Parra Replaces Bush in Rotation Sunday; Bush "not pleased"

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The way Loe is pitching I wouldn't mind him getting the 5th spot over Bush or Cappy. And heck, why not give a few spot starts to a prospect like Mike Jones or Mark Rogers to see what they have against Big League hitting? At this point, there isn't much to lose, and I think we will see that in September if things continue as is.

[craigharmann]

The way Loe is pitching I wouldn't mind him getting the 5th spot over Bush or Cappy. And heck, why not give a few spot starts to a prospect like Mike Jones or Mark Rogers to see what they have against Big League hitting? At this point, there isn't much to lose, and I think we will see that in September if things continue as is.

I think Loe has done a good job in relief, and wouldn't mind seeing him get bumped back to the rotation. Rogers or Jones would be nice, to see what they can do. It seems that it's throw crap against the wall and see what sticks mode, so why not.

[JohnBriggs12]

Out of what we currently have available, yes, I'd list Capuano as one of the best 5.......would you put Bush out there over him?

Yes I would, and probably Kameron Loe too though he is proving to be too valuable in the pen. Bush has fought his way to 6 quality starts in 11 tries this season. Granted he's occasionally putrid, but he will scratch and battle.

 

Capuano looked to me like the same guy he was late in 2007. He can get through the order twice, but that's it. He might have value as a couple inning reliever but he's far from the guy that once won 18 games.

[BrewCrewForever]

The only thing that scares me about Loe is he has terrible splits. Left handed hitters crush him. He would probably be most valuable and effective out of the pen where they can use him against mostly right handed hitters. My rotation would be:

 

Gallardo

Wolf

Bush

Capuano

Parra

 

I would use Narveson to piggy back with Cappy and Parra if they got in trouble. If Capuano can't show anything in his next two starts, Narveson goes back into that slot. JMO.

[HiAndTight]

Out of what we currently have available, yes, I'd list Capuano as one of the best 5.......would you put Bush out there over him?

Yes I would, and probably Kameron Loe too though he is proving to be too valuable in the pen. Bush has fought his way to 6 quality starts in 11 tries this season. Granted he's occasionally putrid, but he will scratch and battle.

 

Capuano looked to me like the same guy he was late in 2007. He can get through the order twice, but that's it. He might have value as a couple inning reliever but he's far from the guy that once won 18 games.

Well, he's only got one single start this year, but being that he's coming back from a second Tommy John, I would agree.

 

However, he was virtually the same pitcher the year he won 18 games as he was the year he went 5-12 if you look past his record.

 

-05 1.7 WAR, .92 GO/FO, xFIP 4.49, LD% 21.2, GB% 37.7, HR/FB 11.6, K/9 7.23, BB/9 3.74 BABIP-.291

-07 1.8 WAR 1.11 GO/FO, xFIP 4.34, LD% 18.8, GB% 43.0, HR/FB 11.2, K/9 7.92, BB/9 3.24 BABIP-.340

 

 

I don't see much difference there other than the Brewers didn't defend as well for him and he got unlucky.

 

Of course the same goes for Doug Davis this year who's fallen victim to bad luck and atrocious Defense far more than anything else, but that's for another thread.

[CheezWizHed]

Bush has the 'benefit' of having given up more unearned runs, which is why his ERA is nearly a run lower than Narveson.

 

I've heard someone use this argument before, but it doesn't make any sense. Its almost like its expected that Bush would give up those runs anyway, but was lucky that someone made an error, so they would be unearned.

 

But the truth is that someone made an error where there should have been an out. Forcing Bush to throw more pitches, reducing his effectiveness for later in the game and allowing him to pitch less innings.

 

Not trying to be a Bush apologist, here, but the argument, just doesn't make sense to me.

[Ennder]

I've heard someone use this argument before, but it doesn't make any sense. Its almost like its expected that Bush would give up those runs anyway, but was lucky that someone made an error, so they would be unearned.

 

But the truth is that someone made an error where there should have been an out. Forcing Bush to throw more pitches, reducing his effectiveness for later in the game and allowing him to pitch less innings.

 

Not trying to be a Bush apologist, here, but the argument, just doesn't make sense to me.

Well the error is a completely useless stat that should just be abolished so yeah they really don't matter much when comparing players. Corey Hart loses a ball in the lights and it is a double, Weeks overthrows first on a double play and the runs scoring afterwords count as earned runs. A ball is hit hard to McGehee's left and his poor range causes him to miss it and they are earned runs. Errors don't come close to accounting for defense.

