Anderson vs. Nelson

[Pugger]

Nelson has been consistent all year at drawing soft contact. I think he's the real deal. Anderson is a good sell high candidate this off-season.

 

Why sell him? I don't think you can have too many good starting pitchers.

[homer]

Nelson has been consistent all year at drawing soft contact. I think he's the real deal. Anderson is a good sell high candidate this off-season.

 

Why sell him? I don't think you can have too many good starting pitchers.

 

Because he will probably regress next year. Randy Wolf syndrome.

[homer]

FYI - both are arby eligible next year and both are free agents in 2021. Nelson is 28 and Anderson is 29.

 

And I guess I'm not advocating trading either one but I could see the case for trading Anderson if the brass thinks he's going to go backwards next year. I realize this is counter to my earlier post but I won't edit it.

[tmwiese55]

Thing is you control both through their prime ages since they started in the bigs at later ages. If they both finish this season well, thus giving everyone confidence they're legit, then they are kind of the dream for a small market team. You'd control them until their early 30s for cheap and can trade them later rather than re-sign when the time comes. Or since they know they'll hit FA late you can lock them in very cheap now (since they'd want to bank money and not risk tommy john) and buy out a year or two extra.

 

And the way this season has gone I think it's pretty tough for them to justify trading one this offseason and not trying to win next year. So if you think you have two #3ish, maybe close to #2 level of starters locked in for this cheap for 3-4 years it gives a small market a great starting place to build from. Basically not having that in 2008-2012 is what held that group back. Essentially I think we'd all expect to be .500 or above next year primarily on the backs of young cost controlled players. And the team would have tons of financial flexibility to fill remaining holes to move that expectation from 84ish wins up to 90. Regardless, you're going into next year fully expecting to compete for the playoffs. I wouldn't say it's a realistic to expect to make the playoffs, but it's realistic to expect to be in the conversation until late in the season.

[monty57]

I agree with tmwiese55. We have a lot of pitching talent on the farm, but not all of them are ready. The guys who are ready are replacing the holes we had in the rotation to start this year. We should hold onto our productive guys with team control until the replacements are ready for them, and we're not quite there yet.

 

This should help us remain playoff hopefuls at the MLB level, and when the prospects push their way into the MLB rotation, we should still be able to trade guys like Nelson, Anderson and Davies for a good haul. That way we can continue to stock the system while being competitive at the MLB level

[trwi7]

Thing is you control both through their prime ages since they started in the bigs at later ages. If they both finish this season well, thus giving everyone confidence they're legit, then they are kind of the dream for a small market team. You'd control them until their early 30s for cheap and can trade them later rather than re-sign when the time comes.

 

Of course you can trade them later. That wasn't the point though. If you feel someone like Anderson is going to regress from what they're doing this year, why wouldn't you sell high on him and get back more now than have him for a couple of years pitching worse and then trade him for less than you could've gotten?

[tmwiese55]

Thing is you control both through their prime ages since they started in the bigs at later ages. If they both finish this season well, thus giving everyone confidence they're legit, then they are kind of the dream for a small market team. You'd control them until their early 30s for cheap and can trade them later rather than re-sign when the time comes.

 

Of course you can trade them later. That wasn't the point though. If you feel someone like Anderson is going to regress from what they're doing this year, why wouldn't you sell high on him and get back more now than have him for a couple of years pitching worse and then trade him for less than you could've gotten?

 

Agree, if they're expert opinion is that Anderson is a fluke then they should try to rip someone off in a trade. Like they did with the relievers last year. But to the "why wouldn't you sell" question, well because you're trying to win games next season and make the playoffs and that's the goal of the team. Not to win prospect rankings by magazines in the offseason.

 

I prefaced by saying that if he finishes this season well, if he does that I just don't think people are going to think he's a fluke. They're not going to bank on a 2.89 ERA but I think they'll be confident they have a solid 3.5-3.8 type guy under control until he's like 32.

