I loved the 2016 Brewers season

[Thurston Fluff]

Because it doesn't really work that way. In reality to lose you must be worse not "lucky". 5 games is a pretty notable difference in the grand scheme of things. To lose you must sacrifice something. And cherry picking one run wins doesn't exactly work in reality because you win some of those and lose some.

 

I agree your record is dictated by your talent level. If we had a worse record then we'd have seen less talent on the field. On the flip side players like Villar, Broxton and Guerra could have done as well but the rest of the team suck worse and lost five more games. I think that did not happen because we had enough talent in the system that our worst players were good enough to help win as many games as we did. I am totally on board with the idea that luck does not play as large a part in the record as many, perhaps most, people think. If your team is one run better than the other team you should expect to win by one run. That isn't luck that is just being slightly better that day.

[sveumrules]

The Texas Rangers scored 8 more runs than their opponents this season & won 95 games. The LA Angels scored 10 runs less than their opponents and won 74 games. The "true talent" level of a team undoubtedly has the largest influence on a team's record, but other factors still play a significant role, namely sequencing which some refer to as luck as it has consistently demonstrated very little correlation over multiple seasons.

 

In regards to the Brewers 2016 I think everything went just about as best it could. Lucroy was healthy, performed & was traded for a haul. Braun was healthy & productive. Guys like Villar, Broxton, Perez, Davies, Guerra & Thorny all showed they are legit players. The only area that underwhelmed was starting pitching, but if Nelson & Peralta pitched to expectations all year we probably aren't picking top ten anymore so its not the worst of possible outcomes.

[BallFour]

I had us pegged at 74 wins preseason...I thought the pitching would be right where it was (average). But we did not get there on how I thought we would. I thought Nelson would take a step forward and instead we had Guerra coming out of absolutely nowhere. We all know bullpens can be fluky year to year so I wonder if there will be any regression next year.

[monty57]

In regards to the Brewers 2016 I think everything went just about as best it could. Lucroy was healthy, performed & was traded for a haul. Braun was healthy & productive. Guys like Villar, Broxton, Perez, Davies, Guerra & Thorny all showed they are legit players. The only area that underwhelmed was starting pitching, but if Nelson & Peralta pitched to expectations all year we probably aren't picking top ten anymore so its not the worst of possible outcomes.

 

I agree. While we all knew that we weren't a playoff team this year, I think most of us hoped we would see some young guys step forward that could help us in the future, and that we would see some guys who won't be part of the future stay healthy and play well enough to net us something in trade. That happened, we are a much more talented franchise from top to bottom, and that will eventually lead to good baseball at the MLB level.

 

Meanwhile, we do get to see exciting baseball while we wait for the next playoff team. I know it shouldn't matter, but I'd rather see a young, inexpensive, athletic team go 73-89 than an old, slow, expensive team go 73-89. Throw in a "top 2" farm system instead of a "bottom 2" farm system, and I'm optimistic about the future.

[MKE81]

I very much enjoyed watching this season. Villar was great. Carter HR champ. Braun putting up his career norms. Lucroy was his usual self and we got some great talent for him. Thornburg improved greatly and now takes over the closer role. Broxton flashing and Santana coming back, finally, showing what he's capable of and Arcia up for a couple months - all of them for a full season will be a lot of fun to watch. Young pen arms like Barnes performing well. Guerra a huge surprise and Davies performing how you'd expect. Adding Susac as catcher (hoping he starts next year) and Pina. I'm actually more excited to watch these guys next year, especially when adding Hader and Brinson to the mix.

[MKE81]

I loved the season because it felt as though we overachieved when looking back upon the pitching that we had.

 

Yes, Guerra and Davies stepped up. But it was another season of Garza injuries, Peralta and Nelson had long and horrible stints in our rotation and we traded away our second best player on the roster along with a closer that got the job done. No matter what type of rebuild happens, if they cannot find starting pitching, it will not matter. I'm not talking about a team full of aces but a rotation of 2-3 that give you a significant chance of winning and 2 others that keep you in games. If we can't find that, none of this will matter.

