Brewers player grades

[Invader3K]

From Tom Haudricourt and Anthony Witrado of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

These are always fun to talk about. I'm sure people here have their disagreements.

[endaround]

I don't even know where to begin. They give really no basis to which to understand how they grade. I'll just say they gave Weeks a B and say that pretty much sums up all you need to know.

[logan82]

Weeks didn't deserve an A because he struck out to much. This strikeout crap will not go away until the writers stop writing about it.

[Ennder]

Just terrible.

 

It is hard to even read anything they write these days.

[sveumrules]

If you want players to walk and hit for power you have to live with the strikeouts. There's only one Pujols out there to the best of my knowledge.

[chadomac]

Agreed - these grades are a joke. I would give almost everyone a higher grade than they received.

[homer]

At least they're starting to use some advanced metrics like UZR and OPS+. I assume that's Witrado's doing.

 

I really don't have much of a problem with their grades outside of a player or two. I just wish they'd have a set of criteria that they stuck to for each guy. Seems to change depending on the player.

[trwi7]

D- to a backup catcher with a .700 OPS. C+ to the starting catcher with a .635 OPS. Trevor Hoffman just one grade behind Capuano, Fielder and Braddock and two grades ahead of Coffey. What?!?!

[joepepsi]

Weeks gets only a B while Hart gets an A and Braun, a B+? Rickie was at least as valuable as Hart, and better than Braun..

[logan82]

At least they're starting to use some advanced metrics like UZR and OPS+.

 

Well they are looking at them anyway. If they were actually using them they would have noticed that Weeks was about average according to UZR instead of talking about his errors. They would have also known that a 125 OPS+ was above league average and very good for a 2B instead of talking about the strikeout nonsense.

They also would have noticed that Weeks 6.1 WAR was 13th best amongst hitters and 20th best in all of baseball. The only 2B with a better WAR was Cano at 6.4.

[homer]

D- to a backup catcher with a .700 OPS. C+ to the starting catcher with a .635 OPS.

Defense and mitigating circumstances matter too. Lucroy was sort of thrown to the wolves because of Zaun's injury. He did OK all things considered.

 

But that goes back to the criteria I was talking about. A C+ for one guy is not the same as a C+ for another guy.

[Funketown]

No matter what the basis of these is (overall performance, performance relative to expectations, etc), most of these are pretty hard to justify. McGehee higher than Weeks? Hart higher than Weeks? What does Rickie have to do to get himself an A?

[kramnoj]

Lucroy was sort of thrown to the wolves because of Zaun's injury.

 

And some here thought Lucroy was rotting on the bench. Zaun's last game was May 20. Lucroy started 5/25, 5/30 and 6/3 and then was mostly the starter on 6/10.

 

I personally think Lucroy's situation wasn't handled all that badly. I don't think getting 3 starts in almost 3 weeks is being thrown to the wolves, and I don't think he was rotting on the bench as he spent time getting to know the pitching staff.

 

The grades are a good example of people, even professionals, who use facts to support already formed opinions.

[ilovebeer]

i thought Escorbar greade was to low, Prince may have hit a lot of homes but he did not deseve a b-, Coffey should have got a D and Navi should have got a D.

[logan82]

What does Rickie have to do to get himself an A?

 

I can't say what it would take for Weeks to get an A because those kinds of posts are not appropriate for this board.

[Kricket755]

i thought Escorbar greade was to low, Prince may have hit a lot of homes but he did not deseve a b-, Coffey should have got a D and Navi should have got a D.

 

Personally, I think it is hard to make a case Prince deserved lower than a B- without citing RBI in your case. The power was down a little and the defense still leaves much to be desired, but 30+ HR's combined with over .400 OBP is still big time. It would be hard to put that production in the C range. Again, there is no real stated criteria so there is no real right and wrong.

[JohnBriggs12]

Grades like this are opinions. Getting too worked up about someone else's opinion makes little sense. These guys watched this team all year game after game, and they not only had stats to use as a guide but what they saw also. I'd make a few minor changes, but overall I think the grades are pretty fair.

In my opinion, Axford deserved the highest grade. Many argued with my choice of him as Brewer MVP, and there's an argument to be made that as a reliever that impacted 2-3 games a week tops isn't as valuable as an everyday player, but nobody on the 2010 Brewers did his job as consistently as Axford.

[kramnoj]

Getting too worked up about someone else's opinion makes little sense. These guys watched this team all year game after game, and they not only had stats to use as a guide but what they saw also

 

What do you think they saw that wasn't reflected in the stats?

[davego]

I suspect these season grade drive web site traffic and sells papers. I guess they have vaule in that. I typically enjoy the opinions, but take them as such.

[MNBrew]

I suspect these season grade drive web site traffic and sells papers. I guess they have vaule in that. I typically enjoy the opinions, but take them as such.

I find the first sentence funny. They've been doing these season-ending player grades for a long time, possibly since I was in college, and that was over 20 years ago. This is just an annual thing they do. It's a way to put the team & individual performances into a perspective. It's also a clever & effective way to "put a bow" on the Brewers season coverage in the paper, much as a report card presents the summary of a kid's performance in school for the term.

 

Responding to others' comments....

 

Briggs, I'm totally with you. Stats tell a good deal of the story, but they don't tell everything. Kramnoj, not everything can be quantified statistically (your comment implies that as your point). The eyes see not just what someone does, but how he does it . . . and how he goes about doing it, and how he functions as a team member, how he interacts with his teammates & how he's respected by them, and much more.