 

To the other post about not trading until the young replacements are ready. Well as of right now you'd only have 2 spots filled by Nelson/Anderson. I like Davies and overall he is solid, but still his wins this year on the backs of huge offensive support. I like going into the year with him, but he's no lock going forward either. Even if he is, you still have two spots left to fill and with our history of pitcher development I don't see how any of us have confidence in filling that going forward. Essentially I'd rather hold onto extra guys rather than worry about a number crunch right now, when we still have 2-3 spots to fill. There's no guarantee on any of the young guys. There's plenty of opportunity for those guys, no reason for them to feel like they're blocked. The team should treat it like a numbers game, the more you have the higher your chances are on getting the 4-5 you need at the same time.

[monty57]

Thing is you control both through their prime ages since they started in the bigs at later ages. If they both finish this season well, thus giving everyone confidence they're legit, then they are kind of the dream for a small market team. You'd control them until their early 30s for cheap and can trade them later rather than re-sign when the time comes.

 

Of course you can trade them later. That wasn't the point though. If you feel someone like Anderson is going to regress from what they're doing this year, why wouldn't you sell high on him and get back more now than have him for a couple of years pitching worse and then trade him for less than you could've gotten?

 

If our guys are that good at predicting the future, then we should always be able to grab guys off the scrap heap who will perform like stars. However, it's really difficult to predict that sort of thing. Anderson probably isn't an ace, but everyone knows that, and we aren't going to be able to convince a MLB GM that he is, so the thought that he has immense value now that will go away after next season probably isn't realistic. If it is, and someone offers us an unbelievable deal, then go ahead and trade him. In the likely scenario that we wouldn't get that "king's ransom," then he is probably most valuable to us as a member of our rotation in 2018, looking to trade him when some of the next prospects are ready to step in.

 

To the other post about not trading until the young replacements are ready. Well as of right now you'd only have 2 spots filled by Nelson/Anderson.

 

I was looking at Nelson, Anderson and Davies as the three "vets," with Woodruff and Hader as the guys who are ready to step in next year to fill out the rotation. We then have a lot of prospects who could be ready in the coming years, and as they push there way onto the MLB roster, they can allow us to trade guys like Nelson, Anderson and Davies as their "team control" starts to run out.

[tmwiese55]

To the other post about not trading until the young replacements are ready. Well as of right now you'd only have 2 spots filled by Nelson/Anderson.

 

I was looking at Nelson, Anderson and Davies as the three "vets," with Woodruff and Hader as the guys who are ready to step in next year to fill out the rotation. We then have a lot of prospects who could be ready in the coming years, and as they push there way onto the MLB roster, they can allow us to trade guys like Nelson, Anderson and Davies as their "team control" starts to run out.

 

 

 

Yup, that makes perfect sense. Davies is definitely locked in as of now and is finishing strong but still overall hasn't been great this year and relied on the offense to bail him out.

 

I guess I'm just saying I'll believe it when I see it that all these guys pan out, sure hope that's the case but our history makes me pessimistic. Very good problem to have if it happens, just saying it's too early to start planning as if we have too many SPs. Scenarios similar to this could easily happen: Hader can't hack it as starter and goes BP route, one or two of the other 4 guys has TJ or just regresses/flops and you only have 2-3 reliable guys. Then we're hoping like heck guys like Ortiz and Burnes pan out to replace those guys.

 

Throw in that with the 10 day DL teams are going to be needing a 6th pitcher a lot as they game that system to give some extra time off. That of course along with your normal injuries that make it rare to only need 5 guys and I want to hold as many as we can.

[MrTPlush]

I really have a hard time seeing Josh Hader get a spot in the rotation with what he has shown. The results have been good, but such an utter lack of control. I just don't know if he can really be good for six innings straight and a third time through the batting order. To get the best results out of Hader I think you would be forced to pull him early(kind of like what happens with Garza). That can have a nagative effect on a weak bullpen.

 

Id rather find a more reliable 5th starter and let Hader step in for someone else when they go down for a month so we can see him in the rotation before giving him a full time gig.

[AKCheesehead]

Not to veer this too far off of Nelson vs. Anderson, but along with what Plush states above, some of my Hader thoughts...

 

Yeah plus his 2017 innings are going to make a full time 2018 starter role pretty far fetched. With some fast rough mental math, I'd imagine it hard to expect much more than about 120 IP for Hader's 2018, based on his expected 2017 IP and the old rule of not increasing by more than 25 IP per season. With that said, I absolutely want to see him start some games. If Milwaukee falls out of it in in September, I'd be happy to see him get a start or two yet this year, for at least 3 reasons.