Agree regarding starting pitching. Guerra will be traded eventually but for the future we know Davies can be a very effective 3-5 (if you want to put numbers on him). Adding Hader, Woodruff, Ortiz, Bickford over the next 1-3yrs is just a start. Stearns will continue to add quality pitching similar to these guys.

[BuckyBrewer61]

I enjoyed watching some of the guys develop like Broxton, Arcia, Perez and Villar, am glad Braun and Carter had relatively good years, liked seeing Guerra and Davies pitch well, and am hopeful for the future.

 

But man, I'm tired of looking for moral victories and hope for the future. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that we are rebuilding and with the progress thus far and don't expect or want them to stray from the plan. But I really miss meaningful baseball, miss feeling like a tight game matters more than just "well that was a nice game" or being pleased with a good month from this group or decent half a year from that guy. I went to around 15 games this year and they were nice, but I for one miss the excitement of a game that matters. Hopefully we get back to competing soon, those years have been sadly few and far between.

[MrTPlush]

This, in my opinion, is why we were a somewhat competent team and not losing well over 90. If you look at where we ranked vs. teams picking in front of us in the 2017 draft it pretty much tells the story. With Thornburg and Smith/Jeffress the majority of the year this team just wasn't going to be that bad.

 

https://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/128

[Boomer5]

I don't know. I had a lot of angst about how much we won. About 5 fewer wins would have been great.

 

It was a classic Herb Kohl season.

[Thurston Fluff]

Because it doesn't really work that way.

That's exactly the way it works. There is a lot of luck that goes into determining a team's final record.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

 

I was pretty alone last spring when I said your record is what should ultimately determine how much talent you had. I don't think i ever explained why I think we should look at records to determine talent levels very well. I think part of my problem with just writing it off as luck is the danger of assuming the metrics we used to determine talent level is right even when the record says it isn't. People have an idea that certain metrics determine player value and the culmination of all those metrics determine the relative talent level of the team. When the team's actual performance level doesn't match the predetermined talent level it is just written off as luck. Maybe it is but isn't predetermining talent levels and ignoring what actually happens in the only stat that matters a dangerous precedent to set? Especially when we are talking about a game that evolves over time. By the time we get enough stats to know something the dynamics of why it was so important to begin with may very well have changed. Shouldn't we start by assuming how many wins a team has is it's actual talent level and then go about determining why our metrics didn't predict the end result? Shouldn't the metrics we use be the first thing we question instead of just writing it off as luck? it just seems backwards to me to say we know what makes a good team and the fact that it didn't turn out that way was just random luck. Isn't that essentially saying our numbers were right and reality got it wrong?

[Thurston Fluff]

The Texas Rangers scored 8 more runs than their opponents this season & won 95 games. The LA Angels scored 10 runs less than their opponents and won 74 games. The "true talent" level of a team undoubtedly has the largest influence on a team's record, but other factors still play a significant role, namely sequencing which some refer to as luck as it has consistently demonstrated very little correlation over multiple seasons.

 

I think that says more about the relationship of run differential and winning than it does talent level. A few years back the Diamondbacks had a very good record and a negative run differential. It was also a year where the team had a couple real good relievers and the rest pretty much sucked. So the manager would use the bad ones in games that were essentially our of reach, let them get hammered and saved the good ones for the close games. The end result was the team scored fewer runs than they allowed. The same dynamic can be applied to how many runs scored compared to other teams. Simply put runs scored isn't as close to a one to one relationship to wins as you seem to be suggesting.

[Baldkin]

Because it doesn't really work that way.

That's exactly the way it works. There is a lot of luck that goes into determining a team's final record.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

 

I was pretty alone last spring when I said your record is what should ultimately determine how much talent you had. I don't think i ever explained why I think we should look at records to determine talent levels very well. I think part of my problem with just writing it off as luck is the danger of assuming the metrics we used to determine talent level is right even when the record says it isn't. People have an idea that certain metrics determine player value and the culmination of all those metrics determine the relative talent level of the team. When the team's actual performance level doesn't match the predetermined talent level it is just written off as luck. Maybe it is but isn't predetermining talent levels and ignoring what actually happens in the only stat that matters a dangerous precedent to set? Especially when we are talking about a game that evolves over time. By the time we get enough stats to know something the dynamics of why it was so important to begin with may very well have changed. Shouldn't we start by assuming how many wins a team has is it's actual talent level and then go about determining why our metrics didn't predict the end result? Shouldn't the metrics we use be the first thing we question instead of just writing it off as luck? it just seems backwards to me to say we know what makes a good team and the fact that it didn't turn out that way was just random luck. Isn't that essentially saying our numbers were right and reality got it wrong?

