he's a more-natural fit instead of leadoff. i think he really can sustain the numbers he was having last year, although long ago i stopped expecting he'd play a full season. although i do wonder if Weeks will still hit leadoff just because of Gomez' bad OBP.

 

plus with some speed on the bases ahead of Fielder, he'll see a few more fastballs and could have an even-better offensive season.

 

i like the addition of Wolf because he's just what the rotation needs, a consistently ok pitcher that can improve our overall rotation to middle-of-the-pack. and a healthy Dave Bush i think is going to help quite a bit in that regard, too.

[Ennder]

If Wolf comes in and posts a 2.16 ERA in 30 starts, but the Brewers lose 25 of the 30 games, can you really argue his addition improved the team?

 

Yes I can. This means our offense went cold in the 30 games Wolf pitched and those runs went towards games pitched by other players who will win more than they should.

 

I wish I could be confident that Escobar is an upgrade over Hardy of last year but I just can't be. I think he could put up even weaker offensive numbers and only be a wash defensively, hopefully he explodes onto the scene and I'm wrong about him. I will be happy if Escobar puts up a .700 OPS on the year and I expect lower. I don't see how Gomez can match what Cameron did last year and I have little confidence in McGehee. Starting the year with Weeks penciled in as the starting 2B is a disaster waiting to happen. I think this offense is going to struggle to score runs and be middle of the pack because we have downgraded at half the positions. Luckily I think the pitching should be significantly improved between regression to the mean, an improved bullpen and Wolf replacing Looper.

[thebruce44]

Not sure why this is relevant.
Why is Loopers wins even mentioned? Wins has zero value, it just tells you really how lucky they are.

 

I think it IS relevant and here is my reasoning. When looking how the team compares to last years team, I was looking at who we lost and who we gained. Regardless of bad Looper pitched, he was the winning pitcher in 14 games meaning somehow the Brewers managed to win when he was pitching. Whether it was luck or for some odd reason the bats came alive more when he was pitching...whatever. The bottom line is he won 14 times.

If I punched someone in the face who had the flu and then 2 days later their flu went away does that mean I just discovered a cure for the flu?

 

By applying your logic to this ridiculous scenario, it would mean I found a cure. I am not trying to be condescending, but just looking at it from a different perspective. A lot of people share your opinion, but I think its completely flawed.

[mletto157]

I agree. Elaborating on Ennder's point...

 

Say the Brewers are going to score X amount of runs every year. If you're saying that all the other pitchers stay the same, and Wolf (instead of Looper) pitches a 2.5 ERA over 30 starts, but only wins 7 games - than he obviously didn't get a lot of run support. But since we're assuming that the Brewers will score X runs that season... that means that all the runs they didn't score in Wolf's starts that they did in Loopers now get spread around to pitchers who don't give up as many runs as Looper and will translate into more wins.

 

Even if you don't want to say this is next year, and want to use last year's results... throw Wolf's starts in for Looper's and I'd bet Wolf wins even more games than Looper did.

[Funketown]

The bottom line is he won 14 times. If Wolf comes in and posts a 2.16 ERA in 30 starts, but the Brewers lose 25 of the 30 games, can you really argue his addition improved the team?

Yes. If the offense had done the same thing with a 5 ERA pitcher like Looper, the team would probably lose 28-29 of those 30 games. I for one would rather lose 25 games than 28 games.

[Thurston Fluff]

Yes I can. This means our offense went cold in the 30 games Wolf pitched and those runs went towards games pitched by other players who will win more than they should.

 

Or those runs get spread out evenly and we lose a lot more games by one run than by 6. Or they all come in two games and we win two more from two other pitchers. Or we lose all those higher scoring games because Suppan is pitching that day. You can't just say those run will win other games. There are a lot of variables that does not equal one to one wins. Since nothing is going to truly be accurate I think it's as ok to just look at wins as it is to try and divine how those extra runs scored would be divided up. If Wolf wins as many games as Looper we would be fine but unless other pitchers step up, or get lucky like Looper did, we will not win more games next year.

 

What Wolf gives us is a better chance every 5th day than Looper did. I also think he will get knocked out early less often than Looper did so we will save our pen a little. His being left handed also means you can save Stetter for late innings or not use him as often. All those things add up to more to the total as actual wins. So if we investigate a little no wins don't matter all that much. For a quick and dirty assessment that starts out a thread I don't think it's a terrible thing. Hell it got two pages of talk already and the other threads were getting worn out. Gotta get a baseball fix somehow.

[sgtcluels]

Have you tried it bruce? Flu woahsolvd. Much cheaper too!

