Some Brewers projections - 2017

[MrTPlush]

So my point is (and I feel this way about the Packers too) if not the playoffs then don't you want the best pick available? The Bregmans and Correas are not to be had picking #9~14 every year.

 

Easiest answer ever...NOPE. Why? Because to lose that many we need to suck...a lot. The teams need to constantly improve. Losing 100 games means a lot of guys are going to flop and our rebuild is a long way from.completion.

 

Doesn't matter though as many great players are picked in the 9-14 range.

[adambr2]

So my point is (and I feel this way about the Packers too) if not the playoffs then don't you want the best pick available? The Bregmans and Correas are not to be had picking #9~14 every year.

 

Easiest answer ever...NOPE. Why? Because to lose that many we need to suck...a lot. The teams need to constantly improve. Losing 100 games means a lot of guys are going to flop and our rebuild is a long way from.completion.

 

Doesn't matter though as many great players are picked in the 9-14 range.

 

I'll say one thing on this. ..if it's the last game of the season and we're tied for the worst record in the league, and there's a Bryce Harper type at #1 in next year's draft, I'm hoping we lose. Obviously that's an extraordinary circumstance, and you still don't tank or try to lose, at least not physically. You bench every good regular and play every young player available on your roster.

 

But yeah, during the season, I want to win games. Losing isn't fun.

[Brew Kricket]

I think any projection with Thames using his KBO numbers might be shaky (even relative to projecting numbers from the minors) so I dont much weight into the -1.8 for him. If you take the -1.8 and change that to 1, that's out you at 67 wins, which seems reasonable to me.

[pacopete4]

I think the over/under should be 71. That's just me though. Take out Braun and you have to make the adjustment.

[MrTPlush]

So my point is (and I feel this way about the Packers too) if not the playoffs then don't you want the best pick available? The Bregmans and Correas are not to be had picking #9~14 every year.

 

Easiest answer ever...NOPE. Why? Because to lose that many we need to suck...a lot. The teams need to constantly improve. Losing 100 games means a lot of guys are going to flop and our rebuild is a long way from.completion.

 

Doesn't matter though as many great players are picked in the 9-14 range.

 

I'll say one thing on this. ..if it's the last game of the season and we're tied for the worst record in the league, and there's a Bryce Harper type at #1 in next year's draft, I'm hoping we lose.

 

Well of course because that one loss doesn't mean much outside of the draft pick. However rather winning 60 games vs. 73-75...no thanks. Those 13 more losses probably amount to years of extra rebuilding.

 

As far as this teams projection I would put it at 70 and I would be tempted to take the under. A lot of learning, regressions, and a bullpen that will likely take a big step backwards. Bullpens are a big part of squeezing out extra wins.

[JohnBriggs12]

Projecting total wins off preseason WAR projections is ludicrous and makes false assumption after false assumption, most notably that the lineup is stagnant. If for instance, Broxton is merely mediocre, at some point he'll be replaced by Broxton. Same goes for the rotation.

While it's safe to say there is not an all in mindset for 2017, they aren't going to just sit back and let this team suck either. There are going to be adjustments made to get the most out of what they have. If this roster loses 100 games, Counsell should be fired and I think he would agree.

 

The projection of Thames to be a -1.8 player is an indictment of the entire Brewer organization. The Brewers didn't sign Thames to tank. My guess is Brewers see him as an ,826 OPS guy not the .626 guy seen by Fangraphs.. Frankly, I put more trust in Stearns and the scouting staff than a bunch of nerds at Fangraphs.

[danzig6767]

The offense can win 75 games as seen by those projections which have them at 5.3 WAR which isn't awful. The pitching is the issue, if the pitching can be somewhere near league average which I doubt it will be, they can do 75 games. It just isn't super likely.

Yea, if Braun isn't traded, i think the offense will be decent. I'm also fairly confident that Stearns will put together a respectable bullpen. The rotation though could easily end up being among the worst in all of MLB.

[Brewer Fever]

I don't understand why people think they're going to be better than last year. The 2016 team for much of the season had Lucroy at catcher, Jeffress, Smith, and Thornburg locking things down at the end of games, and the NL home run leader. The bullpen was a clear strength. Sure new arms could produce decent results but it's hard to expect dominance out of the 2017 pen. And if Braun is moved, which I still think will happen at some point, that's a whole lot of talent cast off from last year's team. Sure there are talented replacements on the way but it would be misguided to assume they're all going to play to their potential right away. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if guys like Villar and Broxton still have some growing pains to work through. I really think 2017 is going to be the bottom out year.

[Brew Kricket]

The offense can win 75 games as seen by those projections which have them at 5.3 WAR which isn't awful. The pitching is the issue, if the pitching can be somewhere near league average which I doubt it will be, they can do 75 games. It just isn't super likely.