[CheezWizHed]

Corey Hart loses a ball in the lights and it is a double, Weeks overthrows first on a double play and the runs scoring afterwords count as earned runs. A ball is hit hard to McGehee's left and his poor range causes him to miss it and they are earned runs.

 

That is fine. But every single example you gave would increase the pitcher's earned runs, not their unearned runs. And Narveson and Bush both have to contend with a poor defense behind them....

 

The argument was made that Bush benefited from having a high number of unearned runs as opposed to Narveson, so (for some reason) his ERA was lower. As if Bush was destined to allow those runs, but someone booted a ball to make them "unearned" instead.

 

My argument is that Bush would have benefited from someone not making the error (thus making an out) instead.

 

No one mentioned errors being defense...

[jeffy]

But every single example you gave would increase the pitcher's earned runs, not their unearned runs. And Narveson and Bush both have to contend with a poor defense behind them....

I think that is the point that bad defense can result in earned runs as well as unearned, so to some extent is is just luck whether the extra runs due to poor defense are recorded as "earned" or not.

[CheezWizHed]

I would agree that the judgment calls on errors is poor. The benefit of the doubt generally goes to the fielder (i.e. only the obviously bad plays are characterized as errors).

 

So the fact that Bush has had more obviously bad defensive plays (leading to the unearned runs) behind him is not good luck.

 

If anything you would have to argue that Narveson was a victim of more non-obviously bad plays, which were hits instead of errors, thus inflating his ERA. This may be true, I don't know...

 

But having an error occur behind you on defense is never "lucky".

[bjkrautk]

So the fact that Bush has had more obviously bad defensive plays (leading to the unearned runs) behind him is not good luck.

 

If anything you would have to argue that Narveson was a victim of more non-obviously bad plays, which were hits instead of errors, thus inflating his ERA. This may be true, I don't know...

 

But having an error occur behind you on defense is never "lucky".

Since I'm the one who started all of this, allow me to put it in context.

 

The reason why I even mentioned 'luck' is because Bush and Narveson, in a relatively similar number of innings (58 for Bush, 54 for Narveson), the two players have allowed a similar number of runs. (38 for Bush, 36 for Narveson). The reason that their ERAs are nearly a point different is that nearly every run Narveson has given up has been 'earned' (35-of-36), while Bush has had more unearned runs (only 32 of the 38 runs allowed have been earned). I was pointing out all of the ways in which their performance has been similar, and how I'm not so sure the organization should be 'committed' to either one as a long-term answer.

 

I'm downright paleolithic when it comes to pitching SABR-metrics. I'm not a believer that a pitcher can only control HR, BB, and Ks; I believe that a pitcher makes his own "luck" most of the time. I have no problem dealing with 'earned' runs as the better determinate of a pitcher's ability....but I don't think you can dismiss the unearned runs entirely. It's possible to have your defense make an error, and still end the inning with the runner standing on first base. Unless you're looking at a Jose-Canseco-in-the-outfield, Fly-ball-into-HR-type of error, it's something that the pitcher can (and has to) work around. It's part of the game, a game where we still assign wins and losses to pitchers based on whether they gave up more runs than the other team's pitcher, regardless of whether they were earned.

 

I have no reason to believe that the defense was significantly worse when Bush takes the mound over Narveson, so I can't simply wash my hands of the discrepancy in unearned runs. In fact, let's rank Veteran Brewers (my smallest sample below is 322.2 IP) pitchers by how frequently they give up unearned runs over their careers:

 

C. Villanueva .0174 Unearned Runs / IP

Y. Gallardo .0199

T. Hoffman .0292

R. Wolf .0298

T. Coffey .0372

D. Bush .0395

C. Capuano .0461

J. Suppan .0491

M. Parra .0651

 

Although Carlos's numbers at the top of the list jump out at me a bit, the numbers largely track with my perceptions and expectations for these players based on their careers. (I'm not going so far as to place a predictive quality on it, but it seems noteworthy that better pitchers seem to give up fewer earned and unearned runs over time.) Stranding baserunners is a part of the game, regardless of how they got on base to begin with.