[monty57]

Not to veer this too far off of Nelson vs. Anderson, but along with what Plush states above, some of my Hader thoughts...

 

Yeah plus his 2017 innings are going to make a full time 2018 starter role pretty far fetched. With some fast rough mental math, I'd imagine it hard to expect much more than about 120 IP for Hader's 2018, based on his expected 2017 IP and the old rule of not increasing by more than 25 IP per season. With that said, I absolutely want to see him start some games. If Milwaukee falls out of it in in September, I'd be happy to see him get a start or two yet this year, for at least 3 reasons.

 

I'm no expert on this, but I believe that once you reach a plateau, that is your plateau even if you don't reach it the next year. He could have maxed around 150 IP this year, so I think he could max at around 150 IP next year.

 

Pitchers don't pitch deep into games as much as they used to, so many starters are hitting 150 IP around this part of the season (Nelson 156.2, Davies 149.2). If he were to start next year in the rotation and pitch normal innings, he would need to be shut down around this time next year. If they make him the #5 and skip him now and then, he could make it further into the season.

[KeithStone53151]

I really have a hard time seeing Josh Hader get a spot in the rotation with what he has shown. The results have been good, but such an utter lack of control. I just don't know if he can really be good for six innings straight and a third time through the batting order. To get the best results out of Hader I think you would be forced to pull him early(kind of like what happens with Garza). That can have a nagative effect on a weak bullpen.

 

Id rather find a more reliable 5th starter and let Hader step in for someone else when they go down for a month so we can see him in the rotation before giving him a full time gig.

 

According to baseball reference, in 71 PA since the all star break, Hader has struck out 25 guys, walked 9, allowed 11 hits(5 2b 0 hr) and a slash line of 186/324/271 with a 324 BABIP. A 12.6% walk rate is still high, but it's a sign of progress for sure. For comparison, Knebel is at a 13.7% BB rate on the season, Barnes is at 10%, Andrew Miller at 8%. This damages the BABIP argument considerably as 324 is pretty high and he still managed a sub 600 OPS against and 1.59 ERA over the 2nd half(it was 0.73 1st half, he was lucky 1st half without question). Also yesterday everyone watched Hader wax the 3 guys he faced in 10 pitches.

 

I feel like I'm the resident Josh Hader defender on this board, I'm probably one of the highest on him and that makes me a touch biased for sure. Josh struggled those first handful of appearances but has shown improvement through the second half. The statistics make that pretty clear. The only way it would make sense to me to not put Hader in the rotation to start is if we make a big time free agent signing. I can't imagine Stearns signing a fringy #4/5 like Garza and that guy getting the job over Hader.

[monty57]

KeithStone, I am also a "Hader defender." I think it would be crazy not to give the guy a shot at the rotation. The nay-sayers may be right, and he may be forced back into the pen, but at least give him a shot. This is a guy who has made hitters like Bryce Harper and Joey Votto look foolish. Very few pitchers can do that. He could be special, so let's give him that shot.

[KeithStone53151]

KeithStone, I am also a "Hader defender." I think it would be crazy not to give the guy a shot at the rotation. The nay-sayers may be right, and he may be forced back into the pen, but at least give him a shot. This is a guy who has made hitters like Bryce Harper and Joey Votto look foolish. Very few pitchers can do that. He could be special, so let's give him that shot.

 

Spot on. I've never seen Votto swing at a pitch as bad as the slider he swung at when facing him. He also had RH Posey looking very uncomfortable and got a fairly weak groundout from him. I feel like signing a Garza and starting him over Hader is the equivalent to playing the prevent defense in football, prevent you from winning. A garza type would be guaranteeing failure, where as Hader at least gives you a solid chance at an above average rotation arm with a reasonable chance at a star in the rotation. At the very least, he'll learn/develop/improve in his shot in the rotation.

[AKCheesehead]

If it is indeed a 150 IP plateau for Hader, that is great news. I'd still prefer to limit him early next season. I remember thinking how foolish the Mets were to use up the Harvey innings early in the season (was it 2013? time flies) and had to shut him down later when they really needed him for the pennant push. Hader's special and I would want him available if the Brewers were to make the playoffs.

