What is your 2017-2018 off-season plan for the Brewers?

[Warning Track Power]

Who are all these regression candidates? Pina, Chase, maybe knebel, who else? You generally don't expect young guys to regress unless they have crazy good years. Meanwhile, we have villar, santana, arcia, shaw, brinson, phillips, hader, woodruff all as guys with somewhere between a realistic and likely chance of improving in 2018. We don't have a team full of 30+ guys that we are hoping don't fall off a cliff.

I do believe we have some regression candidates in terms of offense. Shaw, Santana, Pina and Arcia are all possible for mild to significant regression based solely on the fact they do not have a proven track record. However, the defense for Shaw, Pina and Arcia still plays and the OF prospect should help cover some Santana regression. Coupling this with a possible bounce back candidate in Villar, hopefully better health and production from Braun, as well as Thames making adjustments in year two, it all could be a wash.

 

I think that any possible regression in terms of record will come mainly due to growing pains of having Brinson and/or Phillips playing daily in MLB for the first time, Woodruff in the rotation from day one and other SPs (Burnes, Ortiz) getting their first taste.

 

I truly believe we really need to see the 2018 season to know exactly where the Brewers are given so many of the players in 2017 had no track record.

[coolhandluke121]

So you listed Aguilar, Sogard, Suter, Swarzak, Hughes, Hader, Thames, Nelson, Walker, Shaw as regression candidates. For starters, we might as well scratch off Swarzak and Walker as they aren't on the team anymore. Sogard/Aguilar/Suter/Hughes are fringe roster guys.

 

Exactly. Swarzak and Walker could be gone and the others are fringe roster guys. And yet those players alone were the difference between 86 wins and <80. They were that good, despite only being with the team for a few months and/or being fringe roster guys. You can't count on that production again, ergo, regression - unless they walk, in which case there's absolutely no guarantee you can replace them, which is another type of regression.

 

 

Hader is likely going to be starting to open 2018, which you can't really compare relief to starting from a regression perspective. Nelson is also missing a good chunk of the season minimum.

 

Hader was a high WAR reliever despite not playing the full season. He had a lot of great outings in absolutely pivotal situations. There's no guarantee they're even going to try starting him, but if they do, there's no guarantee he will replace last year's WAR. I would probably bet against. And I guess you don't define being injured as a type of regression, but you certainly can't expect Nelson to duplicate last year's performance or even come close to it. That's regression in my book.

 

 

Thames is a regression candidate I suppose, but he also has upside as he came on strong to close the year and really adjusted to how he was being pitched. Shaw also could absolutely regress, but he's young enough to still have a bit of upside. He's also at that typical age 26-28 sweetspot where guys tend to peak as hitters.

 

Based on long-term data about their performance and talent, the odds of them improving are probably very slim. The odds of them being a little worse than last year are pretty good. That's what being a regression candidate means. It could happen, but the evidence doesn't support it.

 

 

Of course even the young guys can regress, but all the young guys have a ton of upside to go with the potential for a bad year. Our team has far more upside than downside in my opinion. Pina/Chase dropping off their production a bit can easily be replaced by Phillips or Brinson posting an OPS over 850, Hader or Woodruff posting a low 3s ERA in the rotation, Arcia building on his 2016 gains and posting an OPS in the 800-850 range, Villar returning to something between his 2016 and 2017 forms, you get the idea.

 

Nobody said they don't have upside, and I've had this debate before where I argued against people projecting massive regression and suggesting they trade Shaw, Knebel, and Chase. I am optimistic about some other guys stepping up as well, but you shouldn't be betting on the team to duplicate this year's success. The smart money is definitely on some regression averaged out over the roster, with some individual exceptions.

[KeithStone53151]

So you listed Aguilar, Sogard, Suter, Swarzak, Hughes, Hader, Thames, Nelson, Walker, Shaw as regression candidates. For starters, we might as well scratch off Swarzak and Walker as they aren't on the team anymore. Sogard/Aguilar/Suter/Hughes are fringe roster guys.

 

Exactly. Swarzak and Walker could be gone and the others are fringe roster guys. And yet those players alone were the difference between 86 wins and <80. They were that good, despite only being with the team for a few months and/or being fringe roster guys. You can't count on that production again, ergo, regression - unless they walk, in which case there's absolutely no guarantee you can replace them, which is another type of regression.