 

 

A team that scores the same number as it gives up is much more likely to be a .500 team than a 96 win team. Going forward, the Rangers should probably realize that they got lucky this year in having the best record in the AL. That they probably should've been fighting for the division with the Mariners.

 

It's no different than the Brewers, after being outscored on the season in 2014, bringing back the same team and saying, "We were in first place for 150 days." It's delusional thinking.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I guess the question is how much more value is there on a few draft spots vs the acquisition and development of mlb talent? This was never a "tank" year. The goal wasn't to lose games. It was to recognize and acquire high risk, high upside talent, and let them play games. Losing is a byproduct of that, not the actual desired result.

 

You can let guys like Rivera and Walsh and Flores and so on get 600 at bats, but then you don't get performances from Broxton or villar or Perez that let you see if you have some kind of future commodity, either as a player or a trade piece.

[logan82]

I guess the question is how much more value is there on a few draft spots vs the acquisition and development of mlb talent?

Less on the better spot in the draft. I am glad we developed talent but wish we could have had a few more runs land in a few different games. Our run distribution was a little lucky.

[MrTPlush]

Yes we were lucky this year. We actually should have won one more game according to the Pathagorean W-L on Baseball Reference. A team like the Rangers were lucky this year...not the Brewers who won as many games as they were suppose to.

[monty57]

I guess the question is how much more value is there on a few draft spots vs the acquisition and development of mlb talent? This was never a "tank" year. The goal wasn't to lose games. It was to recognize and acquire high risk, high upside talent, and let them play games. Losing is a byproduct of that, not the actual desired result.

 

You can let guys like Rivera and Walsh and Flores and so on get 600 at bats, but then you don't get performances from Broxton or villar or Perez that let you see if you have some kind of future commodity, either as a player or a trade piece.

 

Agree.

 

Some of our extra wins came because we were playing talented guys who may not have gotten a shot in a "go for it" year. After poor starts, Broxton and Peralta could easily have been thrown out to pasture, but they were given another shot and made the most of it. If they figured things out and can play at a high level in future years, they are worth far more than a few draft spots.

 

Villar and Carter likely weren't getting a shot on a winning team's opening day roster, but given everyday playing time they have increased their value. Whether they help the future Brewers on the playing field or in trade is yet to be seen, but their getting playing time in 2016 will help future Brewer teams more than moving up a couple of draft spots.

 

Guerra would never have broken the starting rotation in a "go for it" year. Davies may have been relegated to the bullpen like Thornburg was when he came up. Letting these guys pitch in the starting rotation in 2016 helps the Brewers' future far more than moving up a few draft places.

 

There are others, like Gennett being allowed to face LHP, Perez getting a large number of PAs at multiple positions, letting Jeffress close instead of signing a "proven" guy, and then trading him and Smith and letting Thornburg close.

 

None of these moves were done in order to "win now," but all of them helped us win more games this year than we were expected to win, and should make us better in the future. I don't see how people could think this is bad in any way.

 

I'm sure we lost some extra games because we were trying to see if someone like Flores could put it together, and those moves didn't pan out. That's what this year was about... seeing which guys would be part of the future and which wouldn't. It was never about "tanking" and getting the top draft spot. It's far more meaningful to find a Broxton or Davies who can break out on the MLB stage than to get the #3 spot instead of the #5 spot.

 

In past seasons, when we had a horrible farm and a bleak future, I hated seeing the late-season surge that cost us draft positions and gave management hope that all it would take was another over the hill FA SP and we'd be a playoff team. Things are different now, and I think this season played out as well as could be expected.

[gregmag]

Because it doesn't really work that way.