 

Last point. Each player is different, as are the expectations for each player. Two examples:

 

1. To suggest as someone did that Kottaras should've received a better grade than Lucroy because he had a better OPS is absurd when there's so much else that goes into a player's performance (basically, their point was that other than hitting a few HRs and taking some walks, Kottaras contributes little positively to the team through his performance both offensively & defensively).

 

2. And Fielder, for his great walk rate and consequently high OBP and solid OPS, as the #4 hitter, he's expected to be one of the team's best run producers. But the huge majority of his 32 HRs were solo shots and his RISP was LOUSY this year. While 141 RBIs cannot be treated as a norm, he still drove in nearly 60 fewer runs than last year -- finished tied w/ Weeks for 4th on the team in RBIs, basically 20 behind the top 3 guys -- and a 41% drop in RBIs from your cleanup hitter cannot be a positive thing. Thus, while Fielder's OBP & OPS were good, they're not necessary the best or most complete measuring stick for what his role is on the team (as indicated clearly by his spot in the batting order).

[kramnoj]

Kramnoj, not everything can be quantified statistically (your comment implies that as your point).

 

What do you think happens in a baseball game that isn't quantified?

 

the eyes see not just what someone does, but how he does it . . . and how he goes about doing it, and how he functions as a team member, how he interacts with his teammates & how he's respected by them, and much more.

 

Anything that happens because of that is going to be reflected in a stat.

[homer]

What do you think happens in a baseball game that isn't quantified?

------------------

 

I think stats speak for themselves a lot of the time, but the don't measure overall value to a team. For example, do we know what kind of knowledge Trevor Hoffman may have provided to Braddock, Axford, Loe, etc.? That's valuable stuff and is not accounted for in his stats. Theirs maybe but not his.

[MNBrew]

What do you think happens in a baseball game that isn't quantified? . . . . Anything that happens because of that is going to be reflected in a stat.

 

Homer & I have stated different things to prove our respective positions. You disagree but don't support your position. So in the spirit of good discussion -- and using your logic -- prove it.

[Kricket755]

I suspect these season grade drive web site traffic and sells papers. I guess they have vaule in that. I typically enjoy the opinions, but take them as such.

I find the first sentence funny. They've been doing these season-ending player grades for a long time, possibly since I was in college, and that was over 20 years ago. This is just an annual thing they do. It's a way to put the team & individual performances into a perspective. It's also a clever & effective way to "put a bow" on the Brewers season coverage in the paper, much as a report card presents the summary of a kid's performance in school for the term.

 

Responding to others' comments....

 

Briggs, I'm totally with you. Stats tell a good deal of the story, but they don't tell everything. Kramnoj, not everything can be quantified statistically (your comment implies that as your point). The eyes see not just what someone does, but how he does it . . . and how he goes about doing it, and how he functions as a team member, how he interacts with his teammates & how he's respected by them, and much more.

 

Last point. Each player is different, as are the expectations for each player. Two examples:

 

1. To suggest as someone did that Kottaras should've received a better grade than Lucroy because he had a better OPS is absurd when there's so much else that goes into a player's performance (basically, their point was that other than hitting a few HRs and taking some walks, Kottaras contributes little positively to the team through his performance both offensively & defensively).

 

2. And Fielder, for his great walk rate and consequently high OBP and solid OPS, as the #4 hitter, he's expected to be one of the team's best run producers. But the huge majority of his 32 HRs were solo shots and his RISP was LOUSY this year. While 141 RBIs cannot be treated as a norm, he still drove in nearly 60 fewer runs than last year -- finished tied w/ Weeks for 4th on the team in RBIs, basically 20 behind the top 3 guys -- and a 41% drop in RBIs from your cleanup hitter cannot be a positive thing. Thus, while Fielder's OBP & OPS were good, they're not necessary the best or most complete measuring stick for what his role is on the team (as indicated clearly by his spot in the batting order).

Its a slippery slope when you argue that Prince should have had more RBI like the other guys on the team. While Prince was taking walks from the cleanup spot, Casey and Corey took advantage of him being on base 40% of the time and knocked in all those clutch RBI hits. If Prince had a .400 OBP guy in front of him, he might have been a little more "clutch" himself.

 

Also, I find these two points to be a bit confusing. The first point seems to imply that Prince's year should be evaluated with his role as cleanup hitter and 1b as one of the main criteria. The first point seems to totally dismiss the fact that Kottaras is being evaluated in his role as backup catcher. The fact that offensively he "contributes little positively to the team through his performance" BESIDES walks and homeruns doesnt seem relevant. If he walks enough and homers enough to positivley contribute offensively, we can't be too upset. Walks and homers are a big part of scoring runs, so a backup catcher capable of these two things is a nice commodity. His defense is another story.

[kramnoj]

Homer & I have stated different things to prove our respective positions. You disagree but don't support your position. So in the spirit of good discussion -- and using your logic -- prove it.

 

What position do you think I hold? I already stated that anything that happens in a baseball game is going to be reflected in a stat. I didn't say that Player A's stats will reflect their entire contribution to the game. If you thought I did, you made an assumption.

 

If Hoffman helped others in the bullpen, it would be reflected in their stats. If the journalists see this, than it should be documented and referenced. If the Brewers recognize this, they should try to put a value on it and offer Hoffman a salary commensurate with his value as an assistant pitching coach/traveling consultant.