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

[3and2Fastball]

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.

 

 

That is possible. Personally I think the Royals are just way ahead of the curve in analytics: emphasizing contact hitters, athleticism, defense and relief pitching in ways that were ahead of the times in most sabermetric calculations. They zigged when everyone else was still zagging, and have a World Championship to show for it.

[monty57]

That is possible. Personally I think the Royals are just way ahead of the curve in analytics: emphasizing contact hitters, athleticism, defense and relief pitching in ways that were ahead of the times in most sabermetric calculations. They zigged when everyone else was still zagging, and have a World Championship to show for it.

 

I read an interesting article about the Royals, and I think "zigged when everyone else was still zagging" sums it up. They saw that everyone was going for hitters that worked the count. This led to pitchers throwing strikes early, knowing the hitters would take them to run up pitch counts, and would throw their "put away pitches" late. The Royals decided that instead of waiting to try to hit the "put away pitch," they would simply attack the early strikes. They say they want the opposing pitcher to have a low pitch count, because by attacking early they throw the pitchers off their game, and with good base-running (not throwing away runs) and defense (not giving away runs) they can dink-and-dunk their way to victories.

 

They brought in good contact hitters to implement this strategy. The "Moneyball" methodology isn't about using SABR and getting guys with high OBP. It's about analyzing everything and looking for inefficiencies. No one wanted contact hitters with high batting average, but low relative OBP, so these guys were cheap. So was defense and guys with good base-running skills. So were relief pitchers. People who strictly follow "advanced analytics" ridiculed the Royals for the moves they were making, and I'd guess that since the "predictive models" use these analytics, they will always underestimate any team that goes against the grain. People who use "today's methods" to analyze the Royals can't figure out how they win, and that's probably why they win. Now people are trying to copy them, which will bring up the price tag on what they bought cheaply (the former inefficiencies), which will naturally make something else relatively cheap (the next inefficiency).

 

They developed a plan, and found players to fit that plan. I think that's what Stearns is doing in Milwaukee. He's not a lapdog saying "this is what the Astros/Cubs did, so that's what I'm going to imitate." He has an idea of the team he wants on the field in a few years, and he's building that future roster, hopefully finding the aforementioned "next inefficiency." He obviously likes young pitchers who throw strikes and don't walk hitters. He seems to like defensive versatility, but that may just be trying to fit together an MLB roster for 2016. Looking at last year's trades, it appears prospects are losing their luster around the league, bringing their price tag down right when that's exactly what the Brewers need, so hopefully that helps. Digging deeper, guys in the low minors (before they prove themselves enough to hit the "top prospects" lists) are very cheap, so he's loading up on them.

 

Whatever the ultimate plan, I am happy to see that the Brewers are finally looking beyond "this year" into "future years," and I hope that when everything plays out other teams are analyzing the "Brewer model" to try to imitate Stearns.

[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?

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.

 

I will respond to your post, though there were several similar posts that suggested the 1st pick wont give the Brewers a major advantage over picking say 5th, like this year.

 

Firstly, it is always better to be picking higher in the draft just by its nature. Yes, teams screw up all the time but that is not the fault of picking high, it is the fault of a bad selection.

 

Which brings me to the next point, which is far more relevant in today's amateur infusion process. The bonus pool. Having a bigger pool means you can not only go after elite talent, done correctly, you can go deeper in the draft by selecting a key under slot player, like Stearn's former team did with Correa. I posted this in another thread but it needs to be repeated for the folks that think building a team is just as easy no mater where you pick:

 

Club Rule 4 (Draft) International Total

Reds $13,923,700 $5,163,400 $19,087,100

Phillies $13,405,200 $5,610,800 $19,016,000

Braves $12,385,200 $4,766,000 $17,151,200

Padres $12,743,800 $3,347,600 $16,091,400

Rockies $11,153,400 $4,412,700 $15,566,100

Athletics $9,883,500 $3,818,700 $13,702,200

Brewers $9,364,300 $4,098,500 $13,462,800

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2016-mlb-draft-international-bonus-pools/

 

While the Phillies finished with 63 wins, the Reds with 64 are higher due to winning the highest competitive balance pick. Look at that gap between 63 wins and 68 wins in terms of what a team can accomplish. That is not insignificant especially for a team with limited tools of player procurement as the Brewers.

 

The next point mentioned by another poster suggested the Brewer are farther along than Houston or Chicago at the time of the, ahem "rebuild" as I have made a deal not to use that other word.

