J.P. Breen: Brewers are "a team of intrigue and transition"

[Ennder]

It is really hard to lose 100 games. Bad teams sneak up near .500 quite often. I'd easily go for 82 wins. Now set that bar to 95 losses and I probably take the losses side.

[Boomer5]

I will take the 100 losses easily over 82 wins. This team just isn't going to put together win streaks. The rotation, while not bad, it is not very good. Unless guys step forward it won't be doing any favors. I also see the bullpen taking a step backwards too. K-Rod was good...really good. I don't care what you think Smith/Jeffress won't be better than him as a closer. Not only that but that is one less dominant reliever we have for next year. That is going to be a bigger deal than people think. The offense is going to be a work in progress all year and overall most likely worse.

 

Now I don't think this team will lose 100 games...but 82 wins? You are crazy if you bet on that over 100 losses.

 

This is a team that has been horrible for a year and a half and none of the scrap heap brigade is going to change that.

 

Losing KRod, Davis, and Lind for nothing on the major league roster is not going to make the team better.

 

People are entitled to their opinion but there is nothing but a prayer that says this is a 82 win team.

[DuWayne Steurer]

On average, about 1 team per year will lose 100 games. But there isn't a 100 loss team every year. The Brewers would have to have down years from key players, have a fairly bad luck run with injuries, and have really none of the new additions play a key role.

 

They still have some premier offensive players in Braun and Lucroy. Gennett is a top 10 2B if he only plays against RH pitchers ( so 400 - 450 PA's worth). Santana can and should be an 800 OPS RFer. The offense should be right around average. THe pitching is going to be suspect because of the rotation, but the bullpen can be at least average. It would take a lot of things going wrong for this to be a 100 loss team.

 

I'm not saying they won't or can't lose 100, but I don't see that as even a close to likely scenario. I'd say there's less than a 10% chance of that happening.

 

Winning 82 games? I don't know. Hard to put a number on that. Too many lottery tickets out there right now. Villar, Broxton, hoping on a resurgent Hill, etc, etc, etc. If a few of these guys pan out......it's a possibility. If Broxton keeps drawing walks and puts up a .725 or 750 OPS and plays good D.....if SOMEONE can man third base. If Carter can hit .230 and hit 25 - 30 homeruns , it's not out of the realm of possibility, as long as the team maintains relative health. But that's a lot of "if's"

[Thurston Fluff]

People are entitled to their opinion but there is nothing but a prayer that says this is a 82 win team.

 

I don't think many of us think it is. The point is it would take a lot more to go wrong to be a 100 loss team than go right to be an 82 win team.

[Oldcity]

Boomer, just curious. Are you still sticking to your 100 loss prediction?

[1992casey]

People are entitled to their opinion but there is nothing but a prayer that says this is a 82 win team.

 

82 wins and 100 losses are both pretty extreme given this team's apparent talent level. But that's the question that's been posed: which extreme is more likely? If we were simply predicting wins and losses, I think that most of us would go with somewhat less than either of those numbers.

[jerichoholicninja]

The Brewers play what 16 games against Cincinnati? And another 6 or so against the Phillies. They will go at least .500 against those two. That should keep them from getting 100 losses. If anyone's going to lose 100 it's the Reds who have a team consisting of Votto, the ghost of Jay Bruce, and a bunch of nothing.

[DuWayne Steurer]

People are entitled to their opinion but there is nothing but a prayer that says this is a 82 win team.

 

82 wins and 100 losses are both pretty extreme given this team's apparent talent level. But that's the question that's been posed: which extreme is more likely? If we were simply predicting wins and losses, I think that most of us would go with somewhat less than either of those numbers.

 

 

I predict that they will go 72 - 90, which puts them exactly the same distance from 82 wins as it does from 100 losses. :D

[MKE81]

100 loss season is more realistic than 82 wins but neither will happen unless a lot goes very wrong or very right. Broxton/Flores can absolutely match, if not outproduce, Gomez from last year. Santana will be a HUGE improvement over Davis. But these are slightly countered with the loss of Lind (even though run production from Carter will be similar with more HRs), Ramirez, Krod, Parra half the year. Lucroy being dealt will hurt offensively but Maldy is better defensively. Rotation will absolutely be better and this will dictate the number of wins. I think 68-72 wins range and should be more fun to watch than last year for sure. I think this team surprises people in terms of how competitive they will be vs the actual number of wins.

