Taylor Green called up

[jjfanec]

Hardy might be the closest comparison and he really struggled when first brought up. In saying all that I hope Green gets a start soon.

Hardy struggled in large part because, following nearly a year off after a shoulder injury, he was promoted to Milwaukee with barely any AAA time. I get what you're tying to say, but it's not quite the same situation. For Green and Hardy's career paths to mirror each other, Geen would have needed to be in Milwaukee last year while still not over his wrist surgery.

I agree. I was just pointing out that Hardy was much closer to Green's stature of a player than Weeks, Fielder and Braun.

[Ando Calrissian]

Fair enough, though Hardy did come with a load of buzz about his defese; was deemed as "major league ready" in that regard by the time he was in AA. Who knows how things would have progressed for Taylor (in the hype department) without that wrist surgery.

 

I've been slightly dismayed by the media's (in my opinion) slighlty cynical reporting on Green's promotion. Seems like all the article's I've read (Haudricourt, McAlvy, and even Wagner from OnMilwaukee) have had a little sneer to their reporting aimed at fans' pining for Green's promotion. Speaking only for myself, I've wanted Green up for a while, but never have I thought he was the second coming of Braun or Fielder, only that McGehee had been so awful that giving someone else a shot was not a crazy idea at all. Anyhow, I've sensed some condesencion from the media towards the fanbase on this.

[monty57]

At one point, Melvin dumped a productive Overbay because of an unproven prospect at 1B. He traded Junior Spivey because of an unproven prospect at 2B. He gave an unproven prospect, who missed most of his AAA season with a major injury, the starting SS position. He later traded that proven SS and gave the job to an unproven prospect. He brought up an unproven 3B mid-season to start over the two proven veteran players who had been sharing 3B but underperforming.

Green is nowhere near as accomplished of prospect as Fielder, Weeks, or Braun. Those guys were top prospects. Green is solid but Hardy is probably a better example. Escobar got the job in part because we was a good prospect and in part because Hardy was starting to cost more money. These scenarios are far different than Taylor Green and Casey. I dont think any of those were in the midst of a playoff race either. Hardy might be the closest comparison and he really struggled when first brought up. In saying all that I hope Green gets a start soon.

 

I understand that, but some are arguing that minor league stats don't matter. We knew that Fielder, Weeks and Braun were good because of what they had done in the minor leagues (and college for some). We dumped "proven" players to make way for "unproven" ones. By the logic of some, we didn't really know if Fielder, Braun, Hardy or Weeks were any good until they "proved themselves" in the majors.

 

Maybe there's something about Green that I don't know, but he certainly appears to be a talented young player. In the past, Melvin has looked to replace weak spots with stronger ones. Braun & Weeks weren't ready defensively when they were promoted to replace underperforming veterans. Hardy hadn't even played the season before and there were a lor of question marks surrounding him. Green isn't a savior, but he's a good option at a position that could use a boost.

 

My biggest worry, however, is that we are going to start being run in a different manner than what got us here. We do not have the financial resources to continue to bring in million-dollar veteran players for roles where we could play league-minimum rookies, and we can't always trade prospects for veterans. I'm certainly glad we traded for Marcum & Greinke (and have always said so), but these salaries were only absorbable because we have a core made up of guys we grew on the farm. Now that these guys are going to become expensive, we will need to bring up more guys from the farm just to be able to hold on to some of the guys we currently have. What we've done the last couple of seasons is unsustainable long-term. We need guys like Green and Gamel to play significant roles on the MLB roster. I'm certainly not panicked, but the unwillingness to bring up Green to get some of McGehee's PAs, trading for Lopez and Hairston instead of using guys from the minors, and continuing to hold onto Counsell and Wilson because of their "veteran presence" could portend a bad trend for the future.

 

Is this year an isolated event as Melvin thinks we're going all the way, or has he changed his methodolgy?

[gregmag]

Monty -- I think you're right about Melvin's M.O., and I share your concerns, but to some extent I understand what I take to be his mindset. A lot of us, myself included, have questioned in the past whether Melvin was a guy who could take a team from rebuilding to contention. I think most of us gave him credit for being a good rebuilder -- getting the farm system productive, grabbing free talent, making mostly smart trades. But taking a team to the next level is a different thing. I can't really blame Melvin, psychologically, for mirroring that attitude and basically saying, "Okay, I have to do my job very differently at this stage."