 

 

Hader is likely going to be starting to open 2018, which you can't really compare relief to starting from a regression perspective. Nelson is also missing a good chunk of the season minimum.

 

Hader was a high WAR reliever despite not playing the full season. He had a lot of great outings in absolutely pivotal situations. There's no guarantee they're even going to try starting him, but if they do, there's no guarantee he will replace last year's WAR. I would probably bet against. And I guess you don't define being injured as a type of regression, but you certainly can't expect Nelson to duplicate last year's performance or even come close to it. That's regression in my book.

 

 

Thames is a regression candidate I suppose, but he also has upside as he came on strong to close the year and really adjusted to how he was being pitched. Shaw also could absolutely regress, but he's young enough to still have a bit of upside. He's also at that typical age 26-28 sweetspot where guys tend to peak as hitters.

 

Based on long-term data about their performance and talent, the odds of them improving are probably very slim. The odds of them being a little worse than last year are pretty good. That's what being a regression candidate means. It could happen, but the evidence doesn't support it.

 

 

Of course even the young guys can regress, but all the young guys have a ton of upside to go with the potential for a bad year. Our team has far more upside than downside in my opinion. Pina/Chase dropping off their production a bit can easily be replaced by Phillips or Brinson posting an OPS over 850, Hader or Woodruff posting a low 3s ERA in the rotation, Arcia building on his 2016 gains and posting an OPS in the 800-850 range, Villar returning to something between his 2016 and 2017 forms, you get the idea.

 

Nobody said they don't have upside, and I've had this debate before where I argued against people projecting massive regression and suggesting they trade Shaw, Knebel, and Chase. I am optimistic about some other guys stepping up as well, but you shouldn't be betting on the team to duplicate this year's success. The smart money is definitely on some regression averaged out over the roster, with some individual exceptions.

 

To your last point, I think we have more guys with upside that are likely to improve than significant regression candidates. Of Arcia/Phillips/Brinson/Hader/Woodruff, I would be surprised if at least one of those guys didn't put up an allstar caliber season. I would be equally surprised if Villar was not significantly better than last season. He might only hit 240, but that would still be significantly better. Those improvements alone will likely negate any regression from some of the prime regression candidates. Add to that the fact that Stearns is going to do some spending, notably in the bullpen, which should improve our outlook there. Replace some of the 5+ ERA guys like Torres/Drake/blazek/etc with established relievers likely to post something in the 3s. That's notable improvement.

[Boomer5]

This is a team with far more regression candidates than you'd like if the goal is spend money on a fairly weak FA crop.

 

The best bet is to sign some bullpen FA arms to do our usual panning for gold there. Bring back JJ and Swarzak if they are cheap.

 

I'd sign Lucroy as a cheap bounce back guy and offer some RH 1B platoon with Thames.

 

Trade Broxton if there is a solid market and roll with a Braun, Brinson, Santana OF with Phillips to spell the inevitable and multiple Braun DL stints.

 

The rotation will have to sink or swim on their own because there isn't much out that won't be grossly overpaid.

 

Who are all these regression candidates? Pina, Chase, maybe knebel, who else? You generally don't expect young guys to regress unless they have crazy good years. Meanwhile, we have villar, santana, arcia, shaw, brinson, phillips, hader, woodruff all as guys with somewhere between a realistic and likely chance of improving in 2018. We don't have a team full of 30+ guys that we are hoping don't fall off a cliff.

 

Regression Candidates:

 

Santana: He is a guy I like a a lot but when a player does something he has never done before you have to call him a regression candidate.

Shaw: virtual lock to regress though still certainly a good player.

Pina: obvious regression candidate

Phillips: his peripherals suggest he won't make enough contact. Yet. I do like him long term though.

Knebel: only because he was so great last year to the point of record setting

Nelson: obviously

Anderson: he is guy who has done it for a year and a half so that's plus, but he never profiled a a legit 1/2 before so that is something to worry about.

Hader: only if he is starter.

Suter: way below average stuff typically doesn't translate long term.

Thames: already did after April.

Swarzak if they resign him as his only good year was 17 and he was a NRI type a year ago

Braun: could go both ways I suppose but I think we have seen the last of 130 game 4 plus WAR Braun

Walker: back issues

Sogard: already regressed which why Walker needed to be traded for in the first place.