[Boomer5]

Boomer, just curious. Are you still sticking to your 100 loss prediction?

 

Yes, and why wouldn't I? They lost 94 games last year, and actually played worse the 2nd half of 2014. Since July 2015, the major league roster has subtracted, not added talent.

 

That is before the assumed Luc trade.

 

Right now:

 

1.) The Rotation which we all like, doesn't look like its made much of a leap and in the case of Wily and Anderson looks downright horrible. I can easily seeing Anderson or Wily traded if they look solid to good.

2.) KRod was a roller coaster at times but his loss is huge. The notion that any pitcher can replace him is wishful thinking at best. Jeffries has an electric arm but has never even sniffed a closer role and is a wild card. Smith I do think could handle it but I also think he will be traded this year. Even if either is up to the task, the domino effect will be at play for the 7th and 8th inning roles. I also doubt the Brewers want to put him in the closer role and have to pay closer money to him next year. Bullpens go up and down year to year so I guess anything can happen but thinking losing KRod is a plus to the bullpen is homerism at its finest.

3.) The infield is worse with Hill and Carter than Lind and ARam. I still like Villars but he hasnt looked like a major leaguer so far, let alone an upgrade over a very low bar in Segura. i know its spring, but Segura and Sardinas look like Honus Wagner right now.

4.) The outfield of Davis-Santana-Braun to Braun-Broxton- Santana is the same if you assume Broxton can be a full time CF. I do like Santana a lot. Broxton is intriguing. Braun is certainly on the block and could be traded if the right deal comes along. I will never get the Flores love and his zenith is a left handed Kevin Mensch without the power.

5.) Assuming Luc is traded, his loss to the major league roster is self explanatory.

 

This is going to be a very bad baseball team this year.

 

Some here take things SO literally so if the team "only" loses 98 games Im sure I will get some flack but 82 wins? Come on now, thats not in the cards.

[superfly]

My money is around the 75-87 mark.

[Outlander]

While I don't necessarily agree with everything above at the very least there are scenarios where the Brewers could get to 100 loses, I don't see any scenario where they get to 82 wins.

[Boomer5]

While I don't necessarily agree with everything above at the very least there are scenarios where the Brewers could get to 100 loses, I don't see any scenario where they get to 82 wins.

 

I agree. I am not sure how 82 wins can even be a discussion point.

 

68-94 and losing Lind, KRod, Davis with Luc on the way and adding waiver wire guys, most of which so far look like guys even we should cut, will get us to 82 wins?

 

Wow

 

For what its worth, Fangraphs has the roster as the 3rd worst in the game, with Philly knocking it out of the park and Atlanta and Milwaukee a distant 2nd and 3rd worst.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=ALL&teamid=23

 

As for the 2015 team I need to pull up this nugget written in early Feb 2016 and that was WITH Lind and Davis who have been essentially replaced with Broxton and Carter.

 

Batters

It represents an instance of damning with faint praise to observe that, in 2015, Milwaukee batters outproduced Bryce Harper by roughly a win. On the one hand, that’s better than not outproducing Bryce Harper. On the other, the phrase “Milwaukee batters” denotes a group of professional ballplayers, while “Bryce Harper” is just one person by himself. In light of how baseball works, a group of players should basically always outperform a single guy.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-milwaukee-brewers/

[monty57]

68-94 and losing Lind, KRod, Davis with Luc on the way and adding waiver wire guys, most of which so far look like guys even we should cut, will get us to 82 wins?

 

No one is arguing they are expecting 82, but last year's Brewers were like a race horse that tripped out of the gate. The horse may not have been the favorite to win the race, but future expectations should not be predicated upon the horse tripping in the race. You can continue to say the baseline is 68 wins, and any additions or subtractions are based off of that point, but I think that is the incorrect way to look at things.