 

That is false. While the Brewers farm system is more advanced at this stage than either of those two teams, the Brewers are starting with a massive disadvantage to those two teams, especially Chicago, which is not coincidentally the team the Brewers will be competing against assuming the rebuild works. That is payroll to both add the finishing touches in a JHey, Lester, Zobrist, or retain the stars they selected during the rebuild process. The Brewers wont be adding the version of Lester of 2018 because by then whoever he is will cost $250M or so. Instead the Brewers will have to develop him, which mean they need more quality picks via the underslot selection then using the pool money to go deeper in the draft.

 

Seeing as how the Brewer were 5 wins from the top spot, I guarantee both Montgomery and Stearns remain furious at the Brewers modest and not awful finish. If it was up to them, they would have gone 0 for September. Its their job to win a championship, not cobble together a 72 win team that will probably not draw one more person than a 62 win team. We will have to agree to disagree on that but i would submit to you to monitor the traffic on this board during the minor league season and draft time vs the game day threads to understand how critical maximizing, even painfully so, the tools to build a team really are.

[Boomer5]

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.

 

That chart, which shows a currently awful team especially on defense, has Luc - our top projected WAR and only meaningful plus defender - who is almost certainly gone and Smith who I think will soon be gone. Thrown in Braun, who is the teams only run producer, coming off back surgery, then yes it is not plausible to think the Brewers will win more games than last year.

 

If you are a there's always a chance kind of guy, then fine, there is always a chance, as small as it might be. And its very very small.

[adambr2]

If you set the over/under for our win total at 68 this year, I'd probably take the under, but it's in no way ridiculous to suggest we win 68+, and I dont believe our chances are 'very, very small.'

 

So many things can happen throughout the course of a year. Peralta and Garza both had poor years, they could rebound. Arcia could be called up mid-summer and rake, or struggle. Anderson over 2015 Lohse is a big upgrade. Maybe Santana hits 35 HR with better D than Davis. Maybe Luc looks like an MVP candidate again and then gets traded at the deadline. We just don't know. All of these are possibilities, among other things both positive and negative. Look at the 2005 Brewers and tell me that team had 81 win talent.

 

I don't know whether this team will win 55 or 75 games, my guess would be somewhere in the middle of that, but nothing in that range would surprise me.

[MKE81]

 

Lohse was terrible for sure. Anderson is an upgrade.

Segura is terrible, Villars projects to be terrible, in fact, I would bet he projects as the worst starting defensive SS in the game.

Ramirez was terrible, Hill projects to be terrible.

Luc will be traded, his replacements are terrible.

Scooter is Scooter and has no real impact one way or the other.

Garza was terrible and is terrible at a year older.

 

Whatever Fangraphs says is automatically gold. Got it. Catcher is worse no doubt if Lucroy is traded. Carter, overall, is a drop off from Lind but he will also hit an additional 10HR+ and drive in at least the same amount of runs as Lind did (he's literally replacing Davis' power in the lineup). 2b is better, actually, given Scooter will platoon with Hill. SS is equal or slightly better (Villar is 24 and performed much better last year over previous stints so maybe he's starting to figure it out). 3b is a wash worst case and Hill is an improvement over Perez who played half the year. Braun should go back to LF and he's better defensively than Davis. CF will be a wash based on what Gomez did last year (Gomez overall is obviously much better but if we're talking about 2015 vs 2016 Rymer very well could be better offensively but definitely not defensively - Gomez wasn't anywhere near as good as what he typically is defensively last year too). RF Santana will be better defensively than Braun. I'm comparing Davis vs Santana offensively as that's the backfill player - I don't care what Davis did for a 7-8wk stretch I care about the entire body of work. Santana will be an upgrade vs Davis. He will hit for an equal to or higher avg, get on base much more, still hit 20HR+ and play better defense (if given 500ABs that is). Parra played out of his shoes last year and will never reproduce that rest of his career and much of his time last year was in place of an injured Gomez/Davis.

 

Rotation should actually be significantly better than last year. Chase is a major upgrade from Lohse. Garza last year was the first year he had an ERA above 3.91 since 2006. He'll be back to his typical self, which is a major upgrade. Him being a year older is irrelevant. He's 32, not 37. Peralta was terrible and injured last year. He'll pitch much better as well. That's 3 rather significant changes for the better not to mention the continued development of Nelson and Jungmann. Bullpen can be just as good even minus KRod. If Smith and/or Jeffress are traded obviously they're worse. Either of them can handle the closer role.

[And That]

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

No, I'm not really asking that. I said "a" best indicator, which if it is anything, I certainly do not believe it to be wins. Wins are based on an enormous number of variables, so I find it difficult to believe that all of those variables magically congeal into a truth about a team's exact talent level.