 

 

Break out/Rebound candidates:

 

Brinson

Woodruff

Broxton though I don't think he will be on our roster by opening day.

Villar if he gets it, but I think we saw the best we will ever see in 16

[KeithStone53151]

This is a team with far more regression candidates than you'd like if the goal is spend money on a fairly weak FA crop.

 

The best bet is to sign some bullpen FA arms to do our usual panning for gold there. Bring back JJ and Swarzak if they are cheap.

 

I'd sign Lucroy as a cheap bounce back guy and offer some RH 1B platoon with Thames.

 

Trade Broxton if there is a solid market and roll with a Braun, Brinson, Santana OF with Phillips to spell the inevitable and multiple Braun DL stints.

 

The rotation will have to sink or swim on their own because there isn't much out that won't be grossly overpaid.

 

Who are all these regression candidates? Pina, Chase, maybe knebel, who else? You generally don't expect young guys to regress unless they have crazy good years. Meanwhile, we have villar, santana, arcia, shaw, brinson, phillips, hader, woodruff all as guys with somewhere between a realistic and likely chance of improving in 2018. We don't have a team full of 30+ guys that we are hoping don't fall off a cliff.

 

Regression Candidates:

 

Santana: He is a guy I like a a lot but when a player does something he has never done before you have to call him a regression candidate.

Shaw: virtual lock to regress though still certainly a good player.

Pina: obvious regression candidate

Phillips: his peripherals suggest he won't make enough contact. Yet. I do like him long term though.

Knebel: only because he was so great last year to the point of record setting

Nelson: obviously

Anderson: he is guy who has done it for a year and a half so that's plus, but he never profiled a a legit 1/2 before so that is something to worry about.

Hader: only if he is starter.

Suter: way below average stuff typically doesn't translate long term.

Thames: already did after April.

Swarzak if they resign him as his only good year was 17 and he was a NRI type a year ago

Braun: could go both ways I suppose but I think we have seen the last of 130 game 4 plus WAR Braun

Walker: back issues

Sogard: already regressed which why Walker needed to be traded for in the first place.

 

 

Break out/Rebound candidates:

 

Brinson

Woodruff

Broxton though I don't think he will be on our roster by opening day.

Villar if he gets it, but I think we saw the best we will ever see in 16

 

I really don't understand all the anti-Santana sentiment on these boards. I already explained to another guy why you are wrong on the majority of your regression candidates. Below are some stat lines from the minors for Santana.

2012 - 302/385/536 - A+ Age 19

2013 - 252/345/498 - AA Age 20

2014 - 296/384/474 - AAA Age 21

2015 - 333/426/573 - AAA Age 22

But apparently him putting up 278/371/505 this past year is something he's never done before and couldn't possibly repeat? If anything, his track record suggests he is more likely to improve on his numbers than regress. Don't forget, 2016 was an injury plagued year for Santana...and he's approaching those peak 26-28 years.

[coolhandluke121]

I already explained to another guy why you are wrong on the majority of your regression candidates.

 

You didn't explain it, you just tried to convince me. Those are two completely different things. Nearly every guy on the team far exceeded any projections you might have had based on their previous work. That's why the Brewers won about 15 more games than expected, which is a huge swing. We're talking a lot of career years, and not just barely there career years, but by a wide margin career years.

 

You might be right about Santana, but nearly everyone else on that list is a clear regression candidate. There's a reason they were all cast-offs. They could continue to excel, but it would be unexpected. I'm not sure you even know what regression means. It doesn't mean they can't/won't improve or they're bad players. It does mean what they did last year was above and beyond what their careers suggest they will do next year.

 

And signing some great relievers and a starter doesn't change the fact that much of the current roster is likely to regress. It could counterbalance it and I support trying to compete next year, but I'm not betting on guys duplicating their success. Literally almost 75% of the roster had career years. That's a lot. This reminds me of the Fear-The-Deer Bucks. It was a good year, but it wasn't built around great young prospects and it's not really a sign of many good years to come. They'll need to get lucky again to duplicate this.

 

It reminds me of arguing why I thought Braun, Villar, and Guerra were major regression candidates last year. A lot of people didn't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

[KeithStone53151]

I already explained to another guy why you are wrong on the majority of your regression candidates.