That's exactly the way it works. There is a lot of luck that goes into determining a team's final record.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

 

I was pretty alone last spring when I said your record is what should ultimately determine how much talent you had. I don't think i ever explained why I think we should look at records to determine talent levels very well. I think part of my problem with just writing it off as luck is the danger of assuming the metrics we used to determine talent level is right even when the record says it isn't. People have an idea that certain metrics determine player value and the culmination of all those metrics determine the relative talent level of the team. When the team's actual performance level doesn't match the predetermined talent level it is just written off as luck. Maybe it is but isn't predetermining talent levels and ignoring what actually happens in the only stat that matters a dangerous precedent to set? Especially when we are talking about a game that evolves over time. By the time we get enough stats to know something the dynamics of why it was so important to begin with may very well have changed. Shouldn't we start by assuming how many wins a team has is it's actual talent level and then go about determining why our metrics didn't predict the end result? Shouldn't the metrics we use be the first thing we question instead of just writing it off as luck? it just seems backwards to me to say we know what makes a good team and the fact that it didn't turn out that way was just random luck. Isn't that essentially saying our numbers were right and reality got it wrong?

People have actually thought and written a whole lot about this over the years. The best summary I can offer, filtered obviously through my own viewpoint, goes like this. We've developed statistical tools and metrics that we have very good reasons to believe explain a lot of what happens in baseball. When those metrics fail to explain something, we either reexamine the metrics or we acknowledge that, though the metrics do useful work, their explanatory power has limits. Then we look at those limits, the stuff our existing metrics can't explain, and try to figure out a different way to explain that stuff.

 

Variation happens in nature and in baseball. A guy who hits .300 over the course of the year hits .260; a team that outscores the opposition by 35 runs finishes at .500. When something like that happens, baseball statheads generally haven't just thrown up their arms and chalked it up to random variation. They've pushed for more knowledge. Bullpens can explain some variation in how well a team does in close games. BABIP can explain some fluctuations in batting average, and batted ball data can explain some fluctuations in BABIP. People have spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure this stuff out.

 

But yeah, random variation -- "luck" -- exists. IMHO to deny that random variation affects outcomes in baseball is both highly implausible -- why should baseball differ from the rest of reality? -- and corrosive of good analysis, because you have to start making questionable assertions that are usually hard to support (like "clutch hitting is a skill" or "teams win or lose one-run games because of grit or character"). You're certainly right that reflexively chalking up all unexplained variation to luck is also corrosive of good analysis. But IMHO you're overstating the extent to which smart people do that.

[monty57]

My simple brain would just say that you can flip a coin 100 times and end up with all kinds of different outcomes, even though at the outset odds say that you should end up with 50 heads and 50 tails. The end result doesn't change anything, and the next time you flip the same coin 100 times, you will likely get a different result. And that's with a coin, which only has two possible outcomes, where baseball has hundreds of pitches thrown every game, each with many possible outcomes.

 

In baseball, if you could possibly play the same season over 100 times, you would end up with different results every time, even though the opening day lineups remained constant. The most talented teams would end up on top most of the time, but there would be outliers where the best teams don't make the playoffs while less talented teams do. The weird thing would be if any two seasons ended up exactly the same. The odds of that happening would have to be crazy.

 

But that's good, because if they ever come up with a formula that could correctly pick who would win and lose every game no one would care to watch.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think if you flip a coin 100 times, you're going to end up with 50 heads/50 tails on the dot, relatively few times. But I bet you end up with between 45 and 55 heads, about 90% of the time (or even more), and I think that's all the stats/science is trying to do, is give you some predictability within a reasonable variance.

 

 

I think that (in general) the stats do a relatively good job of giving us predictive information, and they also do a good job of telling us "this is what happened". The problem is when people say "hey, this team 8 years ago scored less runs than they allowed, and they finished X games over .500". Obviously outliers occur. It doesn't mean that the predictiveness of the math is wrong, it just means that's one of the outliers. It doesn't hurt to look at the outliers and look at the information we have and see if there's some causation for why the statistical information doesn't add up to the W's and L's for that particular season. Is it just luck? Is it a combination of good bullpen use and luck (good record in 1 run games?) 162 games, by some measures, is still a small sample size.