 

Given that baseball has so much data, why would we limit ourselves to one highly variable-driven stat (wins) to try to determine how talented a team is? That's like saying RBIs are the best way to determine if a batter is talented or not.

[DuWayne Steurer]

No, I'm not really asking that. I said "a" best indicator, which if it is anything, I certainly do not believe it to be wins. Wins are based on an enormous number of variables, so I find it difficult to believe that all of those variables magically congeal into a truth about a team's exact talent level.

 

Given that baseball has so much data, why would we limit ourselves to one highly variable-driven stat (wins) to try to determine how talented a team is? That's like saying RBIs are the best way to determine if a batter is talented or not.

 

 

Please.......

 

We all know it's batting average. :D

[FVBrewerFan]

That is possible. Personally I think the Royals are just way ahead of the curve in analytics: emphasizing contact hitters, athleticism, defense and relief pitching in ways that were ahead of the times in most sabermetric calculations. They zigged when everyone else was still zagging, and have a World Championship to show for it.

 

I looked up some basic stats, and I was surprised to learn they were only in the middle of the pack in the AL for OBP. They were 7th, and 8th for slugging. I expected them to be at or near the top in OBP. Yet that resulted in being 3rd in the AL in runs. That can't be all about stolen bases, not even close.

 

So I looked up the ever controversial BA/RISP. Yes, they were 2nd in the AL. So I figure that, along with speed on the basepaths, helped them score far more runs than they "should have."

 

Finally, not sure what it means but very interesting they were LAST in the AL in both walks and strikeouts. Just guessing, but seems that has to be incredibly rare.

[DuWayne Steurer]

That is possible. Personally I think the Royals are just way ahead of the curve in analytics: emphasizing contact hitters, athleticism, defense and relief pitching in ways that were ahead of the times in most sabermetric calculations. They zigged when everyone else was still zagging, and have a World Championship to show for it.

 

I looked up some basic stats, and I was surprised to learn they were only in the middle of the pack in the AL for OBP. They were 7th, and 8th for slugging. I expected them to be at or near the top in OBP. Yet that resulted in being 3rd in the AL in runs. That can't be all about stolen bases, not even close.

 

So I looked up the ever controversial BA/RISP. Yes, they were 2nd in the AL. So I figure that, along with speed on the basepaths, helped them score far more runs than they "should have."

 

Finally, not sure what it means but very interesting they were LAST in the AL in both walks and strikeouts. Just guessing, but seems that has to be incredibly rare.

 

 

ROyals were 6th in the AL in runs.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2015.shtml

 

Also, sabremetrically, they scored right about what they should have, using just about any formula.

 

Quick and dirty, AB*OBP*SLG gives you 739, and they scored 724 runs, which is only a 2% deviation, and that's one of the more "dirty" formulas out there.

[FVBrewerFan]

Thanks, must have looked at wrong column or something in looking all this stuff up, don't know where I got 3rd in runs!

[rwa12]

That is possible. Personally I think the Royals are just way ahead of the curve in analytics: emphasizing contact hitters, athleticism, defense and relief pitching in ways that were ahead of the times in most sabermetric calculations. They zigged when everyone else was still zagging, and have a World Championship to show for it.

 

I read an interesting article about the Royals, and I think "zigged when everyone else was still zagging" sums it up. They saw that everyone was going for hitters that worked the count. This led to pitchers throwing strikes early, knowing the hitters would take them to run up pitch counts, and would throw their "put away pitches" late. The Royals decided that instead of waiting to try to hit the "put away pitch," they would simply attack the early strikes. They say they want the opposing pitcher to have a low pitch count, because by attacking early they throw the pitchers off their game, and with good base-running (not throwing away runs) and defense (not giving away runs) they can dink-and-dunk their way to victories.

 

They brought in good contact hitters to implement this strategy. The "Moneyball" methodology isn't about using SABR and getting guys with high OBP. It's about analyzing everything and looking for inefficiencies. No one wanted contact hitters with high batting average, but low relative OBP, so these guys were cheap. So was defense and guys with good base-running skills. So were relief pitchers. People who strictly follow "advanced analytics" ridiculed the Royals for the moves they were making, and I'd guess that since the "predictive models" use these analytics, they will always underestimate any team that goes against the grain. People who use "today's methods" to analyze the Royals can't figure out how they win, and that's probably why they win. Now people are trying to copy them, which will bring up the price tag on what they bought cheaply (the former inefficiencies), which will naturally make something else relatively cheap (the next inefficiency).

