Khris Davis to the A's for C Jacob Nottingham and RHP Bubba Derby; Latest: Sean Nolin claimed from A's, too

[And That]

I will make you a deal; I will stop using the term tanking if you folks stop acting like the MLB team is improved.

The starting pitching will arguably improve (as you admitted) and they may end up winning more games than last year, but if anyone is saying the team talent level as a whole has improved since last year, especially with a Lucroy trade likely pending, I haven't seen it. So deal.

[gregmag]

Trading players is not tanking. Tanking is when your existing players lose on purpose for the draft pick. It is more of a NBA and NFL thing than MLB.

 

This years team could win more than last but it won't be a 'better' team than that one was. Wins are made up of more than just talent.

 

I think trading away good players with the draft pick as your main goal can be considered tanking too. If Stearns took a weaker deal now for Davis just to hopefully lose more games that is tanking in my mind.

 

Don't think he did that, but someone can believe that if they so choose.

I think this is the key point. When people talk about "tanking" in the NBA, they're always talking about draft position. (I don't know or care about the NFL.) The only way the Brewers are "tanking" is if they're selling players at a discount to improve their draft position. I think it's very difficult to argue plausibly that they're doing that.

 

I think the MLB team's talent level has dropped, but I don't think the Brewers care about that one way or the other. They've acquired some players -- Santana, Liriano, Anderson, even Villar -- who could make the 2016 team better than it would be without them. If they were tanking, they wouldn't acquire guys like that. They would actively avoid acquiring guys like that. The reality, I think, is that Stearns is indifferent to the 2016 team's record. He doesn't want the team to lose; he just doesn't care if it does or not. Under no conventional definition is that "tanking."

[Outlander]

It is not here but there are writers that think they are better. From an article at BrewCrewBall talking about crazy USA Today predictions the writer has a kind of crazy prediction in my opinion as well. LINK

 

I expect the Brewers to improve on last year's 68-94 record: they're either the same or improved at every position on the diamond except perhaps first base.

[Boomer5]

I will make you a deal; I will stop using the term tanking if you folks stop acting like the MLB team is improved.

 

Deal! I haven't read anyone that thinks the team is improved. I've only read people defending that losing as many games as possible isn't the main goal and that, while possible, it's not guaranteed they will actually lose 100 games (just like I wouldn't guarantee a team that looks good on paper will win the division or go to the World Series, there's just too much variance from talent to results to make a claim like that).

 

I will live up to my end of the deal, but I have seen quite a few posts that suggest this team is better off and could win more games than last year, which is downright goofy if you buy into analytics. But regardless, we have a deal. Its rebuilding now.

[FVBrewerFan]

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

[Boomer5]

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

 

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

[sveumrules]

I will live up to my end of the deal, but I have seen quite a few posts that suggest this team is better off and could win more games than last year, which is downright goofy if you buy into analytics. But regardless, we have a deal. Its rebuilding now.

 

If you buy into analytics you know that any preseason projection is just that, a preseason projection. The error bars around such projections are quite large for a number of reasons.

 

That said, the fangraphs link you provided for the Brewers currently has them projected for 69 wins which is more games than they won last year. Assuming the projection is accurate and the Brewers are a 69 win true talent level team I'd expect them to win anywhere between 59 & 79 games depending on how the season plays out.

 

With that wide of a range of possibilities it is in no way "downright goofy" to say that the Brewers "could" win more games than last year.

[CheeseheadInQC]

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

 

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

 

That doesn't mean that that is the goal. If you're tanking, you fill a roster with a bunch of easy to root for but completely maxed out AAAA guys. They won't surprise you. While there are undoubtedly a number of those on the NRI list, most of the acquisitions at the big league level are guys with the tools to be significant contributors but who haven't put it all together. Will more of them fail than succeed? Sure. Not caring what your record is frees you up to take chances on guys like that (take a look at Jake Arrieta, who was bad and getting worse before getting traded to Chicago). Upside isn't great for tanking because it could surprise you and lead to more wins, but it is great for organization building because if you hit on even 20 percent, your future is better off.

 

Also, the term tanking has connotations that rebuilding doesn't. Most fans realize that teams occasionally have to do at least some measure of rebuilding. Tanking, however, implies something less honest, more shady. I don't think it is any coincidence that the term is gaining in its use right before the next collective bargaining agreement starts being hammered out. There are people pushing it with their own agendas, and their best interests don't necessarily line up with the Brewers'.

[monty57]

The Brewers are tanking because:

 

1.) The strategy has worked perfectly for Chicago and Houston, not just in 2015 but for years to come

 

In my opinion, these are not apples-to-apples, because the Brewers are in far better position right now than those teams were when they started their rebuild. The Brewers' willingness to trade away players, especially Gomez and (presumably) Lucroy should put them years ahead of these two teams. Had the Brewers refused to trade Gallardo, Gomez, and Lind, and instead signed Lucroy to a 10 year $200,000,000 contract extension while trading away Arcia for a one-year guy to help the 2016 team win, then after this season they would be around where the Cubs were to start their rebuild.