 

You didn't explain it, you just tried to convince me. Those are two completely different things. Nearly every guy on the team far exceeded any projections you might have had based on their previous work. That's why the Brewers won about 15 more games than expected, which is a huge swing. We're talking a lot of career years, and not just barely there career years, but by a wide margin career years.

 

You might be right about Santana, but nearly everyone else on that list is a clear regression candidate. There's a reason they were all cast-offs. They could continue to excel, but it would be unexpected. I'm not sure you even know what regression means. It doesn't mean they can't/won't improve or they're bad players. It does mean what they did last year was above and beyond what their careers suggest they will do next year.

 

And signing some great relievers and a starter doesn't change the fact that much of the current roster is likely to regress. It could counterbalance it and I support trying to compete next year, but I'm not betting on guys duplicating their success. Literally almost 75% of the roster had career years. That's a lot. This reminds me of the Fear-The-Deer Bucks. It was a good year, but it wasn't built around great young prospects and it's not really a sign of many good years to come. They'll need to get lucky again to duplicate this.

 

It reminds me of arguing why I thought Braun, Villar, and Guerra were major regression candidates last year. A lot of people didn't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

 

The big breakouts last year include Shaw, Santana, Pina, Chase, Knebel, and Hader to some degree. You could say Sogard, but he was a bench bat for the most part. Of those guys, Hader and Santana are by far the most likely to have similar success. Pina and Chase likely to regress. Knebel, Shaw, and possibly Sogard I would think are most likely to remain flat where they were. Guys like Braun, Villar, Arcia, Broxton...regressed last year. At each of those positions I would anticipate significant improvement this season.

[Boomer5]

I already explained to another guy why you are wrong on the majority of your regression candidates.

 

You didn't explain it, you just tried to convince me. Those are two completely different things. Nearly every guy on the team far exceeded any projections you might have had based on their previous work. That's why the Brewers won about 15 more games than expected, which is a huge swing. We're talking a lot of career years, and not just barely there career years, but by a wide margin career years.

 

You might be right about Santana, but nearly everyone else on that list is a clear regression candidate. There's a reason they were all cast-offs. They could continue to excel, but it would be unexpected. I'm not sure you even know what regression means. It doesn't mean they can't/won't improve or they're bad players. It does mean what they did last year was above and beyond what their careers suggest they will do next year.

 

And signing some great relievers and a starter doesn't change the fact that much of the current roster is likely to regress. It could counterbalance it and I support trying to compete next year, but I'm not betting on guys duplicating their success. Literally almost 75% of the roster had career years. That's a lot. This reminds me of the Fear-The-Deer Bucks. It was a good year, but it wasn't built around great young prospects and it's not really a sign of many good years to come. They'll need to get lucky again to duplicate this.

 

It reminds me of arguing why I thought Braun, Villar, and Guerra were major regression candidates last year. A lot of people didn't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

 

Fear the Deer year is a great comparison.

 

Fangraphs had us ranked all year as having a bottom 3-4 roster. To take that to 86 wins is phenomenal and unlikely to repeat itself which is one of many reasons why you don't sign an Arrieta or a Lynn.

 

I'd rather build around the young guys or sign some super cheap stop gaps if the Brewers don't want to start service time.

[coolhandluke121]

 

The big breakouts last year include Shaw, Santana, Pina, Chase, Knebel, and Hader to some degree. You could say Sogard, but he was a bench bat for the most part. Of those guys, Hader and Santana are by far the most likely to have similar success. Pina and Chase likely to regress. Knebel, Shaw, and possibly Sogard I would think are most likely to remain flat where they were. Guys like Braun, Villar, Arcia, Broxton...regressed last year. At each of those positions I would anticipate significant improvement this season.

 

You can't just limit it to "big breakouts", but even there you forgot Thames and Nelson who were either replacement level or not even in the majors just the year before - and in their physical primes no less. Nearly everyone on the team exceeded expectations. But I gotta bow out at this point. Anybody who says Shaw, Knebel, and Sogard are likely to remain flat isn't ready to be objective about their favorite team, and that's fine. That's what fans are for.