 

But I do think it's a problem. I think that's how good teams regress. Bill James used to talk about what he called "the plexiglass principle," the tendency of good teams to regress. A big part of it, of course, is that winning teams tend to have things go right for them that are unsustainable. But another part of it is decisionmaking. Winning GMs and managers tend to become conservative and complacent, because they don't want to mess with the things that brought them success. They forget that part of their success has to do with luck and winning in spite of their holes.

 

Unfortunately that's a really common problem. If DM and RR can overcome it, they'll be in the minority. I think the big test will come in the offseason, when the question of who should start at 3b, and presumably 1b, will be written on a clean slate. As of now, I'll be disappointed if they don't go with at least a soft platoon, and I'll be disappointed if they trade Gamel and pick up . . . I don't know, Derrek Lee or somebody.

[logan82]

If you look at the 2008 club they really didn't give any young players much of a chance outside of September call-ups. The only young guys they really had were Parra, Gallardo and Braun. Braun and Gallardo had significant playing time the previous year. It seems to be Melvin's MO not to give young guys any playing time if the Brewers are competing for the playoffs.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Brewers had a ton invested in Braun (5th overall pick), Fielder (7th overall pick) and Weeks (2nd overall pick). There is no way that journeymen like Overbay, Spivey, Helms or Graffanino would hold those guys back. Hardy was replacing a 34 year old SS that hit .241/.330/.315 on a 94 loss team the year before. Ironically that SS is still on the current roster at age 41. They had nothing to lose playing Hardy in those days. He was ready defensively, and eventually put up respectable numbers for the year as a rookie.

 

McGehee had 21 more RBI than Fielder last year and despite his struggles for much of the year the team was still hovering near first place from June on. The guy had earned the benefit of the doubt and I think his solid 2nd half (.278/.325/.458) bears that out.

[MillerBombers]

Unfortunately, now that Green is up Nashville isn't as fun to follow up on. I really do hope they get Green some playing time. Otherwise, what is the point of him being up right now? It does him and the Major League team no good.

[ilovebeer]

Congrats to Taylor Green for making the all PCL team.

[gregmag]

McGehee had 21 more RBI than Fielder last year and despite his struggles for much of the year the team was still hovering near first place from June on. The guy had earned the benefit of the doubt and I think his solid 2nd half (.278/.325/.458) bears that out.

This is almost a textbook specious argument.

 

(1) We would be better off retiring RBI from the record books than allowing RBI to be used in this kind of deceptive fashion. To emphasize that McGehee had more RBI than Fielder suggests that McGehee was, in some meaningful sense, better than Fielder, which proves the weakness of RBI as a stat if anything does. Prince Fielder, of course, has hit rings around Casey McGehee for the entirety of both men's careers. The irony is that McGehee wouldn't have gotten his flashy RBI numbers, even hitting fifth, if Prince Fielder wasn't putting up a .400 OBP in front of him.

 

(2) Emphasizing, in this context, that the team was doing well from June on suggests that McGehee had something to do with the team's success. In reality, McGehee couldn't have done much more to hurt the Brewers in the first half if he had beaten the entire starting rotation senseless with a tire iron. The Brewers' competitiveness in the first half is a heroic testimony to their ability to drag the dead weight of Casey McGehee across home plate.

 

(3) The argument pretends that McGehee's first half horror show didn't happen. Well, it did. He killed the team for the better part of four months. To say he had earned the benefit of the doubt is just a smooth way of saying that you're choosing to ignore everything he has done badly while hyperinflating everything he does well.

 

At his very best, Casey McGehee has been a very good -- never great -- hitter and a poor defender. At his very best, he can start. At anything less than his best -- including his mediocre second-half numbers this year -- he's the kind of player that good teams bring off the bench. He should not be starting for a contender. He's exactly the kind of guy that smart organizations jump at the opportunity to replace with one of the best 24 year-old hitters in AAA. As I've said, I can understand the reasoning behind sticking with him now (although he should have been toast long before now). What the Brewers do with him this winter will provide a good test of how serious the organization is about winning.