 

90% of the time, when I talk about pitchers, I use earned runs as one of my metrics. It's the stat that I go to most often. (Heck, I'm one of the few kooks who believes that the quality start is a useful statistic, so I'm not even sure how many of you could make it this far without rocking back and forth, mumbling somthing about xFIP.) While I rely on it for the 'eyeball' test of a Brewers pitcher, I've never noticed one of them trying to let the runner score, just because that runner reaches base on an error, and that run wouldn't 'count' against him.

 

Having an error behind you is never "lucky," but neither are the circumstances around a run scoring due to that error.

[logan82]

Worse pitchers are going to give up more runs so it would stand to reason that they would also be hurt more by errors. The margin of error(ugh) is smaller for lower quality pitchers. Pitchers can control where and how they throw the ball for the most part. That is why looking at BB and K rates are probably much better than looking at ERA.

[Tbadder]

Eric Arnett--there I said it. This is the reason the Crew is doomed to

mediocrity.

 

I just lost a long(ish) response to this, so suffice it to say I think this is incredibly misguided & over-the-top. Arnett is absolutely not a sign of anything, nor is the Brewers' system in trouble in terms of pitching. It's not one of the best systems in the game in terms of arms, but to make such a blanket statement like this is just not accurate. To anyone that feels this comment above is true, I'll just say familiarize yourself with the pitchers in the system before saying something like this.

Yeah, I'll stand by that statement. I'll stand by the idea that the Brewers have put themselves in the position they're in because they've have a devastatingly bad record, a wholly consistent record of NOT developing starting pitching. I don't think it's over the top or uniformed. Just because they've occasionally produced an anomaly like Yovanni doesn't mean there isn't any thing to the idea. Clubs, especially small market clubs, can't be successful if their big time pitching prospects flame out. Rogers, Jones, Jeffress, the list could continue on and on. It's not only true, it's self-evident. Eric Arnett may well be a very good MLB pitcher, but already his chances are significantly less than they were six months ago. He's not just struggling like all young pitchers, he's getting lit up almost every time. Reports are that he can't reproduce his delivery, he's lost velocity, etc. Listening to XM the other day Arnett's name came up as an example of how teams shouldn't be drafting college pitchers with only one good year. That track records are important. I know it's complicated, but I also know that's there's a better chance that Arnett is a bust than otherwise right now. In addition, I really don't see any help on the way as far as starters go. We've got lots of #5 type pitchers on the MLB roster, and that seems to be true of the minors as well. How about the Brewers minor league pitcher of the year last year--is he a #2 or #3? Or is he too old for the level he's at and has just as much probability of not even making the the majors much less being an important player? What about Peralta--a guy I personally love. Does he have success written all over him? Are we secure in the way we were secure about Yo's success? As good as he is I don't think so. Jeffress? Who knows. he could be a #1. But who of us really think it's gonna happen. That's not being uniformed, his problems off the field, and on the field are well-documented. Unless he develops some pitches he going to end up in the pen. Despite all this are the Brewers really not doomed to mediocrity because they have other resources? How about free agency? How's that worked for them? Trades? Maybe, just maybe. I'm open to the possibility. But where's the proof? I have no idea how places like Baseball America rate our pitching prospects but what do those organizations or publications say about our pitching prospects or the Brewers ability to develop pitching? How many of our minor league prospect do we really believe are going to be as good as or better than Wolf? I look at the minor leagues every day and see what the pitchers have done. I saw Yovanni and got excited. I saw what Manny did and got excited? I don't get excited any more. I'm not an expert and so I hope. I'm not an expert and maybe only half as smart as the dumbest person who post here, but I can see a trend--and the inability to produce starting pitching has been a Milwaukee Brewer trend for 40 years, and until guys like Jeffress and Rivas and Peralta put up between 8 to 15 wins in the major leagues, until they start striking out more and walking less, until they change their ground ball to fly ball ratios, etc I'll be committed to the idea that we are by definition a mediocre major league baseball organization.

[logan82]

I know it's complicated, but I also know that's there's a better chance that Arnett is a bust than otherwise right now.

 

Kind of true of all minor league pitchers.

 

In addition, I really don't see any help on the way as far as starters go.

 

Not this year but over the next 2 there should be. At least according to the guys on this site who's opinions I would trust on the matter. I am not sure about top of the rotation talent but I think at least a couple should be middle of the rotation starters.

 

Over the last few years there has been a definite shift in the Brewers minor league pitching philosophy. It was to late to help us this year or last year but should pay dividends in the next few years.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't think it's over the top or uniformed.