 

There should be no need for a "three year tank job" to net us three straight top five picks. Our young talent has already started hitting the MLB roster, and will have a huge talent influx when Arcia and Phillips hit the majors potentially as soon as this season, but more likely next year.

 

You are somewhat hung up on the trades for A-ball guys, but I think that those trades were made because we already have a lot of talent in the high minors, so it made a lot of sense to stock up the low minors with "upside" guys in hopes that some of them make it. Guys like Lind were not good enough to bring back someone in the high minors who is better than our current crop, so why not bring back three "lottery tickets?" Now, if he trades Lucroy for a bunch of 18-year-olds, then I may change my stance, but it's very likely he will get another top guy that will hit the majors around the same time as Arcia and Phillips, and we will have a solid core group of young players in the not-too-distant future.

 

To topic, this group includes Nottingham, whether that is as a catcher or first baseman, so trading Davis cleared up a logjam at corner OF, allowing Santana to play in what is assumed to be a down 2016 giving him a little experience as the big wave of young talent hits the majors in 2017. Now, if any of the "scrap heap guys" (Cecchini, Liriano, Carter, etc) puts things together, then we will have filled in yet another hole, making it a little more likely that we could be on a big upswing as soon as 2017-2018.

[FVBrewerFan]

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

 

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Which is exactly why it isn't a goal. Look at just about any draft year, and the #1 pick did not turn out to be the best player.

 

Let me put it another way. The Brewers will be bad this season. That means attendance will be down. So, is the goal of this season to have a lower attendance? Of course not, it's the bad that comes with a rebuilding year. Just as a high (or even #1) draft pick is the good that comes with it. See, neither one of those is the goal of rebuilding, just the result.

[And That]

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

Yes, but I believe you're mistaking cause for effect. The Brewers' eventual draft position will be the result of the organizational talent acquisition philosophy Stearns has implemented. The Brewers are not setting their sights on the #1 pick and making moves to achieve that goal.

 

I can just about guarantee you that nowhere in the Brewers' front office is a sign that states, "WHAT CAN YOU DO TODAY TO HELP US GET TO #1 (the pick)?"

[DuWayne Steurer]

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

Yes, but I believe you're mistaking cause for effect. The Brewers' eventual draft position will be the result of the organizational talent acquisition philosophy Stearns has implemented. The Brewers are not setting their sights on the #1 pick and making moves to achieve that goal.

 

I can just about guarantee you that nowhere in the Brewers' front office is a sign that states, "WHAT CAN YOU DO TODAY TO HELP US GET TO #1 (the pick)?"

 

 

Not only that, but I can guarantee it's not being whispered, implied, written on secret sticky notes, or anything else.

[BillScottCanRake]

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

 

In a vacuum, yes.

 

That said, given how the roster is construction, having some players breakout at the expense of draft position isn't a bad thing. Lets say, for example, that Ryan Braun hit his 25th home run on July 20. Maybe because of his hot start the Brewers win enough games to pick fifth instead of first, but Stearns is also able to flip Braun for some advanced, top flight prospects plus the extra salary flexibility that would come from getting out from under Braun's contract. Or lets say Santana has a breakout year and between that and a few lucky breaks the Brewers end up winning enough games they pick sixth and finding a solid RFer for the next four or five years.

 

Yeah, having the first pick is nice, And if it happens, great. But I'd be more than happy with them finding they have more assets than people thought and it costing them a few draft positions.

[MadScientist]

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

 

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th?

Just browse the draft history at baseball-reference. Looking it's rare for the best pick in slots 1-4 to be noticeably better than the best pick in round 1 that came 5+. The trick is getting the right guy. In other sports, NBA in particular, the best player is often drafted #1, and the talent drop off is significant.

[Thurston Fluff]

Even the worst teams in terms of talent will have post season odds >0% at the beginning of the year because, in the gazillion potential iterations of a baseball season, a simulation (Monte Carlo or otherwise, also see Las Vegas oddsmakers) will show that bad teams could potentially make the playoffs. It's not impossible. It therefore stands to reason that if bad teams stand a remote chance, mediocre teams stand less than a remote chance. Likewise, really good teams also stand a less than remote chance of not making the playoffs.

 

So I don't buy the logic that just because a team makes the playoffs, it is necessarily more talented than a team that does not make the playoffs. Final results do not define true talent level. It's just what happened to happen over that particular 162 game season. 162 games is not a meaningful sample size in the population of all potential outcomes. If the whole season were rewound and played over and over again, the results would be different every time even through the talent level stayed the same.