[mothershipconnection]

Winning GMs and managers tend to become conservative and complacent, because they don't want to mess with the things that brought them success. They forget that part of their success has to do with luck and winning in spite of their holes.

 

It seems to be the baseball analog of the prevent defense in football. Guys suddenly become too timid to trust the same defense that held firm for 3.5 quarters to continue to be a wall, so they'd rather just slow the opponent down as they move down the field. I've never agreed with it in football, and don't agree with it here, either.

[MNBrew]

McGehee had 21 more RBI than Fielder last year and despite his struggles for much of the year the team was still hovering near first place from June on. The guy had earned the benefit of the doubt and I think his solid 2nd half (.278/.325/.458) bears that out.

This is almost a textbook specious argument. . . . We would be better off retiring RBI from the record books than allowing RBI to be used in this kind of deceptive fashion. To emphasize that McGehee had more RBI than Fielder suggests that McGehee was, in some meaningful sense, better than Fielder, which proves the weakness of RBI as a stat if anything does. Prince Fielder, of course, has hit rings around Casey McGehee for the entirety of both men's careers. The irony is that McGehee wouldn't have gotten his flashy RBI numbers, even hitting fifth, if Prince Fielder wasn't putting up a .400 OBP in front of him.

Two things:

 

1. On the above, Prince's OBP last year was fantastic, but one significant reason McGehee had so many more RBI than Fielder was that Prince's BA/RISP wasn't very good. Casey did decently in that regard, in part because Prince didn't drive in as many of the guys on base ahead of him, instead often walking to get on-base himself. . . . Granted, that was more of a one-year phenomenon for Prince, but nonetheless, it's a significant reason his RBIs dropped so greatly from the year before.

 

2. On why Fielder, Weeks, Braun, Hardy, Hart (to a lesser extent), etc., were "handed" spots compared to, most recently, Taylor Green's situation, those guys were A+ prospects from Day 1, top-10 picks in the whole draft, and the guys around whom Melvin was building the whole franchise. There weren't lots of other "cornerstone" vets on the team outside of Ben Sheets. While the team was "on the rise" then, they still had to grow into a team that could achieve a .500 record, let alone consistently. . . . I still think Green deserves his chance. But my point is that being a top playoff contender, a near-tops-in-all-of-MLB team, is a whole different situation than when Prince, Rickie, Ryan, & Co. first came up, and consequently, chances for rookies may well get handled differently. As such, since the Brewers have yet to make the post-season, let alone win a playoff series, I do see this as being rather early to get antsy at Melvin re: handling Taylor Green in the way he has. (I also see the suggestion that Roenicke doesn't fully see what Melvin does re: Green as being ludicrous. Those guys talk extensively all the time. Roenicke's not blind. And he's doing quite a lot right, as evidenced by the Brewers being only 1 of 4 80-win teams in the bigs going into today's games.)

[YoGasKpose]

McGehee had 21 more RBI than Fielder last year and despite his struggles for much of the year the team was still hovering near first place from June on. The guy had earned the benefit of the doubt and I think his solid 2nd half (.278/.325/.458) bears that out.

This is almost a textbook specious argument.

 

(1) We would be better off retiring RBI from the record books than allowing RBI to be used in this kind of deceptive fashion. To emphasize that McGehee had more RBI than Fielder suggests that McGehee was, in some meaningful sense, better than Fielder, which proves the weakness of RBI as a stat if anything does. Prince Fielder, of course, has hit rings around Casey McGehee for the entirety of both men's careers. The irony is that McGehee wouldn't have gotten his flashy RBI numbers, even hitting fifth, if Prince Fielder wasn't putting up a .400 OBP in front of him.

 

(2) Emphasizing, in this context, that the team was doing well from June on suggests that McGehee had something to do with the team's success. In reality, McGehee couldn't have done much more to hurt the Brewers in the first half if he had beaten the entire starting rotation senseless with a tire iron. The Brewers' competitiveness in the first half is a heroic testimony to their ability to drag the dead weight of Casey McGehee across home plate.