 

They developed a plan, and found players to fit that plan. I think that's what Stearns is doing in Milwaukee. He's not a lapdog saying "this is what the Astros/Cubs did, so that's what I'm going to imitate." He has an idea of the team he wants on the field in a few years, and he's building that future roster, hopefully finding the aforementioned "next inefficiency." He obviously likes young pitchers who throw strikes and don't walk hitters. He seems to like defensive versatility, but that may just be trying to fit together an MLB roster for 2016. Looking at last year's trades, it appears prospects are losing their luster around the league, bringing their price tag down right when that's exactly what the Brewers need, so hopefully that helps. Digging deeper, guys in the low minors (before they prove themselves enough to hit the "top prospects" lists) are very cheap, so he's loading up on them.

 

Whatever the ultimate plan, I am happy to see that the Brewers are finally looking beyond "this year" into "future years," and I hope that when everything plays out other teams are analyzing the "Brewer model" to try to imitate Stearns.

 

Best post I've read on here in awhile. Develop a strategy and implement.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The Royals are a team with an average-ish offense, an average rotation, and a really really really good bullpen. Pythagorean, they were supposed to win 90 games. Is 90 games their talent level? I'd argue it isn't. I'd say their talent level is probably 85-87 wins.

 

They played over their heads (perhaps a bit, IMO) to get a +90 run differential, and luck (and a great bullpen) plays a role in one run/close games when you're talking about beating the spread in getting those extra wins that run differential didn't account for.

 

Are contact hitters/free swingers the new market inefficiency? We're going to find out. Teams are going to start copying the Royals. Back to back AL champs is hard to ignore.

 

Is that WHY the Royals won 90+ games two years in a row? I don't think it is. You don't look at "contact hitters/free swingers" as a team model...... you look at it as a means to an end because it (at the time) was a market inefficiency and a means to purchase players at less than their market value would otherwise indicate.

 

Their predictive stats told us how many runs they would score, and that's how many runs they did score. Their lower strikeouts and contact rates didn't change that.

 

Is it "possible" that making pitchers alter their approach had something to do with it? Possibly. I'd be interested to see the ROyals PpPA as a team. I still don't think that was a key component of their success. They were middle of the pack in runs scored..... and I think their bullpen was the key. I think the contact hitters thing tends to get overblown because it was something new.

[Thurston Fluff]

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.

 

Health is part of talent level. Deeper teams compensate better for injuries than thin ones. Same goes for trades. While the Royals projections couldn't account for Cueto coming in it took enough organizational talent to acquire him That is part of overall team talent. Luck is certainly part of it but i don't buy into it playing a major factor simply because of the number of games played. Over 162 games things like luck evens out. IT might acount for a few games but that is about all. SO if you want to say a team had 68 win talent instead of 70 game talent I guess that's fine. The unbalanced schedule is fair game. Which is why I was always against it. But if that was a major factor it's hard to see how three teams in the toughest division in baseball had the three best record in the league.

 

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.

 

I just don't buy into luck playing a significant role in how PECOTA missed by 18 games a year after they missed on the same team the previous season. Especially since they had everyone coming back and went to the playoffs the year before. It's even more telling that it is harder to get from average to good than it is to go from really bad to slightly below average. They missed terribly. I'm guessing PECOTA also believed their system was correct and thought it was pure luck that made them miss so badly. Which is why they didn't look to change their computations when they missed so badly. Which of course made them miss again. Got to make you wonder how long it will take them to figure out it's them not the team that got it wrong.

 

No, I'm not really asking that. I said "a" best indicator, which if it is anything, I certainly do not believe it to be wins. Wins are based on an enormous number of variables, so I find it difficult to believe that all of those variables magically congeal into a truth about a team's exact talent level.

With the exception of the unbalanced schedule and luck all those variables are part of the talent level. I believe luck plays a very small role for reasons I stated above. The unbalanced schedule does play a role but again I don't think it's a huge one.

 

Given that baseball has so much data, why would we limit ourselves to one highly variable-driven stat (wins) to try to determine how talented a team is? That's like saying RBIs are the best way to determine if a batter is talented or not.

 

Imagine a GM saying talent isn't all that necessary to winning. There are multiple way to win without having a lot of talent. We can just wait for the schedule to favor us or get lucky. Maybe we'll gather players who do well in wet or cold weather and wait for a year when we have an unusually high number of wet or cold games. Teams gather as much talent as they can for a reason. Talent is the primary dictator of wins. Thus it stands to reason the number of wins is the primary indicator of a team's talent level.

[And That]

Imagine a GM saying talent isn't all that necessary to winning.