 

Just because Looper won the game is not any indication that he helped win. His last win, he left the game after 6IP and giving up 6 runs. Brewers down 6 - 1. The Brewers came back and put up 6 runs to take the lead and put Looper inline for the win. The Brewers also scored 2 runs that inning on wild pitches, and the most important one being the eventual game winner just before Cam flied out. Wolf is an immediate upgrade over Looper, will it show up on wins and loses? Who knows, but a good guess would be "Yes" as the offense has to score less to get a win.

 

If Mike Burns won every start last year 28 - 27 and went 33 - 0 would that make him a great pitcher? I'd say absolutely not. A win depends more on the team as a whole and not a direct reflection of one individual player. Look at Ben Sheets in the years he was healthy, bad record because the offense sucked not because he didn't do his part. Wins shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as a pitcher when evaluating them as an individual player.

 

Now are you saying we might win less? Perhaps, maybe our offense puts up less runs. Perhaps we win more when our offense struggles and we can only put up 1 run a game.

[logan82]

Ennder wrote:

I was looking at what you said wrong, my bad. I was thinking you were comparing 2010 expectations to 2009 results when you are really comparing 2010 expectations to 2009 expectations. That makes more sense then.

It was kind of a confusing post because I started talking about how we wouldn't be able to match our 2B production and then went the other way without explaining. I could have posted it clearer.

[RyDogg66]

If Wolf comes in and posts a 2.16 ERA in 30 starts, but the Brewers lose 25 of the 30 games, can you really argue his addition improved the team? I'm not so sure because even though he pitched a lot better than the alternative, then team had less success.

This only makes sense if Wolf is the REASON the offense isnt putting up 7 runs a game for him like they were for Looper. This reasoning is so wrong it is painful.

[AJOHNSON104]

I think the issue of whether the team has improved is still TBD. At this point I'd say its about the same or slightly worse (1-2 wins). However, I believe it is TBD because there is still a need to add depth in position players (OF, IF, C). It is still up in the air whether they keep Heether, Iribarren, Lucroy, etc. My gut is that they don't go into a season like last year where the pinch hitters/last 2-3 guys on the bench are unproven players. The team is already very young or injury prone at many positions (SS, CF, 2B, 3B) and the bench will be important. I could see adding 2 veterans who are not spectacular, but at least steady. This could make the difference in about 3-4 wins depending on injuries. Think about guys like Kapler or Counsell and how much impact they had compared to guys like Brad Nelson. If they could add a legitimate 4th OF to go along with Gerut and another guy who could play 1B/3B/corner OF and provide some power off the bench, I'd be much happier.

[thumperden]

This back and forth banter gets re-hashed every off-season with the same predictable points and counter-points.

 

Let's get over the worn out method of pitching success being judged merely by wins already. This poor beaten horse has died and decayed long ago. One player (pitcher) out of nine on the field does not and should not deserve the tag of win or loss in a team game. If the game was chess, tiddlywinks, pin the tail on the donkey, in a one-on-one matchup, then and only then should that individual get credit for the individual result.

 

PW=S/L2

 

Pitching win equals skill divided by luck squared. Maybe I'm giving the pitcher too much credit. How about PW=S/L9...? I hope you get my point.

 

Are we done yet? I write this with no sarcasm, just frustrated that I caught myself reading the same 'ol, same 'ol and I'll never get that time back again.

 

The comparison of the Rockies and Brewers earlier in the thread gives credence to the theory that 10 runs equals a win. Colorado netted 121 runs better than Milwaukee and finished the season with 12 more wins. I'm sorry...I meant team wins.

 

I'm of the opinion that the Brewers aren't better with the off-season transactions as of now, but there is still time before the season begins so let's hope. I believe that most of the improvement, if there is any would come from rebound years from many that had a disappointing 2009 season. I just don't see where the off-season transactions have improved the team to this point. Certainly not enough to be regarded as a contender yet.

 

Hope springs attorney. Happy New Year to all.

[yoshii8]

I think the Brewers have improved their bullpen and starting pitching w/ the additions of Wolf and Hawkins. I really believe that one more veteran starter will be added before spring training.

 

Also, I like the fact that they have a lot of speed w/ Escobar, Gomez, Hart, Weeks around Prince and Braun, I think that will be fun to watch. I like the youth in this lineup and really believe that we haven't seen the best of almost everyone, besides McGehee and Zaun.

 

It could go either way, but I think this team will be improved and w/ enough luck could be a playoff team.