 

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup. We have no chance of 75 wins with these projections. This projection shows our lineup combined will supply the WAR of '16 Daniel Murphy. If a replacement level team is worth roughly 52 wins, and the lineup is 5.3, that projection of the offense alone is showing us a 61ish win team. The 5.3 WAR for hitters is roughly half the worst team in baseball last year, and about half the 2nd worst team in baseball this year by this same projection. Nothing about this shows us anywhere close to a 70 win team.

 

With that said, our hitters will not accumalate less than 6 WAR. Thames projection is off due to lack of data (and if he slugs .342 he sure isn't getting 560 plate appearances), Arcia's defense will give an extra half win, Villar's defense at 2b may generate value if it can be league average. Too many unknowns for this group to have a decent "projection". With Braun, I'd take the over on 10 war, and without I'd take 8.5. Higher than this projection, but that number will still put us at the bottom of the league.

[JohnBriggs12]

The offense can win 75 games as seen by those projections which have them at 5.3 WAR which isn't awful. The pitching is the issue, if the pitching can be somewhere near league average which I doubt it will be, they can do 75 games. It just isn't super likely.

 

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup. We have no chance of 75 wins with these projections. This projection shows our lineup combined will supply the WAR of '16 Daniel Murphy. If a replacement level team is worth roughly 52 wins, and the lineup is 5.3, that projection of the offense alone is showing us a 61ish win team. The 5.3 WAR for hitters is roughly half the worst team in baseball last year, and about half the 2nd worst team in baseball this year by this same projection. Nothing about this shows us anywhere close to a 70 win team.

 

With that said, our hitters will not accumalate less than 6 WAR. Thames projection is off due to lack of data (and if he slugs .342 he sure isn't getting 560 plate appearances), Arcia's defense will give an extra half win, Villar's defense at 2b may generate value if it can be league average. Too many unknowns for this group to have a decent "projection". With Braun, I'd take the over on 10 war, and without I'd take 8.5. Higher than this projection, but that number will still put us at the bottom of the league.

 

You honestly don't think the everyday Brewer lineup is better than the Padres? Seriously? The Brewer rotation is much, much more accomplished than the Padres as well. The Pads at best are a 62-65 win team. The Brewers are easily 10 games better than that especially in a division with the Reds and Pirates who are equally as down.

[Ennder]

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup.

 

It is low but the projections also are very limited in playing time. I expect more WAR to filter in for the offense. The pitching is more my concern than the offense.

[Boomer5]

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

 

Villar: .730 OPS, 1 WAR No. He isn't much of a fielder but playing at 2B should help vs his horrible numbers at 3B. He is a quality if not borderline elite lead off man, so 1 WAR seems nuts.

Broxton: .682 OPS, 1 WAR. Maybe, the guy is all over the place from brutal to white hot.

Braun: .837 OPS, 1.9 WAR. He would have to be hurt much of the year, so it's possible I guess

Thames: .626 OPS, -1.8 WAR. Just a silly signing. Classic Stearns where he tries to get cute instead of taking a quality guy, but -1.8 suggests Yuni bad. I can't see that.

Shaw: .741 OPS, 1.1 WAR. Seems spot on.

Susac: .707 OPS, 0.9 WAR. Again seems pretty viable. He is a quality back up catcher but as a starter, replacement level seems appropriate

Arcia: .666 OPS, 0.3 WAR this would be a disaster. I think he will turn out to be nice defensive SS who will be meh on offense but should steal some bases. This War suggests he won't play much and I think he will play a lot.

Santana: .787 OPS, 0.9 WAR. Seeing how WAR really values corner OF D this is possible. I do think he will be a 800 to 850 OPS guy.

[Brew Kricket]

The offense can win 75 games as seen by those projections which have them at 5.3 WAR which isn't awful. The pitching is the issue, if the pitching can be somewhere near league average which I doubt it will be, they can do 75 games. It just isn't super likely.

 

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup. We have no chance of 75 wins with these projections. This projection shows our lineup combined will supply the WAR of '16 Daniel Murphy. If a replacement level team is worth roughly 52 wins, and the lineup is 5.3, that projection of the offense alone is showing us a 61ish win team. The 5.3 WAR for hitters is roughly half the worst team in baseball last year, and about half the 2nd worst team in baseball this year by this same projection. Nothing about this shows us anywhere close to a 70 win team.

 

With that said, our hitters will not accumalate less than 6 WAR. Thames projection is off due to lack of data (and if he slugs .342 he sure isn't getting 560 plate appearances), Arcia's defense will give an extra half win, Villar's defense at 2b may generate value if it can be league average. Too many unknowns for this group to have a decent "projection". With Braun, I'd take the over on 10 war, and without I'd take 8.5. Higher than this projection, but that number will still put us at the bottom of the league.