 

Not that it makes too much difference, but I'd guess the baseline for the 2016 Brewers to be around 72-90. Being better than that is a good thing as it means some players are doing well and can help us going forward. I would love to see some young guys step up and push us to an upper-70's win total, because when we replace Villar with Arcia and Broxton with Phillips in 2017, along with having money to spend on other holes, we could then realistically look at a winning team as soon 2017.

[reillymcshane]

How could we win 82 games next year? Here you go:

 

C - Lucroy - .290 BA, 15 HR, .800 OPS (ML catchers had an OPS of .681 last year)

1B - Carter - 30+ HR, .230 BA, .800 OPS (ML average 1B had a .790 OPS in 2015)

2B - Scooter - 10 HR, .300 BA vs righties (2B last year had a .709 OPS)

SS - Villar - .270 BA, .720 OPS (ML SS had a .688 OPS in 2015)

3B - Hill - .700 OPS (ML average is .754)

LF - Braun - .290, 25 HR, .850 OPS (average ML LF had a .735 OPS)

CF - Broxton - .240 BA, 10 HR, .700 OPS (average CF had a .738 OPS)

RF - Santana - .240 BA, 30 HR, .800 OPS (aver RF had a .767 OPS last year)

 

This makes us above average in two spots (C and LF), below average in two spots (3B and CF), and about average in four spots (RF, 1B, SS, 2B). I realize that starters generally need to be better than average because the reserves will drag down the positions overall numbers. But this is just a concept of how we could have an 'average' hitting club.

 

Pitchers:

 

Anderson, Peralta, Davies, Nelson, Garza, Jungmann collectively produce a 4.00 ERA. The NL average last year was 4.07 for starters.

 

Jeffress, Blazek, Smith, Knebel and others collectively produce a 3.65 ERA this year. Last year NL relievers had a 3.66 ERA.

 

Again, pitching numbers are collective, so Garza could end up with a 4.50 ERA while Nelson would have a 3.50 ERA, balancing them out.

 

This makes our staff right about league average.

 

I'm not saying any of this will happen. I'm just saying the numbers are feasible (but not likely, in my book). You produce league average numbers, and you are probably going to win around 80 or so games.

 

Again, I stress I don't think this will happen. Injuries, guys struggling, etc., are going to happen. Especially with all these younger guys. But if we are lucky, things could gel. Garza and Peralta could make good comebacks, we stay free of major injuries, the bench produces well - you never know. A lot can go right, and we could reach 82 wins.

[gregmag]

People are entitled to their opinion but there is nothing but a prayer that says this is a 82 win team.

 

82 wins and 100 losses are both pretty extreme given this team's apparent talent level. But that's the question that's been posed: which extreme is more likely? If we were simply predicting wins and losses, I think that most of us would go with somewhat less than either of those numbers.

 

 

I predict that they will go 72 - 90, which puts them exactly the same distance from 82 wins as it does from 100 losses. :D

This is funny because it's true, or at least plausible. People keep making these bold statements like "obviously this team can't win 82 games" or "obviously it can't lose 100," and those "obvious" arguments all stand on various subjective assessments of the team's talent level.

 

I don't think projection systems are perfect, but they're a better starting point for discussion than any back-of-the-napkin rundown that I or anyone else here can do. Fangraphs projects the 2016 Brewers at 71 wins. Baseball Prospectus says 78. If Fangraphs is right, then obviously we're right between 62 and 82 wins, a hair closer to 62. If BP is right, then all we need is a modest dollop of luck to win 82.

 

Based on how projection systems work, is there any reason to think they'd be highly underrating or overrating the Brewers? What might they likely miss? Mostly I'm not smart enough to answer that question with any confidence, but I can see two possible sources of variation. One, which some people have mentioned, is more trades. If we swap Luc and/or Smith for prospects, the projections need to be adjusted down. That could, if the Fangraphs projection is sound, put us in stumbling distance of 100 losses. The other source of variation, which cuts the other way, is that our AAA team will be loaded. If guys perform well there, we'll have an unusually strong ability to "sub out" poor MLB performers for AAA guys who develop ahead of schedule. If the BP projection is sound, that ability to optimize our innings and plate appearances could get us to 82 wins.