 

Well, it really is over-the-top. You can probably find lots of cases like Arnett around MLB. If you want to 'stand by' a statement, make it that the Brewers haven't had success growing their own pitching, not singling out one kid that obviously has struggled, but realistically only for 2+ months. Don't forget the Brewers had him throwing basically exclusively fastballs last season to keep the wear & tear on his arm down after his college season. I put precisely zero weight into Arnett's results from last season. It's concerning that he's struggled so far, but what I've read is that it's mechanical, and the guy's got plenty of time to iron things out.

 

 

I know it's complicated, but I also know that's there's a better chance that Arnett is a bust than otherwise right now.

 

This is an accurate statement for 100% of pitching prospects.

 

 

I have no idea how places like Baseball America rate our pitching prospects but what do those organizations or publications say about our pitching prospects or the Brewers ability to develop pitching? How many of our minor league prospect do we really believe are going to be as good as or better than Wolf?

 

Maybe you should take some time to read that kind of stuff. Like I said in my first response to you, this is by no means one of the best systems in the game, but we absolutely do have arms worth being optimistic about. I think, as of right now, we have roughly 5 or 6 prospects with a good shot at being better than Wolf has been over his career. You really can't predict much more accurately than to say that.

[logan82]

TooLiveBrew wrote:

I know it's complicated, but I also know that's there's a better chance that Arnett is a bust than otherwise right now.

 

This is an accurate statement for 100% of pitching prospects.

Hah, beat you to it, kind of.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Just to put some numbers with it.

 

* 10% of top 10 hitting prospects bust.

* 31% of top 10 pitching prospects bust.

* 21% of top 11-25 hitting prospects bust.

* 32% of top 11-25 pitching prospects bust.

* 35% of top 26-50 hitting prospects bust.

* 33% of top 26-50 pitching prospects bust.

* 45% of top 51-75 hitting prospects bust.

* 39% of top 51-75 pitching prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 hitting prospects bust.

* 43% of top 76-100 pitching prospects bust.

* 59% of ‘B grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* 52% of ‘B grade’ pitching prospects bust.

* 83% of ‘C grade’ hitting prospects bust.

* Around 75% of all ‘C grade’ pitching prospects bust

 

Reading some reports you would be almost led to believe that even the

majority of C grade hitting or pitching prospects will end up being at

least a major league utility players or a middle relievers, but that’s

simply not the case.

[Tbadder]

No, given the proof it isn't an over the top statement. Where do the Brewers rank among teams in pitching for the last 40 years? It's a track records. And were not just talking about one kid. He is an example of innumerable kids as the stats above prove. What about the Nuege, Gold, etc. The Brewers are littered with examples; they're coming out of our ears--failure after failure. Other teams fail as well for sure. But know body fails like the Brewers other than perhaps the St. Louis Browns. How many losing seasons, one stacked up upon the other, do we have to have to admit we have a mediocre minor league system, especially when it comes to pitching. In the history of the Brewers, of our best teams, they've always been driven by offense. And if I can find lots of Eric Arnetts, then how is the statement over the top when it happens all the time--kinda defies the definition of over the top when in fact it's run of the mill. Just more run of the mill for some organizations.

[logan82]

Where do the Brewers rank among teams in pitching for the last 40 years? It's a track records. And were not just talking about one kid. He is an example of innumerable kids as the stats above prove. What about the Nuege, Gold, etc.

 

Not sure why you think what happened before Melvin took over is relevant. Especially what happened more than a decade ago. I guess what you say is true if you look at the entirety of the Brewers history and ignore the changes made in the recent past.

[CheezWizHed]

How did the Arnett conversation jump in here???

 

BJ, that was a good explanation of the whole picture. But I'm not totally convinced, as unearned runs are generally small samples and need to be handled

 

Unless you're looking at a Jose-Canseco-in-the-outfield, Fly-ball-into-HR-type of error, it's something that the pitcher can (and has to) work around.

 

Or someone boots a ball that should have been a 3rd out and run(s) score...

 

If a pitcher gets 2 outs, then someone gets on via an error and then 5 runs score. Yeah, they lean more towards "earned", even when they are not counted as such. But forcing a pitcher to get 4 outs in an inning also is a detriment to both that inning and future innings, so you can't just count those on his ticket either.

 

Bush's 6 unearned runs:

Houston: 2 UERA in one inning- Escobar's throwing error should have been 2nd out. Next batter made the 2nd out. Next batter singled scoring two (one prior hit, one from the error).