[cwolf2012]

"Hope springs attorney"

 

This is the 2nd time I've seen someone type this today. Are people intentionally getting it wrong? Am I missing the joke? I'm not trying to be condescending or anything like that, I'm legitimately thinking I'm not getting it. It's like "for all intents and purposes"; Many people think it's "For all intensive purposes," and half the people I know who type it like the latter are joking.

 

It's "eternal," not "attorney" if it isn't a joke.

 

To the topic: I think the team has improved the pitching, but I'm really scared of the 6-7-8-9 part of the lineup. The Brewers are going to be middle-of-the-road offensively at best unless Gomez and/or Escobar somehow break out offensively. I think they're probably an 80-83 win team as it is, but they could easily improve on that projection if they get a little bit of luck.

[trwi7]

It's a joke. Uecker loves saying Hope springs attorney.

[thumperden]

Agreed, yoshii. It's gonna take a fair share of luck to be a contender in 2010. Your point about improvement in the bullpen is valid. The rotation needs at least one more proven starter for me to feel more comfortable. The lineup appears to be a downgrade so far. Defense is probably a push overall.

 

My interpretation of this thread so far is that there isn't enough proof to make us believe that the off-season moves are enough to make the Brewers a bonafide contender. It seems that it's more of an if this or that happens scenario(s). There does not seem to be a vast majority of confidence at this point, and I think that's a fair assessment.

 

It appears that the Brewer brass has signed on to the theory of throw as many pitchers at the wall as they can and see what sticks. There's nothing wrong with that theory at all regardless of market size. I just hope that a nugget or three is found in that mix.

[Baldkin]

Defense is probably a push overall.

I'm not sure how people can say this?

Escobar and Gomez and Zaun, from everything I've read and seen, are better than the 3 players they are replacing. Kendall was brutal behind the plate last year (After an amazing 2008) and Zaun is the best in the business at blocking pitches. As great as Cameron is, Gomez is a half step better and even if JJ was a bit above league average, Escobar could be the best in the league.

 

We've replaced two black holes in the lineup (Kendall & Hardy) with two others, with more speed (Gomez and Escobar), although their ability to run may be hindered, due to batting 7&8 (please... no .300 obp's in the leadoff spot...) and they need to clear the pitcher.

 

The downgrade offensively from Cameron to Zaun (considering their probable spots in the batting order) is significant, but I believe the upgrade from Looper to Wolf will more than make up for that.

[MNBrew]

Once this New Year's weekend is over and spring training will be a little over a month away, I think we'll see Melvin & all his GM friends start shopping the bargain aisles and ignore most other aisles. The FAs remaining will realize if they're gonna get picked up, they'll need to sit on those shelves.

 

I have this sneaky hunch that Looper may be back next year once no one offers him what he'd hoped he'd get. If he pitched all of 2009 on a bum knee -- that's now repaired -- and if that knee's now certifiably healthy, he may be a notable improvement in 2010 over the Braden Looper of 2009. In other words, if the knee problem is what kept him getting so many pitches up high turned into HRs, a healthy knee might help his location enough to halve his HR total, which alone would make him seem like a much better pitcher.

 

I'm not saying I think Looper's the best option. But if a healthy Looper is better than the Looper of 2009, then you can't rule him out yet. For as bad as he was, his ERA was still a full run LESS than 2 of the other starters. So if he can give up only 2/3 as many HRs and drop his ERA to the 4.50 range, that wouldn't be the worst bargain bin pickup.

[MNBrew]

Tag to post #41 -- two hypotheticals:

 

1) If Looper were to halve his HR total (39), but still everyone who was on base from all 39 HRs eventually scored each time except the batter himself for 19 of those HRs, 19 fewer runs scored off him would've reduced his 5.22 ERA to 4.35.

 

2) If Looper gave up only 2/3 as many HRs as he did in '09 (26 instead of 39), but none of those 13 would've-been HR-hitting batters scored, shaving those 13 runs off his 5.22 ERA would've resulted in a 4.62 ERA.

 

Premises:

- Not every would've-been HR-hitting batter would've made an out, and some may have scored anyway.

- Not every baserunner would've scored if some of those HRs had turned into extra-base hits or flyball outs, though of course the majority may eventually have.

 

You can shoot a zillion holes in all this, of course. There's no way to cover every possible scenario. But I tried to illustrate a couple MILDLY OPTIMISTIC projections, based on Looper's 2009 numbers, of what his ERA might've looked like IF he hadn't given up so many HRs.

 

IF (and it's a hugely hypothetical IF) the knee repair makes him a better pitcher in 2010, it's just possible that the misery known as "Braden Looper, 2009 Brewers starting pitcher" might result in a better Braden Looper in 2010, and at a lesser cost.