 

IMHO calling either 82 wins or 100 losses "crazy," or "obviously" likely or unlikely, is a very hard claim to support with any credibility. The major characteristic of the 2016 Brewers is volatility. I'd bet on 82 wins over 62 right now, just based on the average of the two projections because I don't think I have better information than that. But I'd rather not make the bet at all.

[FVBrewerFan]

Right, plus we're getting a bit carried away. I think only one person thinks there's a strong chance they lose 100 games, nobody thinks there's a strong chance to win 82 games.

 

OBVIOUSLY, neither are likely. The question was which one is MORE likely, which I thought was a pretty interesting question.

[MKE81]

I laugh every time I see someone include Khris Davis with Lind/Krod. Santana is a HUGE upgrade over Davis as an overall player - he's an upgrade on both sides of the ball and a better base runner. When will people stop believing that losing Davis will hurt this team. Now that we've cleared that up lets move on to Lind and Krod. Lind is being replaced by a guy that will hit 13-17HR more and have similar run production. He's a downgrade in getting on base and defensively but lets not pretend Lind was good in the field either. Krod will be replaced by Smith most likely and he'll be a great closer. Obviously Smith stepping into that role means his previous role needs to be filled. Enter Morales. He's been very solid away from Coors and takes that spot. Another new face will be added as well. The pen will be good. According to Fangraphs they were 10th best in MLB last year (9th best ERA) and KRod only pitched 10.7% of those innings. The bullpen doesn't die because he's gone.

 

The rotation will absolutely be an upgrade from last year. It should be a significant upgrade as well. Garza/Lohse were 2 of the worst starters in all of baseball and Peralta wasn't even close to performing to his 2014 year or his potential. Garza/Peralta will be much better than last year and Chase is a huge upgrade over Lohse from last year. That's 60% of the rotation. If someone is traded you have Davies waiting in the wings, who will be solid. And I could care less about Peralta's spring numbers. April 4 and beyond is all that matters for people like him. Fangraphs had the rotation 24th best in MLB last year and 28th in ERA. There's no way the rotation finishes with a 4.79 ERA again. Almost 80% of innings thrown last year were by this year's rotation (including Lohse, not Chase). Add Fiers and those 6 starters accounted for 91% of those innings. The rotation accounts for almost 2/3 of a team's innings pitched - this is why this year's team will be better than last year's.

 

Aramis, Segura were terrible last year. Hill will replicate Aramis minus the HR total. Rivera/Villar will outproduce Segura (especially if Rivera makes team and gets plenty of PT). Scooter, from start to finish, will be better than last year. Broxton/Flores combined will outproduce what Gomez did last year. Braun is Braun. With Rivera, a bench consisting of Flores, Walsh, Rivera, Presley (?) collectively are upgrades over Rogers, Herrera, Peterson, Gomez, Sardinas - and rather large upgrades given they will get on base at a much higher rate. Perez is a better player than he was last year if he happens to make the team. Lucroy is the wild card as he'll be a massive blow if gone by opening day. He was very average overall last year and that's what we're comparing. Maldy is a defensive upgrade but obviously nowhere near as good offensively.

 

That said, this team isn't winning 82 games, especially not in this division. It's not losing 100 either. But it's more likely they lose 100 than win 82 because Lucroy will be traded and there's potential for others like Smith, Jeffress, Garza, Peralta, Chase, Scooter to be traded. That alone can significantly alter a lot depending on who and how many players are traded. And projections are worthless. No idea why people pay attention to them and factor them into their line of thinking.

[FVBrewerFan]

And projections are worthless. No idea why people pay attention to them and factor them into their line of thinking.

 

Wasn't your entire post projections? Difference is, yours is subjective opinion. Analytical projections are far from perfect, but at least there's an attempt to use objective data.

 

For example, you say Santana is a HUGE upgrade over Davis- a guy who had an OPS of .828 last year. Let's see how Santana does over the course of an entire MLB season before we say that. What would he need to do to be huge upgrade? OPS over .900? I hope you're right though!

 

You also say Garza/Peralta will be much better than last year. We don't know that either. Not do we know if Anderson will be way better than Lohse. Krod had 2 blown saves all year. To say Smith can do that, and Morales can take his role, bingo it basically evens out... that's another stretch.

 

Most of what you said is putting the best spin on things, which is fine, but there's also a chance none of those things will be true.