Strawman. No one is saying that. But if you actually think that's what everyone else is saying, I guess I don't know where else to go with this. You are more than free to believe what you like.

[jerichoholicninja]

Re The Royals projections being so far off, did these projections also project the Tigers to tank as hard as they actually did or the White Sox to be as bad as they have been? The Tigers were supposed to be the class of the AL Central the last two years and were not and the White Sox were supposed to be at least competitive. Those two teams could have given the Royals another 6-8 wins that they "weren't supposed to have."

[MrTPlush]

Dang I thought we traded Davis to the A's not the Royals.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Dang I thought we traded Davis to the A's not the Royals.

 

 

Right now, every thread is about the Brewers tanking 2016 and trying to lose as many games as possible, projectible talent vs wins, and draft pool money.

[3and2Fastball]

Re The Royals projections being so far off, did these projections also project the Tigers to tank as hard as they actually did or the White Sox to be as bad as they have been? The Tigers were supposed to be the class of the AL Central the last two years and were not and the White Sox were supposed to be at least competitive. Those two teams could have given the Royals another 6-8 wins that they "weren't supposed to have."

 

That is a good point.

 

I think when we talk about Hill + Scooter being an upgrade and losing Lohse being an upgrade (and various other comparison/contrasts with the Brewers of 2015 to try to support how they might be better) needs to be tempered with how much better many NL teams look to be including the Cubs/Diamondbacks/Giants/Mets. While the Brewers might be better (although that certainly isn't a sure thing) their competition in general will be better too. We look like we have a good shot at winning the various series vs the Braves/Phillies/Reds..... and that's about it

[monty57]

The next point mentioned by another poster suggested the Brewer are farther along than Houston or Chicago at the time of the, ahem "rebuild" as I have made a deal not to use that other word.

 

That is false. While the Brewers farm system is more advanced at this stage than either of those two teams, the Brewers are starting with a massive disadvantage to those two teams, especially Chicago, which is not coincidentally the team the Brewers will be competing against assuming the rebuild [wink] works. That is payroll to both add the finishing touches in a JHey, Lester, Zobrist, or retain the stars they selected during the rebuild [wink] process. The Brewers wont be adding the version of Lester of 2018 because by then whoever he is will cost $250M or so. Instead the Brewers will have to develop him, which mean they need more quality picks via the underslot selection then using the pool money to go deeper in the draft.

 

In declaring my premise (that the Brewers are farther ahead at this point than the Cubs or Astros were when they started their rebuild) false, your first sentence acknowledges that what I said was true... "the Brewers system is more advanced at this stage than either of those two teams."

 

The rest of your statement then disproves your earlier statement that the Brewers should follow the Astros / Cubs models because they proved it works. As you stated, the Brewers cannot follow the "Cubs model" because they don't have the financial resources. I would add that the Brewers are not weighted down with long-term, bloated contracts to aging players. The Cubs had to wait until players like Zombrano, Ramirez, and especially Soriano were off the books, so they had to start the first couple of years of their rebuild by stocking the system through the draft. The Brewers are starting their rebuild by trading away valuable veteran trade chips for good prospects throughout the system. And, yes, they will get some good draft picks as well.

 

Therefore, the Brewers have not followed the "Cubs model," and don't need a three year tank job to stock the system. Add in that Melvin seems to have sneakily started a mini-rebuild a couple of years ago by changing draft strategy, trading Gallardo, etc, which, though hampered by Attanasio's insistence on signing old, expensive FAs, still netted us a better-than-expected farm system. Now, with some prospects already at the MLB level (Santana, Jungmann, Davies, Smith, Jeffress, etc), and numerous guys in the upper minors who should help to varying degrees over the next few years, Stearns is able to make some trades (i.e. Lind) for multiple guys in the lower minors rather than adding another "low ceiling" guy in the upper minors. That, not the need for a three-year tank job, is the reason why Stearns is targeting some players in the low minors in trades, and some players in the upper minors in other trades.

 

Either way, they seem to be doing what they need to do to turn this thing around. I do agree that having the first pick is obviously better than having the fifth (or whatever), but I think having someone like Nelson turn into a true ace, or Cecchini turning into an average/above-average 3B would help the team more than the difference between the 1st and 5th pick. At least those things would help the team going forward, unlike the late season surges we had in 2012 and 2013 that did nothing for the future, but still cost us draft position, and worse made people think we were one FA signing away from the playoffs. We have a plan, and I'm rooting for anything (draft picks, prospects advancing, scrap heap guys panning out) that helps the team going forward.