 

(3) The argument pretends that McGehee's first half horror show didn't happen. Well, it did. He killed the team for the better part of four months. To say he had earned the benefit of the doubt is just a smooth way of saying that you're choosing to ignore everything he has done badly while hyperinflating everything he does well.

 

At his very best, Casey McGehee has been a very good -- never great -- hitter and a poor defender. At his very best, he can start. At anything less than his best -- including his mediocre second-half numbers this year -- he's the kind of player that good teams bring off the bench. He should not be starting for a contender. He's exactly the kind of guy that smart organizations jump at the opportunity to replace with one of the best 24 year-old hitters in AAA. As I've said, I can understand the reasoning behind sticking with him now (although he should have been toast long before now). What the Brewers do with him this winter will provide a good test of how serious the organization is about winning.

I think everyone will acknowledge that RBI is a flawed stat. But, then again, so are all stats. We invent statistics so we have an agreed upon measurement representing a certain quality. Are some better than others? Yes. And I'd say RBI is about in the middle of the pack as far as statistics go. The fact that McGehee drove in more runs than Fielder last year doesn't mean he's a better player, but it does mean he was more successful at driving in runs. Scoring runs and bringing them in are what the game is all about, so I don't think this can just be discounted.

I get the argument, but I also think the backlash against RBI is a little overblown. Yes, it's dependent on teammate success. Yes, it involves a degree of randomness. But as a raw measurement, it does give one an idea of how successful at player was at converting scoring opportunities into actual runs.

 

[rluzinski]

The fact that McGehee drove in more runs than Fielder last year doesn't mean he's a better player, but it does mean he was more successful at driving in runs.

 

What "more successful" mean? Did McGehee have more opportunities? Did McGehee make more outs in attempting to rack up more RBI's? These are the questions that need to be asked to determine success.

 

Scoring runs and bringing them in are what the game is all about, so I don't think this can just be discounted.

 

The game is all about the TEAM scoring more runs. A guy who never walked would improve his RBI numbers but would most likely lower the total amount of runs his team scored.

RBI totals tell you what happened. They are a poor way to measure batter skill.

[a3uge]

The fact that McGehee drove in more runs than Fielder last year doesn't mean he's a better player, but it does mean he was more successful at driving in runs.

 

What "more successful" mean? Did McGehee have more opportunities? Did McGehee make more outs in attempting to rack up more RBI's? These are the questions that need to be asked to determine success.

 

Scoring runs and bringing them in are what the game is all about, so I don't think this can just be discounted.

 

The game is all about the TEAM scoring more runs. A guy who never walked would improve his RBI numbers but would most likely lower the total amount of runs his team scored.

RBI totals tell you what happened. They are a poor way to measure batter skill.

I don't think you're understanding the statistics very well, or looking them up yourself. You're discrediting his year last year because he isn't doing good this year. Lets get some numbers out.

McGehee's RISP:

.324

.372

.571

.943

Fielder's RISP:

.233

.451

.301

.753

I'm guessing that has a lot to do with higher RBI numbers. These are averages, so PA aren't used, just ABs. Prince also hit a lot of solo shots. Of his 32 HR, 26 of them were solo shots, and 6 came with any runners on. This can be blamed by runners in front of him not getting on base, but if you look at the numbers... Fielder had 247 AB with men on and hit 6 HR. Casey had 286 AB with men on and hit 11 HR. Fielder's avg HR per AB with runners on was 0.024 compared to Casey's 0.038. Interesting stuff. I don't have stats about how many were on base on average per home run, or how many RBIs resulted as HR/2B/S... that would be interesting to look at as well.

The fact is: Casey had a good year, and you're discrediting the amount of RBI's he's hit due to... him hitting RBI's rather than walking? Do you honestly think the teams' run numbers would be much higher if he walked more? He was in the 5-hole, not lead-off. His job was to bat runners in when they were in scoring position, not draw walks. Obviously, he did a good job with RISP (.949 OPS)... why would you want a guy who's hitting that well with RISP to go up to the plate and draw a walk for players below him who obviously weren't doing as well. I fail to see how wrong it was for McGehee to lead the team in RBIs instead of drawing walks so Escobar and Gomez could drive him in.