[igor67]

I feel like the biggest limitation at this time to having a winning record is not getting the luck needed for that to happen, it's that if we get that close its because Braun and Lucroy are having excellent seasons in which case they seem like likely trade fodder and their production would be difficult to replace in the short term.

[Ennder]

While I don't necessarily agree with everything above at the very least there are scenarios where the Brewers could get to 100 loses, I don't see any scenario where they get to 82 wins.

 

 

The rotation pitches to its better stats over the last 2 seasons. Some of the gamble hitters like a Middlebrooks break out and suddenly reach their potential. There are a lot of bad teams that win in the 75-82 win range.

 

Nelson pitches to a 3.78 ERA like in 2014, not unlikely.

Garza to his career 3.99 ERA, again not all that unlikely as one of his best years was in 2014.

Jungmann does his 3.72 ERA from last year over a full season.

Peralta rebounds to his 2014 ERA of 3.53.

Anderson repeats his 4.01 ERA from 2014.

 

So just 1 year ago this same rotation pitched to a 3.75 ERA or so. Bullpens can easily have big years so that isn't out of the picture. Thus you only need to find a way to get a league average offense to find a path to 82. Not insanely likely given what we put out there but not completely out of the question. This team can certainly win 82 games if everything goes right at the same time. It is harder to find a path to 100 losses, it usually takes an awful offense and an awful rotation to reach it and we just don't have an awful rotation. I don't see us trading enough pitching to work into it. It is going to require an injury stack at SP to reach 100 losses imo.

 

The Brewers only have a single 100 loss season in team history and plenty of their teams were worse than this one is.

[Baldkin]

The biggest obstacle to losing 100 games is the fact that the 6 worst teams in baseball might be in the National League -- Padres, Rockies, Brewers, Reds, Braves, Phillies.

 

That means, 19 games against the Reds, 7 against SD, Philadephia and Atlanta, as well as 6 against the Rockies.

That's 46 games where it would be very tough for them to be more than a few games under .500.

[danzig6767]

I laugh every time I see someone include Khris Davis with Lind/Krod. Santana is a HUGE upgrade over Davis as an overall player - he's an upgrade on both sides of the ball and a better base runner. When will people stop believing that losing Davis will hurt this team.

And i yawn at your laughing. A large amount of pure assumption.

 

I like Santana a lot and was thrilled Davis was traded to open a spot for Davis to play everyday, but baseball history is littered with prospects who would hit really well in the minors, but never were able to consistently put it together at the plate in the majors. This includes prospects who were much higher rated than Santana ever was.

 

Hell, Stearms picked up a couple of guys for pretty much nothing who once were highly thought of, until they no longer were. There are other prospects who struggle in the majors for awhile, but then later put it together. Look in our division for example. The Pirates Gregory Polanco was a top 20 prospect before getting his shot in the big leagues. In his first two years, he's posted a .650 and .701 OPS. Will he ever live up to his prospect projections? Maybe, maybe not. That's why he was prospect and nothing more though.

 

Like i said, i am a big fan of Santana and have high hopes for him. I've also watched baseball long enough to have seen tons of well thought of prospects get their chance in the majors. Some do well quickly when given an everyday shot, some struggle for a year or two before things finally click, some who only became a mediocre player, and some who never put it together at all. Hopefully Santana lands in the first group, but it's by no means a lock.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The Phillies last year were atrociously bad. Next to last in the NL in ERA, and 3rd to last in runs scored, and they still couldn't manage to lose 100 games (63 - 99). As others have said, losing 100 games is just hard to do.

[And That]

The biggest obstacle to losing 100 games is the fact that the 6 worst teams in baseball might be in the National League -- Padres, Rockies, Brewers, Reds, Braves, Phillies.

 

That means, 19 games against the Reds, 7 against SD, Philadephia and Atlanta, as well as 6 against the Rockies.

That's 46 games where it would be very tough for them to be more than a few games under .500.

This is a great point. There are a number of bad teams in the NL, so in order to lose 100 games, a team would have to be REALLY bad, as in bad talent compounded with worse luck. I doubt the Brewers will fit that description. Possible, but I think unlikely.