 

Time will tell how long the plan takes, but this to me is a fun stage because we can see the plan unfold. The mid 90's - early 2000's were not fun because we sucked and had no hope that we would get better. I will enjoy this season in the same way I enjoyed the time when Weeks, Fielder, etc were young. Hopefully, Lucroy nets us one more guy to pair with Arcia and Phillips. Three top guys coming in around the same time to add to the young guys on the roster, with more coming through the system should add some wins before too long. As Axl Rose said, all we need is just a little patience.

[Thurston Fluff]

Imagine a GM saying talent isn't all that necessary to winning.

Strawman. No one is saying that. But if you actually think that's what everyone else is saying, I guess I don't know where else to go with this. You are more than free to believe what you like.

 

You just accused me of using a strawman argument by using a strawman argument. I was using a hypothetical scenario to show what you were implying by using that implication within another context. Thus the word imagine. That certainly does not imply I thought someone thinks that way.

I was hoping to show how close the relationship between winning and talent is. None of the other factors comes close to it. Even combined they don't. If talent isn't more important to winning then why would anybody go through a rebuild? Just keep a 500 talent team on the field and wait for the other factors to kick in. Teams are willing to go through painful rebuilds because it has so much more effect on wins than anything else it doesn't pay to sit at .500 and wait for all the other factors to kick in.

To sum up

1-My basic argument is more talent causes more winning. (I doubt anyone disagrees with this.)

2- I also say it is by far the largest cause. So much so that all the other factors combined do not come close to determining how many wins a team will get. (This is where I appear to be at odds with most people here.)

My conclusion based on those two premises is,

3- If the single most important factor to winning is talent then the number of wins best tells you how much talent you had.

 

Now if you disagree with my assertion that talent is not that much more important than luck, a team playing above their collective heads, a perfect storm of events or whatever, fine. If you believe the conclusion based on my premises is wrong please show me why. Just don't try to make it out like I am making strawmen to build my case.

[Ennder]

Every single season a GM says they didn't play up to their talent level. This shouldn't be that difficult of a concept to understand. Some teams have better years than they should, some have worse. Trying to define it simply by wins is just silly.

 

The 2009 Mariners are the perfect example. The team lost 101 games in 2008 and only marginally improved their talent yet won 85 games in 2009. A lot of people were saying they were going to be a playoff team in 2010 yet all of the data about their true talent level said they just played way over their head that year and projected a last place team. After adding more talent the following seasons they won 61, 67, 75 and 71 games the next 4 years. 2009 was just a season that they won way more than the talent the team actually had. If I remember correctly they outpaced their Pythagorean record by a large margin and won way more 1 run games than teams usually do.

 

Wins are not a great projection of talent levels. To start with, 50% of each win is completely out of your teams control. So at best it can be 50% accurate. Then you take into account things like health, run distribution, how variable year to year player stats are etc and you end up with wins just not telling the compelling story that you seem to think they do.

 

If someone could tell with no doubt in my mind that a team had 81 win talent entering a season I'd expect them to win like 71 to 91 games but it would not surprise me in the least if they won over 91 or under 71. If they put 81 win talent on the field over and over it would still average out to 81 eventually but the actual numbers each season would have a very wide distribution.

[Boomer5]

The next point mentioned by another poster suggested the Brewer are farther along than Houston or Chicago at the time of the, ahem "rebuild" as I have made a deal not to use that other word.

 

That is false. While the Brewers farm system is more advanced at this stage than either of those two teams, the Brewers are starting with a massive disadvantage to those two teams, especially Chicago, which is not coincidentally the team the Brewers will be competing against assuming the rebuild [wink] works. That is payroll to both add the finishing touches in a JHey, Lester, Zobrist, or retain the stars they selected during the rebuild [wink] process. The Brewers wont be adding the version of Lester of 2018 because by then whoever he is will cost $250M or so. Instead the Brewers will have to develop him, which mean they need more quality picks via the underslot selection then using the pool money to go deeper in the draft.

 

In declaring my premise (that the Brewers are farther ahead at this point than the Cubs or Astros were when they started their rebuild) false, your first sentence acknowledges that what I said was true... "the Brewers system is more advanced at this stage than either of those two teams."

 

The rest of your statement then disproves your earlier statement that the Brewers should follow the Astros / Cubs models because they proved it works. As you stated, the Brewers cannot follow the "Cubs model" because they don't have the financial resources. I would add that the Brewers are not weighted down with long-term, bloated contracts to aging players. The Cubs had to wait until players like Zombrano, Ramirez, and especially Soriano were off the books, so they had to start the first couple of years of their rebuild by stocking the system through the draft. The Brewers are starting their rebuild by trading away valuable veteran trade chips for good prospects throughout the system. And, yes, they will get some good draft picks as well.