 

I guess my point is what best determines talent level if not the record? PECOTA who determined the Royals had 72 win talent last year? Or one of the other ones that similarly rated the Royals as around a 500 team the past couple seasons? Does anyone really think the Royals just really outperformed their predicted record two years in a row?

[And That]

I guess my point is what best determines talent level if not the record?

Why is it necessary to have a "best" indicator when there is lots of available evidence from which to draw conclusions?

[Ennder]

Well there are flaws in any projection model. But the Royals likely have played over their heads. Especially last year when they were insanely healthy all year long.

[Thurston Fluff]

I guess my point is what best determines talent level if not the record?

Why is it necessary to have a "best" indicator when there is lots of available evidence from which to draw conclusions?

 

You're really asking why it's necessary to use the best indicator? For the same reason we don't use batting average and RBI over OBP and slugging as an indicator of hitting ability. One is better than the other.

[BillScottCanRake]

I guess my point is what best determines talent level if not the record?

Why is it necessary to have a "best" indicator when there is lots of available evidence from which to draw conclusions?

 

You're really asking why it's necessary to use the best indicator?.

 

Perhaps Toby is making a different point, but I think he's saying why just use the "best" indicator when you can use a bunch of different ones and draw conclusions from them?

[Thurston Fluff]

Perhaps Toby is making a different point, but I think he's saying why just use the "best" indicator when you can use a bunch of different ones and draw conclusions from them?

 

If the best one says something the others don't why would we go with the lesser ones? For example when a batting average says the hitter is good but more accurate stats say he isn't you don't give batting average the same weight as the other ones. Same here. Even that is besides the point.

The point of all of the things we try to measure is to predict a future outcome. Once you know the outcome, if it doesn't match the estimates you don't throw out the result and say the estimates are correct anyway. You look at why they were wrong and try to improve on them so you can more accurately predict future events. Sometimes I think people view analytics as a completed venture. They are not. They are ever evolving. This is not 2+2=4. They are a hypothesis that says A, B and C factors should produce X,Y and Z outcomes. When the results don't match the prediction you can't say the results are wrong because your hypothesis didn't predict it. You say the hypothesis needs tweaking.

I'm not trying to be a wienie about this but I think sometimes people get so involved in what should happen they forget the tools that say what should happen is not a completed study. We need to question why something didn't work in reality like it said it should on paper. Otherwise we'll never get closer to both things matching like they should. Saying reality got it wrong seems to me the wrong approach to getting there.

[Thurston Fluff]

Well there are flaws in any projection model. But the Royals likely have played over their heads. Especially last year when they were insanely healthy all year long.

 

To get it as wrong as it was cannot be explained by good health and playing over their heads.

[homer]

Well there are flaws in any projection model. But the Royals likely have played over their heads. Especially last year when they were insanely healthy all year long.

 

To get it as wrong as it was cannot be explained by good health and playing over their heads.

 

 

Most people agree that projection systems have a blind spot for stellar defense and bullpens.

[homer]

If winning is the best indicator of talent does that mean that when a 15 seed beats a 2 seed they are more talented?

[brewerfan82]

Perhaps Toby is making a different point, but I think he's saying why just use the "best" indicator when you can use a bunch of different ones and draw conclusions from them?

 

If the best one says something the others don't why would we go with the lesser ones? For example when a batting average says the hitter is good but more accurate stats say he isn't you don't give batting average the same weight as the other ones. Same here. Even that is besides the point.

 

The problem with just using record is that talent is only one of many factors that plays into determining a record. Health, strength of schedule, timing of playing other teams (as health, starting pitcher, team rosters, change throughout the year), weather, variance in players playing to their talent from year-to-year, the luck involved in situational matchups and moments that determine the outcomes of close games throughout the year, umpires' calls, differences in travel schedules, and a million other tiny factors that can change how players may perform on any given day.

 

What stats and projections try to do is evaluate what the talent portion of a team *should* perform to under normal circumstances. The record is the result of not only talent, but all the other factors that are even less predictable when the season begins. So if you're purely trying to determine a team's talent level, a record may make you look a little deeper into why things didn't result as expected, but stats and projections are in many ways far superior tools for evaluating how *good* a team actually is and potentially a better base indicator for what you have going into the next season.

[Ennder]

Well there are flaws in any projection model. But the Royals likely have played over their heads. Especially last year when they were insanely healthy all year long.

 

To get it as wrong as it was cannot be explained by good health and playing over their heads.

 

Like i said all models have flaws. But yes overproducing 2 years in a row can just be a complete fluke. I don't think the Royals are a 76 win team but I also don't think they are a 95 win team. They are a mid to high 80s win team that just had things go their way last year.