[UeckerAddict]

Unfortunately, now that Green is up Nashville isn't as fun to follow up on. I really do hope they get Green some playing time. Otherwise, what is the point of him being up right now? It does him and the Major League team no good.

It makes him eligible for the postseason roster, whereas waiting until September 1 would make him ineligible, barring an injury by a player who plays the same position. That's a pretty good reason to bring him up 5 days early.

[istanbultaye]

I don't think you're understanding the statistics very well, or looking them up yourself.

 

One could call rluzinski the most knowledgeable person on statistics on this board. I've learned more about statistics from reading his posts over the past several years than you could get from some statistics classes. Perhaps you should research the amount of fluctuation year to year in such stats as RISP. However, let's look at the numbers you posted from last year.

 

Fielders OB% with RISP was .216 higher than his batting average. He was walked over 20% of the times he came to the plate with RISP. This led to Casey McGehee having increased chances to drive in runs. We certainly can't take away that he did do a good job of hitting with RISP last year, but you also have to realize that he would have never been in position to drive those runs in if Prince hadn't done his job and taken the walks that were given him. By and large, getting on base, no matter the situation, outweighs any short term RBI benefits that could come from chasing non-strike pitches that you might get a hit on.

 

Also, Prince has clearly not suffered from low batting/HR totals with RISP his whole career, so drawing a conclusion based on just last years data does not seem to me to be the best selection of data possible.

 

Edit: Just as another example. Using RBIs as any serious proof of hitting prowess could lead you to conclude that Yuniesky Betancourt was the best hitter on the Royals last year, since he did tie for the team lead in RBIs. He did this with a .692 OPS. What is quite surprising is that his RISP OPS was in fact even lower than his total OPS, so it is safe to assume that his RBI total was almost completely a function of opportunity. Interestingly enough, some of the Royal's best OBP guys spent a lot of time batting 5, 6, and 7.

[gregmag]

One way of stating the problem with RBI as a stat is that it represents double-counting. If you know that a guy hit for a good batting average and a good slugging percentage, then you know that he did the things necessary to drive in runs. Now, when I say that, I'm obviously leaving out "clutch" stats like BA with RISP. I leave those stats out because I don't believe they measure a sustainable skill. If you disagree with that -- and good luck to you, because the statistical evidence is pretty overwhelming -- then I can understand why you like RBI more than I do. But even if that's the case, you're still double-counting once you credit the player for his clutch performance numbers.

 

As Russ said, RBI tell you what happened. So, for that matter, does BA with RISP. That's useful and interesting information for some purposes. Even though variations in clutch stats have mostly to do with random fluctuations (what we scientists call "luck"), maybe you believe that performance, including random fluctuation, should determine things like MVP votes. That position makes plenty of sense on its own terms. Casey McGehee drove in over 100 runs last year, and no one can take that result away from him (or, more importantly, from the Brewers).

 

But RBI and clutch stats are next to useless in measuring a player's true level of ability, which is how you predict future performance. To say that Casey McGehee had a lot of RBI last year, in a discussion about whether he should start next week or next year, is nearly useless information. His stats that better (not perfectly, but better) reflect true hitting talent were pretty solid in 2009 and 2010. That information is valuable, and it absolutely should play a role in how we project his future performance. So should his largely disastrous 2011, and so should his consistently poor defense. How to weigh those conflicting pieces of information is a hard and interesting problem. That, IMHO, is a discussion worth having -- not some meaningless distraction about RBI.

[topper09er]

Prince Fielder's 2010 actual runners on base: 474 (237-168-69) (1st, 2nd, 3rd)

With men on: 71 walks

Total RISP: 405

PAs w/ R3 < 2 outs: 42, 5 IBB

 

Casey McGehee's 2010 actual runners on base: 492 (255-156-81)

With men on: 22 walks

Total RISP: 411

PAs w/ R3 < 2 outs: 39, 2 IBB

 

 

I really think the main thing is that Prince just came off of a season leading the NL in RBI with 46 HRs and McGehee was essentially an unknown, unproven player, thus teams decided they were not going to pitch to Fielder and make McGehee beat them. Especially with men on, Prince was not going to see many pitches he could drive. This year, at least for the majority of the first half, McGehee was treated as a decent player and Prince was pitched to, even in high leverage situations, and he has produced. For example in June I think he had like 8-9 HRs that either tied the game or took the lead. In 2010 he probably would have been walked in most of those ABs but for some reason this year teams pitched to him.