 

You honestly don't think the everyday Brewer lineup is better than the Padres? Seriously? The Brewer rotation is much, much more accomplished than the Padres as well. The Pads at best are a 62-65 win team. The Brewers are easily 10 games better than that especially in a division with the Reds and Pirates who are equally as down.

 

No, the first part of my post was from the view of the projections taken at face value, and what to take from that angle. The 2nd paragraph was me saying I feel the Brewers will easily blow past the projection due to defensive value, legitimate change in skill/approach in 2016 from Perez, Villar, and Broxton that the projection is underrating due to the manner this system evaluates past performance, as well as Thames being a significant upgrade over what they are projecting (he has a 96 wRC+ so far in his MLB career so even with no skill improvements, projecting a 63 wRC+ seems just silly). I was arguing to NOT take this at face value based on my interpretation.

 

I would dispute the Pirates being equally as down as the Brewers.

[FVBrewerFan]

The Pads at best are a 62-65 win team. The Brewers are easily 10 games better than that

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think it's fair to say the Brewers are EASILY a 75 win team in 2017. It's possible if everything and then some goes right. But they are not easily winning 75 games.

 

Projections for the line-up are really hard this season. Other than Braun and some extent Santana, everyone else carries big question marks. I expect the rotation to be very similar to last year, overall. Bullpen almost certainly will be worse, just a matter of whether that is marginal or much worse.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I look at those offensive projections and it looks like "This is the worse-case scenario for each offensive player". That doesn't look like a median or whatever, that honestly looks like a worst case projection for just about every player on the Brewers. I generally find these projection systems to be highly informative and useful tools (but just that tools.......not a religious text that has to be strictly adhered to), but this one just seems to be shooting super low for some reason.

 

I'm not at all saying some Brewers players won't/can't underperform or didn't overperform last year (Villar, for example), and whatnot, it just seemed like all of these seemed like lower end expectations.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Pads at best are a 62-65 win team. The Brewers are easily 10 games better than that

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't think it's fair to say the Brewers are EASILY a 75 win team in 2017. It's possible if everything and then some goes right. But they are not easily winning 75 games.

 

Projections for the line-up are really hard this season. Other than Braun and some extent Santana, everyone else carries big question marks. I expect the rotation to be very similar to last year, overall. Bullpen almost certainly will be worse, just a matter of whether that is marginal or much worse.

 

The Brewer rotation in 2016 was middle of the pack. Throw out the first month and it was even better, and every guy is back with additional options to replace injured or faltering starters. A middle of the pack rotation gets a team to a minimum of 70 wins even with a lesser bullpen, which by the way they haven't finished assembling.

 

The lineup itself has interchangeable parts. Perez can fill in anywhere for any starter not performing. Perez' WAR last season was 2.0 per baseball reference and 1.2 per fangraphs. One of the best OF prospects in the game is at the ready should Broxton falter. Not having Lucroy for 4 months is a significant loss, but they were 26-33 after he and 2 key relievers were dealt which wasn't far off their season winning percentage.

 

Eric Thames commanded a 3 year deal because not just the Brewers wanted his services. So it's not just the Brewers that think he'll put up numbers worthy of a 1B position and they are betting on it. Projecting Thames to post an .OPS 100 points lower than his major league career mark that he earned as a 24-25 year old in the big leagues. Put another way, they are projecting him to be considerably worse as a player now than he was before he went to Korea. On what basis do they do that? Players from that league have thrived in the majors. Not all of them but a decent number of them.

[MrTPlush]

I look at those offensive projections and it looks like "This is the worse-case scenario for each offensive player".

 

That is what I thought. I wouldn't be shocked if any player hit their number, but man I would bet the over on all of them.

[PaulLeoMolitor]

I think the biggest takeaway I got from this thread, is to steer away from FanGraphs.

[adambr2]

I think the biggest takeaway I got from this thread, is to steer away from FanGraphs.

 

Sounds like something Joe Morgan would have said as a commentator about Moneyball!

 

Seriously though, Fangraphs is a great tool. Lots of info and knowledge to take from it. Obviously you have to take every piece of analysis with a grain of salt. Baseball reference is another, traditional scouting, they're all important IMO. I'm always open to hearing anything that can help me learn more about the game, even if I don't agree with it.

 

I agree with some of the previous posters that a lot of these projections seem more like floors.

[brewcrewdue80]

Fangraphs is great with stats on percentages. Pitching especially with velocity numbers, type of pitches pct thrown.

 

But some values never seem to matchup with my opinion watching someone. How low they rate Braun. I cant see Braun as worth 2games above replacement only. Hes such a difference maker in the lineup. Far more than 2games worth. They value defense so much it skews their WAR.

[PaulLeoMolitor]

I think the biggest takeaway I got from this thread, is to steer away from FanGraphs.