 

NOW, going back to the original question...

 

Yes, I think they have:

- seemingly VERY strong bullpen

- improved rotation w/ addition of Wolf (though several suspect '09 starters remain & the rotation could still use an infusion of more talent)

- HR production likely reduced, but offense does stand to be "better balanced" IF players perform up to reasonable expectations (or returns to form in the case of Hart, for instance), IF Macha lets the running game happen to maximize the increased team speed, IF no one nose dives like Hardy did last year, and IF the current holes in depth are filled w/ productive players.

[logan82]

Escobar and Gomez and Zaun, from everything I've read and seen, are better than the 3 players they are replacing. Kendall was brutal behind the plate last year (After an amazing 2008) and Zaun is the best in the business at blocking pitches. As great as Cameron is, Gomez is a half step better and even if JJ was a bit above league average, Escobar could be the best in the league.

We aren't replacing Braun at 3B like defenders at SS or CF. Escobar could be the best in the league but at this point is probably average to a little above average. We should prbabaly expect him to be a little worse than JJ at this point. That isn't bad as JJ is one of the better defenders in the league. Well above average but not elite. Zaun is probably better than Kendall but not alot. I don't think he will get much chance to add much behind the plate. Gomez is probably better than Cameron, but like replacing JJ, there isn't much between Cameron and the best in the league. Basically the difference between JJ/Cameron and the elite defenders is less than JJ/Cameron and the average defenders. We maybe pick up half a win with defense at those 3 positions. Depending on how Weeks plays, we may give most of that right back and then some.

 

We've replaced two black holes in the lineup (Kendall & Hardy) with two others, with more speed (Gomez and Escobar), although their ability to run may be hindered, due to batting 7&8 (please... no .300 obp's in the leadoff spot...) and they need to clear the pitcher.

By the end of 2010 we may be wishing for Hardy/Kendall 2009 instead of Gomez/Escobar 2010. Those 2 have speed and could be very exciting. I think Escobar can match Hardy's .229/.302/.357/.659. I am hoping he is closer to a .700 OPS with a .330+ OBP. To this point, Gomez wishes he could put up a line like Kendall's 2009. Gomez would probably be the worst hitter in almost any lineup, even one with Kendall in it.

[GAME05]

The Brewers are going to be middle-of-the-road offensively at best unless Gomez and/or Escobar somehow break out offensively.

i hope i'm not pulling your quote out of context, but i can't agree. we had one of the best offenses in the NL last year and i don't see how it drops off so far based on losing Hardy and Cameron. Cameron could swat, but his OBP was kinda low, and Hardy was a nonfactor. Neither player was any real catalyst to the offense that i don't see their departure as significant enough to drop us to middle of the road.

[logan82]

Don't forget to add in slight drops from Braun and Fielder along with a probable big drop from McGehee and Weeks not being able to match our 2B production from 2009. We upgraded our offense at catcher and maybe SS. Other than that we stayed equal or got worse.

[GAME05]

why do we have to presume a dropoff from Fielder and Braun? if anything, i think their numbers were a little below their ability in 09.

 

makes sense that McGehee would drop off some, but i think Weeks could very well continue what he started in 09, even better if he can give us more than two months of work.

 

and our RF production could be better if either Hart improves or is replaced by Gerut.

[RockCoCougars]

I would say no. They really didn't improve their pitching staff much, unless you feel that Randy Wolf is a difference maker, which I don't. Plus it looks like Suppan is still in the rotation, which is bad. As far as the offense goes, dumping Kendall was addition by subtraction, but swapping Gomez for Cameron and Escobar for Hardy were lateral moves at best.

[TooLiveBrew]

Cameron could swat, but his OBP was kinda low

 

Cameron was a top-10 CF, even if you only evaluate based on offense. We're probably going to take a big step down in CF in terms of hitting.

[cwolf2012]

"why do we have to presume a dropoff from Fielder and Braun? if anything, i think their numbers were a little below their ability in 09. "

 

Fielder is an amazing hitter. He put up Pujols-esque numbers. The idea that he could improve on that seems highly highly unlikely. If he matches 09, I will be both surprised and ecstatic.

 

Braun got a little lucky at the plate last year with an increase in infield hit % and an ever so slightly inflated BABIP (probably inflated due to the infield hit %). I expect him to be pretty much the same as 09, possibly a slight increase in SLG. I can't, in good conscience, say that Fielder will improve on a .412/.602/1.014 line, no matter how good a hitter I think he is.