 

The Brewers this year have league average OPS and league average team ERA. yet they're 8 games below 81 wins. Why is that? Bad bullpen management? Bad luck? Did they create too many outs on the bases, depriving themselves of runscoring opportunities? It's worth looking at, not to say, "the statistical information is wrong", but to see what caused a minor outlier in the data.

[FVBrewerFan]

The Brewers this year have league average OPS and league average team ERA. yet they're 8 games below 81 wins. Why is that? Bad bullpen management? Bad luck? Did they create too many outs on the bases, depriving themselves of runscoring opportunities? It's worth looking at, not to say, "the statistical information is wrong", but to see what caused a minor outlier in the data.

 

It's because 162 games isn't a large enough sample to "even out" these numbers. If the season was 10,000 games the Brewers would have been 5,000-5,000. Probably a tad below that due to below avg defense.

 

But since the season consists of only 162 unique "events" the W/L record can be skewed quite a bit.

[Thurston Fluff]

People have actually thought and written a whole lot about this over the years. The best summary I can offer, filtered obviously through my own viewpoint, goes like this. We've developed statistical tools and metrics that we have very good reasons to believe explain a lot of what happens in baseball. When those metrics fail to explain something, we either reexamine the metrics or we acknowledge that, though the metrics do useful work, their explanatory power has limits. Then we look at those limits, the stuff our existing metrics can't explain, and try to figure out a different way to explain that stuff.

 

Variation happens in nature and in baseball. A guy who hits .300 over the course of the year hits .260; a team that outscores the opposition by 35 runs finishes at .500. When something like that happens, baseball statheads generally haven't just thrown up their arms and chalked it up to random variation. They've pushed for more knowledge. Bullpens can explain some variation in how well a team does in close games. BABIP can explain some fluctuations in batting average, and batted ball data can explain some fluctuations in BABIP. People have spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure this stuff out.

 

But yeah, random variation -- "luck" -- exists. IMHO to deny that random variation affects outcomes in baseball is both highly implausible -- why should baseball differ from the rest of reality? -- and corrosive of good analysis, because you have to start making questionable assertions that are usually hard to support (like "clutch hitting is a skill" or "teams win or lose one-run games because of grit or character"). You're certainly right that reflexively chalking up all unexplained variation to luck is also corrosive of good analysis. But IMHO you're overstating the extent to which smart people do that.

 

I agree for the most part. My only objection is we should never assume it is just luck. I understand random variance but I don't believe it is that huge. Lets take the coin flip for example if I flipped the coin 100 times I'd expect it to land on heads about 50% of the time. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be exactly 50% but the further away from 50% I get the more I would question why. Random variance means it could in theory turn up heads 100% of the time but if it did I would be very skeptical it was just random variance.

Which leads me back to the idea that we should view what the record is as a very good indicator of the talent level of the team even if the projections don't agree. I don't expect a 72 win team to win exactly 72 games but I sure as hell wouldn't expect them to win 50 or 90 either. When it starts to get in to double digits off of projections I would start to wonder if maybe something was missing in the projections. Basically I think the record should be used as the baseline of the talent level. If the projection doesn't come close question the projections instead of chalking it up to random variance.

I also get that teams spend a lot of time filtering the numbers to find solid relationships between stats and wins. I also know that they continue to do so which tells me it has yet to be perfected. This is just my guess but I think teams looking to perfect their projections start by using wins and losses as the baseline for assessing how much talent any given team has. Then look at numbers that show why the record was what it was. I highly doubt they just assume their numbers are right and it was all just luck. I also doubt they just chalk up large discrepancies to random variance. If they do I sure do not want them running my team.

[clancyphile]

Yes, but losing is a disease.

 

I'm sure the Cubs would disagree with you on this one.

 

Yeah, they call it tradition.

[homer]

People have actually thought and written a whole lot about this over the years. The best summary I can offer, filtered obviously through my own viewpoint, goes like this. We've developed statistical tools and metrics that we have very good reasons to believe explain a lot of what happens in baseball. When those metrics fail to explain something, we either reexamine the metrics or we acknowledge that, though the metrics do useful work, their explanatory power has limits. Then we look at those limits, the stuff our existing metrics can't explain, and try to figure out a different way to explain that stuff.