LAD: 2 UERA in one inning- Fielder's error was to be the third out. One scored on the play. One scored on the next hit.

CHC: 2 UERA in one inning - Weeks error was to be the third out. Next batter hits a homer. Both scored.

 

So looking at that, I would add 1 run to Bush (since he already had guys on base) in Houstan. But he shouldn't have to account for the one that got on by error or either time the third out of the inning was booted (LAD and CHC).

[monty57]

So having completely new management and even new ownership makes no difference... it's the "Milwaukee Brewers" across the chest that guarantees failure?

 

Under Selig and prior GMs, we had probably the worst franchise top-to-bottom in MLB. Dean Taylor started trying to build the farm, and hired Jack Z, and Melvin has turned us into a respectable franchise. But we started from zero. Sort of like it'd take longer for a kid who started out dirt poor to become a millionaire than it would take someone whose parents left him $1 million, it takes a long time to build a franchise from nothing to World Series contender.

 

Under Taylor, Jack Z started by drafting bats, and continued doing so after Melvin took over. On the few instances where we drafted quality pitching, they generally haven't panned out. About two years ago, we seem to have made a decision as an organization to focus more on pitching. We have a lot of starting pitching at the lower levels. In fact, Appleton started the season with 10 starting pitchers on the roster! Our young SP are piggybacking, and being brought along slowly, but they are being brought along. It is far from unheard of for players to make the jump from AA to the majors, so we could start seeing these pitchers as soon as this year, and should definitely start seeing them flow in over the next few seasons.

 

Remember, we don't need every one of these pitchers to pan out. In fact, we don't need most of them to pan out. If a few of them live up to their potential, we should have a good, homegrown pitching staff for years to come.

 

I can be as cynical as anyone, and this year has me wondering why I spend my time paying attention to the Brewers, but I can't hold Bud Selig's lack of money and the subsequent downfall of the Brewers after the dawn of free agency against Eric Arnett or any of the other young pitchers in Mark Attanasio's Milwaukee Brewers.

[jeffy]

So looking at that, I would add 1 run to Bush (since he already had guys on base) in Houstan. But he shouldn't have to account for the one that got on by error or either time the third out of the inning was booted (LAD and CHC).

I don't see how it makes sense to say that the pitcher bears no responsibility for allowing home runs and other hits in an inning just because an error occurred on a previous play. Was Bush not trying to get those guys out and did he not fail to do so?

In comparing Bush and Narveson, the biggest differences (besides ERA) appear to be HR, strikeouts, and opponents SLG...all of which favor Narveson. Considering all that, I'd say Narveson appears to have been a more successful pitcher than Bush so far this season.

[Invader3K]

Macha sure sound frustrated with the starting pitching, though I think he is partly to blame. He had this to say about Wolf after last night's loss:

 

“He hasn’t given us a chance to win that many games when he has started,” said manager Ken Macha.

 

“If you’re going to get out of this hole we’ve dug and get back into it, you’re going to need consistent starting pitching. Obviously, we didn’t get that today.”

[giffted1]

Macha sure sound frustrated with the starting pitching, though I think he is partly to blame. He had this to say about Wolf after last night's loss:

 

“He hasn’t given us a chance to win that many games when he has started,” said manager Ken Macha.

 

“If you’re going to get out of this hole we’ve dug and get back into it, you’re going to need consistent starting pitching. Obviously, we didn’t get that today.”

Ken, do you know what starting pitchers need? A consistent schedule and low pitch counts. You've given them neither. Gallardo and Wolf are 3rd and 6th in the league in pitches thrown, and the rotation has been an ever-changing disaster since the start of the season. Identify your five best starters and stick with them but do so without destroying their arms.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, that's been the big thing, not having a consistent rotation schedule. It doesn't really apply to Wolf, but I don't know why they think shuffling Parra, Bush, Narveson, and Capuano in and out of the rotation is possibly any sort of good idea.

[monty57]

Yeah, I think that part of the reason there are more games off early in the season is to give SPs a break. So the Brewers' ingenious plan was to start Suppan in A ball with an "injury" while putting Parra and Narveson in the 'pen and giving more starts to the "Top 4." This doesn't account for how bad they've pitched, but it makes sense that Yo and Wolf are at the top of the league in pitches thrown.

 

Now we've got a new "plan" to play matchups and swap starters in and out of the bullpen/starting rotation. I have very little hope that this will be successful.