 

Therefore, the Brewers have not followed the "Cubs model," and don't need a three year tank job to stock the system. Add in that Melvin seems to have sneakily started a mini-rebuild a couple of years ago by changing draft strategy, trading Gallardo, etc, which, though hampered by Attanasio's insistence on signing old, expensive FAs, still netted us a better-than-expected farm system. Now, with some prospects already at the MLB level (Santana, Jungmann, Davies, Smith, Jeffress, etc), and numerous guys in the upper minors who should help to varying degrees over the next few years, Stearns is able to make some trades (i.e. Lind) for multiple guys in the lower minors rather than adding another "low ceiling" guy in the upper minors. That, not the need for a three-year tank job, is the reason why Stearns is targeting some players in the low minors in trades, and some players in the upper minors in other trades.

 

Either way, they seem to be doing what they need to do to turn this thing around. I do agree that having the first pick is obviously better than having the fifth (or whatever), but I think having someone like Nelson turn into a true ace, or Cecchini turning into an average/above-average 3B would help the team more than the difference between the 1st and 5th pick. At least those things would help the team going forward, unlike the late season surges we had in 2012 and 2013 that did nothing for the future, but still cost us draft position, and worse made people think we were one FA signing away from the playoffs. We have a plan, and I'm rooting for anything (draft picks, prospects advancing, scrap heap guys panning out) that helps the team going forward.

 

Time will tell how long the plan takes, but this to me is a fun stage because we can see the plan unfold. The mid 90's - early 2000's were not fun because we sucked and had no hope that we would get better. I will enjoy this season in the same way I enjoyed the time when Weeks, Fielder, etc were young. Hopefully, Lucroy nets us one more guy to pair with Arcia and Phillips. Three top guys coming in around the same time to add to the young guys on the roster, with more coming through the system should add some wins before too long. As Axl Rose said, all we need is just a little patience.

 

This is an excellent post.

 

When I look the Brewers ability to get to a Championship, I am not looking at a team like the 78 Brewers where you could add a piece here and there in future years like Fingers and Vuke to get to the next level because you had a relatively stable line up. I would even suggest that we can't realistically be the 08 and 11 Brewers either unless it is ONE and only one player to get us over the hump. The Cubs can write a check. We cant. That's big. The Cubs made the decision to go after hitting only because it was easier to project and develop, and figured some combination of FA (Lackey, Lester) and luck (Arrietta) would get them the pitching they needed. We can only use luck and we know how fickle that can be.

 

Instead, the Brewers will have to balance out a series of 5.5 year service players then rotate them out via trades and what I will assume will be a best in class farm system. That is a challenge few teams deal with, which is the basis for me saying this team is operating as deficit from other rebuilding projects because no matter how good our farm system is now, it doesn't have all the answers that a Lester FA pickup can solve.

 

While we do not agree on the intent of Stearns making the MLB roster so bad in 2016, we do agree it will be bad and Montgomery can work his magic with a full cupboard of high picks and pool money.

[Thurston Fluff]

Every single season a GM says they didn't play up to their talent level. This shouldn't be that difficult of a concept to understand. Some teams have better years than they should, some have worse. Trying to define it simply by wins is just silly.

 

GM's say a lot of things that are not accurate. Being a PR man is part of the job. PR sometimes involves spin. Not ot mention gathering talent is the GM's job so he's got several million good reasons to say the talent level is higher than the production level. To say some teams do better than they should has a built is assumption that the predictive models of what they should do to begin with are by definition accurate. I disagree with that. I believe what actually happens to be more accurate. As the KC example I used earlier shows those predictions are sometimes wrong. You say the predictions are right about the talent level but KC just got lucky? Two years and 324 games in a row? I say the talent assessment model got it wrong and there was far more talent than it said there was. Yet I am silly for using wins while you are not because you used stats that failed to make an accurate prediction? To assume any as of yet incomplete system is by definition right and realty got it wrong is what sounds silly to me.

 

The 2009 Mariners are the perfect example. The team lost 101 games in 2008 and only marginally improved their talent yet won 85 games in 2009. A lot of people were saying they were going to be a playoff team in 2010 yet all of the data about their true talent level said they just played way over their head that year and projected a last place team. After adding more talent the following seasons they won 61, 67, 75 and 71 games the next 4 years. 2009 was just a season that they won way more than the talent the team actually had. If I remember correctly they outpaced their Pythagorean record by a large margin and won way more 1 run games than teams usually do.