[KeithStone53151]

If it is indeed a 150 IP plateau for Hader, that is great news. I'd still prefer to limit him early next season. I remember thinking how foolish the Mets were to use up the Harvey innings early in the season (was it 2013? time flies) and had to shut him down later when they really needed him for the pennant push. Hader's special and I would want him available if the Brewers were to make the playoffs.

 

I suspect they'd let him go more than that. Also I suspect they would be most apt to skip some of his starts with off days to limit his innings early on and keep him available in September(where they could also limit his innings if needed).

[brewcrewdue80]

On topic, you go with Nelson over Anderson. He's improved on his pitchingsince the minors. Clearly works on improving his craft,...which could bold well if you extend one of these two on a guy whos stuff leaves him and has to learn a new way of getting hitters out.

 

Which speaking of Hader and his bb rate. It's his first go at this at this level. Look at Nelsons stats for some seasoning improvements.

I would consider the extension to Nelson and keep year to year with Chase. You have an influx of SPs to pull from in the minors coming. Chase would hopefully keep a lot of value with a trade decision after youve agreed to his arb next-'19 offseason when hed approach the 8+mil value.

Hader can have some starts to begin 18 and go from there. Putting him back in the bullpen certainly if the wildness fear or 3rd times through the order are bad. What if you could get he and Suter in to a 2-3IP twice a week bullpen work?

 

Pitching staffs just dont gothrough a season healthy yearly...as this year's staff has dealt with. You can say Nelson, Anderson, Davies, Woodruff, and Hader as your 5 for next year, but still need 2 to pull from realistically or take a huge dive when 1 gets hurt.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'll take the Bat Boy. No pitcher in the game has baffled the Dodgers like Davies this year. Two full years now in the big leagues, 29-16 and still just 24. That's not luck.

[MrTPlush]

I'll take the Bat Boy. No pitcher in the game has baffled the Dodgers like Davies this year. Two full years now in the big leagues, 29-16 and still just 24. That's not luck.

 

His record is luck. You could provide real statistics in your argument though.

[endaround]

I'll take the Bat Boy. No pitcher in the game has baffled the Dodgers like Davies this year. Two full years now in the big leagues, 29-16 and still just 24. That's not luck.

 

His record is luck. You could provide real statistics in your argument though.

 

Davies second half has been good. Since MLB changed the rules to basically kill him since he depended on the low strike (yes technically the rules did not change, but yeah..) his first half coudl just be him adjusting. If he can replicate his 2nd half going forward, he is strong #2 pitcher.

[homer]

His xFIP in the 2nd half is 4.23. He's pitched much better but the ERA is deceiving. Luckily for him he has Arcia playing shortstop so even if he K's fewer guys as long as he keeps inducing weak grounders he should be OK.

[MrTPlush]

I'll take the Bat Boy. No pitcher in the game has baffled the Dodgers like Davies this year. Two full years now in the big leagues, 29-16 and still just 24. That's not luck.

 

His record is luck. You could provide real statistics in your argument though.

 

Davies second half has been good. Since MLB changed the rules to basically kill him since he depended on the low strike (yes technically the rules did not change, but yeah..) his first half coudl just be him adjusting. If he can replicate his 2nd half going forward, he is strong #2 pitcher.

 

Where did you mention his record? That is what I was talking about. Briggs is rating Zach Davies solely on record. The same guy who had a .714 winning % for his terrible first half and now his winning % has gone down in the 2nd half despite results twice as better.

 

Briggs continues to rate players in ways that make no sense despite us giving him evidence .

[endaround]

His xFIP in the 2nd half is 4.23. He's pitched much better but the ERA is deceiving. Luckily for him he has Arcia playing shortstop so even if he K's fewer guys as long as he keeps inducing weak grounders he should be OK.

 

That will give a xFIP- of somewhere around 95. Basically Micheal Fulmer territory.

[KeithStone53151]

Davies struggled with fastball command in the first half, he also was working on that curve that he honed in the off season. Through the season he has nailed down those pitches and this stretch is the end result. His stuff is back end but he plays up to a solid number 3 due to plus command.

 

And you guys really need to get out of the habit of looking at one stat as your basis for performance. His xfip is this, therefore he's been lucky. It's one tool, and you are way better off actually watching the guy pitch to determine whether he's been lucky or not.