 

Sounds like something Joe Morgan would have said as a commentator about Moneyball!

 

Seriously though, Fangraphs is a great tool. Lots of info and knowledge to take from it. Obviously you have to take every piece of analysis with a grain of salt. Baseball reference is another, traditional scouting, they're all important IMO. I'm always open to hearing anything that can help me learn more about the game, even if I don't agree with it.

 

I agree with some of the previous posters that a lot of these projections seem more like floors.

 

I agree with you on taking an eclectic approach to player evaluation. The more info. you can draw from a wide range of reliable sources, the better you're analysis and projections should be in the end.

 

I simply take issue with a projection system that seems to be extremely conservative when it comes to players with limited data to draw on. In my opinion, such a projection system has very little utility. Based on this, it would seem inexperienced players will rarely project well. I would find more value in a projection system that would occasionally project someone such as a Keon Broxton to break out. It appears as though FanGraphs projects no young Brewers' players to show significant improvement. I'll admit, I'm a relative newbie to sabermetrics, so maybe I'm just ignorant to the methodology behind such projection systems. I still maintain a strong nostalgic feeling for stats on the back of baseball cards, dating back to my childhood, but I am open to learning.

[MKE81]

I don't understand why people think they're going to be better than last year. The 2016 team for much of the season had Lucroy at catcher, Jeffress, Smith, and Thornburg locking things down at the end of games, and the NL home run leader. The bullpen was a clear strength. Sure new arms could produce decent results but it's hard to expect dominance out of the 2017 pen. And if Braun is moved, which I still think will happen at some point, that's a whole lot of talent cast off from last year's team. Sure there are talented replacements on the way but it would be misguided to assume they're all going to play to their potential right away. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if guys like Villar and Broxton still have some growing pains to work through. I really think 2017 is going to be the bottom out year.

People thinking the Brewers will be worse as a result of no Lucroy, Thornburg, Jeffress, Smith, Carter (HR champ) is logical. It makes sense on the surface but there are a lot of factors I look at when thinking they'll be better. The rotation as a unit should be better than last year. Going from a defensive IF of Hill/Perez, Villar, Scooter, Carter to Shaw, Arcia, Villar, Thames is an upgrade at every single position (the right side of the IF is a huge upgrade). Defense matters greatly and it gets overlooked far too often. Anyone we put behind the dish is a downgrade from Lucroy. However, the Brewers weren't terrible after he was traded and Maldy is below average as a starter (would be terrible if his arm/framing weren't so good). Susac should win that starting job and if he's anything remotely close to what he's done in the minors you'll get a good offensive catcher and an avg defensive one with Bandy being better defensively, supposedly, of the two. Braun is Braun. I'm expecting Broxton and Santana to be solid players - 800+ OPS offensively while having good on base numbers. They're talented and have flashed what their potential is. Our #4-6 OF received almost half the OF ABs last year. That's not good. The pen takes a step back as Jeffress/Thornburg were great. Smith was replaceable with his first half last year. He wasn't his typical self. Barnes will play a much more significant role as will Knebel. Both are young and have a lot of potential to be very, very good. There should be 5 guys back in the pen so mixing in a couple other strong shouldn't be an issue. Lets not forget that Thornburg blew 8 of 21 save opportunities. if this pen closes that gap there's additional Ws. The young guys got some good PT last year and that experience will only help moving forward.

[Outlander]

Blown saves can be deceiving when you are not the closer the whole year. I think the only 9th inning blown saves for Thornburg were two in that final weekend against the Rockies. I don't have a lot of faith in Knebel saving games, hopefull they still try to get somebody for that role. Regarding the projections, even worst case I put the floor at 68 as even the Braves and Reds were able to meet that low bar.

[MKE81]

Blown saves can be deceiving for sure. At the end of the day it's still a blown save though. We were in position to win that game (some we did some we didn't). I think anyone who covers the 7th-8th inning consistently shouldn't have an issue with the occasional close.

 

I wouldn't have Knebel close. Barnes or a new veteran

[rickh150]

I guessed 70 wins last year. I guess 70 wins this year. Without Braun with presumably minor leaguers in his place, I'll go 65. Our bullpen is bare. I hope that I'm wrong, but our new 1B and 3B feel more like Tyler Houston and a Marquis Grissom addition.

 

Without even seeing a glimpse of 2018's team, I could see a huge jump happening then, maybe even back to a .500 team. We have boatloads of young talent for the rotation coming up presumably (Hader, Woodruff, Ortiz, Bickford). An arm or two is bound to stick with a couple mainstays from our current team. Jimmy Nelson and Willy Peralta are still solid; Nelson is my pick for most improved player in 2017. A better pitching rotation and lower team ERA will make the biggest difference in our win total, and that to me looks to happen in 2018.