 

Fair point. But if 100% accuracy to your barometer every way to assess talent is equally silly to use. I'd also argue the Seattle example is a bit misleading if you look at the whole story. In the off season they hired new general manager, field manager and an entirely new major-league coaching staff not to mention scouting staff changes. When assessing a team's talent support staff has to be part of it. If, for instance, the old regime was terrible at scouting upcoming opponents, didn't use proper defensive alignments, mismanaged players or any number of other factors involving non-players the players true value may have been miscalculated. In essence you are assuming the models had it right and their talent level was not what their record said it was without taking into consideration the support staff might have had something to do with the players assumed talent level.

That said, it was a huge swing and some of that I think had to do with attitude and other non-talent factors. So I guess you are accurate to a point. You just left out some qualifying factors that helps explain why it was such a huge swing. If the 08 team was on the low end of projections and the 09 team the high end it gets us half way there. Adding in excitement for a new regime probably played some role in it. Yet the other aspect that is talent related is the support staff was totally different. Major staff changes, like player changes, effects the team's overall team talent level.

The next part is less clear to me. You said they improved their talent and their record went down. There are two ways of looking at that. They added actual talent and they still got worse or they added what they thought was more talent but it turned out not to be so. Given how poorly Zduriencik was at assembling talent I don't think it's silly to say it could have been a misjudgment of talent.

 

Wins are not a great projection of talent levels. To start with, 50% of each win is completely out of your teams control. So at best it can be 50% accurate. Then you take into account things like health, run distribution, how variable year to year player stats are etc and you end up with wins just not telling the compelling story that you seem to think they do.

 

If talent is only 50% of the reason teams win then any system that predicts wins based on talent would also only be 50% accurate. Do you really believe that? Oh and health is part of team talent. Depth is part of talent. The better depth, thus overall talent, mitigates health issues. Not to mention the ability to prevent health issues, while not nearly 100, is at least partially a matter of the people who acquire, use and condition the players. Cal Eldred was overused by Garner and he got a very predictable injury because if it. That is part of the managers talent level. Or more accurately lack of it. Again if non players are part of team talent, and I think they obliviously are, then their ability has to be rated as well.

 

But honestly I don't know where you get the notion that 50% of the wins is completely out of the team's control. They aren't forced to forfeit half their games. It isn't predetermined a team has to lose that day? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are saying something to the effect the best of teams are bound to lose a certain number of games and the worst teams are bound to win a certain number of games. Something to the effect that every team wins 50 games and every team loses 50 games. If that is what you meant it's a complete misinterpretation on your part. That is not the same as saying the games are out of a team's control. It's simply saying there are enough variables to allow lesser talent to win any given game. Over the course of the year there will be a certain number of games where the best team does not win. That is not the same as half the games are out of a team's control. Furthermore if you played two teams 162 times, the better team would come out of top almost, if not every, time. Obviously if they are almost identical other factors play a larger role thus the need for the ?almost" qualifier. If there is any reasonable difference in talent the best team will always come out on top after 162 games. I'd go even further to say the greater the disparity between the two team's talent level would be closely reflected in the disparity in wins.

 

If someone could tell with no doubt in my mind that a team had 81 win talent entering a season I'd expect them to win like 71 to 91 games but it would not surprise me in the least if they won over 91 or under 71. If they put 81 win talent on the field over and over it would still average out to 81 eventually but the actual numbers each season would have a very wide distribution.

 

I agree we should be talking in ranges rather than exact numbers. I'd put it at about a five game swing either way but I can get on board with a 10 game swing. I do not agree that there is a wide distribution outside of that range in any given year. While there can be outliers I disagree that it is at all common. I'll concede three points though. 1- wins is not 100% accurate. There are, and will continue to be, outliers. 2- There is a range of outcomes so a team's record is not in perfect harmony with talent level. On the flip side I think it's fair to say all other ways of assessing talent are not 100% accurate either. My belief is they are much less so. You, and obviously a lot of other people, say more so. 3- things like attitude, having something to play for, or a team not using it's best players because of a lost season can be a factor. Though I am not sure if talent isn't part of attitude and such. Personality and motivation are kind of murky areas when it comes to skill set IMHO.

[Jenkins5]

http://m.astros.mlb.com/news/article/164812320

 

Well it's official....Khris Davis has the saddest most pathetic noodle arm in baseball.... Dead last (#121) averaging 78 mph on competitive throws (Gomez 2nd best at 98 mph). To say the least, I'm not sad to see that are go in LF. Could score on him all day