 

Variation happens in nature and in baseball. A guy who hits .300 over the course of the year hits .260; a team that outscores the opposition by 35 runs finishes at .500. When something like that happens, baseball statheads generally haven't just thrown up their arms and chalked it up to random variation. They've pushed for more knowledge. Bullpens can explain some variation in how well a team does in close games. BABIP can explain some fluctuations in batting average, and batted ball data can explain some fluctuations in BABIP. People have spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure this stuff out.

 

But yeah, random variation -- "luck" -- exists. IMHO to deny that random variation affects outcomes in baseball is both highly implausible -- why should baseball differ from the rest of reality? -- and corrosive of good analysis, because you have to start making questionable assertions that are usually hard to support (like "clutch hitting is a skill" or "teams win or lose one-run games because of grit or character"). You're certainly right that reflexively chalking up all unexplained variation to luck is also corrosive of good analysis. But IMHO you're overstating the extent to which smart people do that.

 

I agree for the most part. My only objection is we should never assume it is just luck. I understand random variance but I don't believe it is that huge. Lets take the coin flip for example if I flipped the coin 100 times I'd expect it to land on heads about 50% of the time. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be exactly 50% but the further away from 50% I get the more I would question why. Random variance means it could in theory turn up heads 100% of the time but if it did I would be very skeptical it was just random variance.

Which leads me back to the idea that we should view what the record is as a very good indicator of the talent level of the team even if the projections don't agree. I don't expect a 72 win team to win exactly 72 games but I sure as hell wouldn't expect them to win 50 or 90 either. When it starts to get in to double digits off of projections I would start to wonder if maybe something was missing in the projections.

 

I think that comes down to sample. 162 games seems like a lot but it is definitely not outside the realm of possibility for a team to be off by 20 games relative to their Pythagorean. It's probably under a 5% chance but 5 times out of every 100 seasons doesn't seem unreasonable when you think about it in those terms. I'm not a statistician but I bet you'd need like a 10,000 game season to have enough data. I wonder if you could add up all the runs scored and runs against for a team's history and get close to their historic Pythagorean?

[DuWayne Steurer]

The Brewers this year have league average OPS and league average team ERA. yet they're 8 games below 81 wins. Why is that? Bad bullpen management? Bad luck? Did they create too many outs on the bases, depriving themselves of runscoring opportunities? It's worth looking at, not to say, "the statistical information is wrong", but to see what caused a minor outlier in the data.

 

It's because 162 games isn't a large enough sample to "even out" these numbers. If the season was 10,000 games the Brewers would have been 5,000-5,000. Probably a tad below that due to below avg defense.

 

But since the season consists of only 162 unique "events" the W/L record can be skewed quite a bit.

 

I did say in my post (in a part that you didn't quote) that by some measures 162 games is a small sample size. I hope you didn't selectively remove that from the quote for impact.

[reillymcshane]

The Brewers this year have league average OPS and league average team ERA. yet they're 8 games below 81 wins. Why is that? Bad bullpen management? Bad luck? Did they create too many outs on the bases, depriving themselves of runscoring opportunities? It's worth looking at, not to say, "the statistical information is wrong", but to see what caused a minor outlier in the data.

OPS doesn't always equate to Runs Scored? Just a guess. I believe it's a good indicator - but not perfect.

 

We scored 47 runs less than the league average.

 

Our OPS was .729, while the league average was .734, so pretty much right about average.

 

One thing I would speculate about was the overall lineup strength - we were really weak in the bottom half:

 

OPS (batting order)

#1 - 5 of 15 teams

#2 - 10

#3 - 3

#4 - 3

#5 - 13

#6 - 13

#7 - 10

#8 - 15

#9 - 12

 

With runners in scoring position, we had a .736 OPS vs the league average, which was .755.

 

My thought is that we maybe we failed to score runs as expected due to the weak lower half of the order. Guys got on base, but the other guys just didn't them in that much. 't wasn't that we weren't clutch - it's that our guys just weren't that good.

 

The exceptional play in the 1,3 and 4 slots elevated the overall OPS of the club to nearly league average. So perhaps our unbalanced lineup (good players vs bad players) really hurt us at times - thus the fewer runs.

 

Just a thought.