[topper09er]

Do you honestly think the teams' run numbers would be much higher if he walked more? He was in the 5-hole....I fail to see how wrong it was for McGehee to lead the team in RBIs

instead of drawing walks so Escobar and Gomez could drive him in.

 

Brewers 2010:

Split	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB
Batting 1st	771	667	114	176	32	4	28	81	77	181	.264	.361	.450	.810	300
Batting 2nd	752	698	105	187	44	5	19	83	41	161	.268	.314	.427	.741	298
Batting 3rd	732	646	110	201	43	1	34	106	75	130	.311	.389	.539	.928	348
Batting 4th	717	597	91	152	30	0	25	86	100	130	.255	.377	.430	.807	257
Batting 5th	701	636	74	178	38	1	24	107	55	112	.280	.335	.456	.791	290
Batting 6th	682	626	86	170	34	4	27	87	43	131	.272	.323	.468	.791	293
Batting 7th	668	592	53	146	30	9	7	60	59	111	.247	.318	.363	.681	215
Batting 8th	653	588	58	136	19	5	11	58	55	99	.231	.297	.337	.634	198
Batting 9th	627	556	59	125	23	4	7	42	41	161	.225	.283	.318	.601	177

So the 6 spot had the same OPS as the 5 spot, but with a higher SLG which is better for driving in runs, to go along with more HRs as well. So yes, the Brewers would have scored more runs if McGehee would have walked more. It looks like the 6 spot was the spot where is was worth it to sacrifice some walks for RBI chances since the 7-8 spots really dropped off.

[Bernman23]

Edit: Just as another example. Using RBIs as any serious proof of hitting prowess could lead you to conclude that Yuniesky Betancourt was the best hitter on the Royals last year, since he did tie for the team lead in RBIs. He did this with a .692 OPS. What is quite surprising is that his RISP OPS was in fact even lower than his total OPS, so it is safe to assume that his RBI total was almost completely a function of opportunity. Interestingly enough, some of the Royal's best OBP guys spent a lot of time batting 5, 6, and 7.

#1 on the team in RBI's and just about last in runs scored per plate appearance. It was a product of not only opportunity but a selfish approach. Your value as a hitter is how many runs you help generate for your team in totality. Not to imply that rbi's + runs scored should be the way to judge that, because like you said what your teammates did matters, but if you even look deeper into old school stats he appeared to be a mediocre run producer for the ROYALS in one of his better years.

[a3uge]

Do you honestly think the teams' run numbers would be much higher if he walked more? He was in the 5-hole....I fail to see how wrong it was for McGehee to lead the team in RBIs

instead of drawing walks so Escobar and Gomez could drive him in.

 

Brewers 2010:

Split	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB
Batting 1st	771	667	114	176	32	4	28	81	77	181	.264	.361	.450	.810	300
Batting 2nd	752	698	105	187	44	5	19	83	41	161	.268	.314	.427	.741	298
Batting 3rd	732	646	110	201	43	1	34	106	75	130	.311	.389	.539	.928	348
Batting 4th	717	597	91	152	30	0	25	86	100	130	.255	.377	.430	.807	257
Batting 5th	701	636	74	178	38	1	24	107	55	112	.280	.335	.456	.791	290
Batting 6th	682	626	86	170	34	4	27	87	43	131	.272	.323	.468	.791	293
Batting 7th	668	592	53	146	30	9	7	60	59	111	.247	.318	.363	.681	215
Batting 8th	653	588	58	136	19	5	11	58	55	99	.231	.297	.337	.634	198
Batting 9th	627	556	59	125	23	4	7	42	41	161	.225	.283	.318	.601	177

So the 6 spot had the same OPS as the 5 spot, but with a higher SLG which is better for driving in runs, to go along with more HRs as well. So yes, the Brewers would have scored more runs if McGehee would have walked more. It looks like the 6 spot was the spot where is was worth it to sacrifice some walks for RBI chances since the 7-8 spots really dropped off.

If McGehee draws a walk, he's not in scoring position for the 6th spot. He's also incredibly slow, so scoring from a double becomes unlikely.

Also, I'm quite interested in the research that fluctuation in BA with RISP is most likely due to randomness. And I'm not sure what you mean by double-counting. It was argued that RBI's in this case aren't a telling stat because a player had more opportunities to drive in runs. I pulled up stats on that were an average performance per AB that a player did while having at least a player on second base. I don't think RBI's should be discounted in telling how well a player did, especially when they led the team.

And yes, how he did last year statistically doesn't have all that much to do with how he's doing now, but I think a lot of people are discounting his season last year because he's been bad this year. It happened. He did good. Throw away RBI's, he still had a great year. Yes, he's not nearly as good of a player as Fielder or Braun, nobody's arguing that. Just because he had more RBI's than Fielder and Fielder's better doesn't mean you have to completely throw the stat away.

[tigerbrew]

It's been 3 games and Green still doesn't even have an AB, is this an awful joke ? I guess RR wants to freeze one of the Brewers hottest hitters by having him ride the pine all week.

 

I really hope Green gets to start tomorrow, no harm in giving him a try.

[trwi7]

He should get the start on Thursday. He's the only one who's ever faced Dickson.

[adambr2]

McGehee will get a day off soon. And when he does, Craig Counsell will be ready to go.

[Ando Calrissian]

Do you honestly think the teams' run numbers would be much higher if he walked more? He was in the 5-hole....I fail to see how wrong it was for McGehee to lead the team in RBIs

instead of drawing walks so Escobar and Gomez could drive him in.

 

Brewers 2010:

Split	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB
Batting 1st	771	667	114	176	32	4	28	81	77	181	.264	.361	.450	.810	300
Batting 2nd	752	698	105	187	44	5	19	83	41	161	.268	.314	.427	.741	298
Batting 3rd	732	646	110	201	43	1	34	106	75	130	.311	.389	.539	.928	348
Batting 4th	717	597	91	152	30	0	25	86	100	130	.255	.377	.430	.807	257
Batting 5th	701	636	74	178	38	1	24	107	55	112	.280	.335	.456	.791	290
Batting 6th	682	626	86	170	34	4	27	87	43	131	.272	.323	.468	.791	293
Batting 7th	668	592	53	146	30	9	7	60	59	111	.247	.318	.363	.681	215
Batting 8th	653	588	58	136	19	5	11	58	55	99	.231	.297	.337	.634	198
Batting 9th	627	556	59	125	23	4	7	42	41	161	.225	.283	.318	.601	177

So the 6 spot had the same OPS as the 5 spot, but with a higher SLG which is better for driving in runs, to go along with more HRs as well. So yes, the Brewers would have scored more runs if McGehee would have walked more. It looks like the 6 spot was the spot where is was worth it to sacrifice some walks for RBI chances since the 7-8 spots really dropped off.

If McGehee draws a walk, he's not in scoring position for the 6th spot. He's also incredibly slow, so scoring from a double becomes unlikely.

Also, I'm quite interested in the research that fluctuation in BA with RISP is most likely due to randomness. And I'm not sure what you mean by double-counting. It was argued that RBI's in this case aren't a telling stat because a player had more opportunities to drive in runs. I pulled up stats on that were an average performance per AB that a player did while having at least a player on second base. I don't think RBI's should be discounted in telling how well a player did, especially when they led the team.

And yes, how he did last year statistically doesn't have all that much to do with how he's doing now, but I think a lot of people are discounting his season last year because he's been bad this year. It happened. He did good. Throw away RBI's, he still had a great year. Yes, he's not nearly as good of a player as Fielder or Braun, nobody's arguing that. Just because he had more RBI's than Fielder and Fielder's better doesn't mean you have to completely throw the stat away.

They didn't completely throw the stat away, they just pointed out the holes in your logic regarding the statistics you choose to use for evaluation.