 

I don't even fully disagree with you as I think expectations were a little too low. I was expecting some guys to have career years. But it's ridiculous to suggest they're not due for some significant regression after the year they just had. They have a lot of work to do if they want to win 86 again.

[Brewer Fever]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

[KeithStone53151]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

 

This is a great point, and kinda what I was getting at to some degree. Our roster was generally young compared to other teams in the league, and looks as if it may get even younger this year.

[Warning Track Power]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

I am a very much an optimist and not cynical in the least. Expecting some type of regression from these guys is not pessimism. It's looking at a situation from an unknown perspective. Had you told me Santana and Shaw would both hit .270ish and 30+ HRs at this time last year, I would have called you overly optimistic. Not saying they didn't have it in them, I just had never seen it before. Now that I have seen it, if I see them replicate it in 2018, I will call that their baseline as a ballplayer. I need another full season as a regular to really make an informed decision.

[rcc]

Why can't players finally hit and field to the best of their ability and not have fans constantly say they will regress.

 

I just don't get it. Why can't we applaud them for their accomplishments and not place the regression term on them.

 

This place should be named the Milwaukee Brewer Regression thread.

 

I thought it was the off-season plan for the Brewers thread.

 

Rant over.

[StearnsFTW]

I wouldn't do much in FA. I'd like a reliever, preferably a lefty. Minor makes a ton of sense, but he'll be expensive. I'd also take a flyer on Chatwood if I can get him for like 3/21-24. Don't know how likely that is.

 

I would explore consolidation trades to get some value for prospects. I wouldn't be averse to trading 2-3 position player prospects for a young mlb'er or other pitching prospects.

 

Other than that, I'm good going into next season. Try Hader in the rotation no matter what for me.

[coolhandluke121]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

 

It's not just about age. Most of them had much better years than what you would realistically expect based on their prior history. A player's 5-year track record trumps his previous season when making projections. That should be painfully obvious. Maybe Santana isn't a regression candidate but a large chunk of the team is. You're being a homer if you argue otherwise.

[clancyphile]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

 

This is one point.

 

Santana and Phillips are both going to be assets. Maybe they face some adjustments in 2018. With Nelson out, it's time to see if Anderson is for real and if Suter and Woodruff can be rotation contributors for the Crew.

 

The fact is, 2018 is a season to give these guys a shot, and see what happens. A step back in the W-L may happen, but for the long term, it will do the Crew good.

[Humans Need Water]

Anyone who thinks we have more regression candidates than breakout candidates doesn't understand normal athletic trajectory. Young players tend to get better, older players tend to decline, and players in their mid to late 20's often level out around their peak for a few years.

 

To have Sanatana, Hader, and Phillips on a regression list is to use a nice word - pessimistic. And Shaw is 27 years old. He might even have low enough miles on him to put in the "can still improve" category. But he's in his prime years so there's every reason to believe he can approximate last season. Same goes for Anderson and Suter - in their athletic prime years and low miles.

 

Of course any one of these players could crash and burn. But then again every older player could outdo themselves and actually have better 2018's than 2017. You just don't know. However the fundamental reason why statistical forecast models are so accurate is because they account for age, experience, and the typical trajectory of an athlete's career. Santana, Hader, and Phillips should all be projected by models to provide even more.

 

It's not just about age. Most of them had much better years than what you would realistically expect based on their prior history. A player's 5-year track record trumps his previous season when making projections. That should be painfully obvious. Maybe Santana isn't a regression candidate but a large chunk of the team is. You're being a homer if you argue otherwise.

lol at your last line

 

*Most* of the 2017 team did not have *much better* years than *realistically* expected. Nelson, Chase, Knebel, Sogard are the guys that nobody saw performing at that level. If you're surprised by Santana, Thames, Shaw, Arcia, etc I suggest you dig much deeper into one's background, skill set, mechanics, swing/approach adjustments, etc etc etc because there's an absurd amount of variables in play and not everyone fits the same mold - it goes well beyond their 5yr track record vs previous season.

 

And why a 5yr track record and not say 3yrs? If you argue against 3yrs you're probably a homer

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

 

*Most* of the 2017 team did not have *much better* years than *realistically* expected.

 

Then why did they win 86 games? You're not making any sense.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

 

 

*Most* of the 2017 team did not have *much better* years than *realistically* expected.

 

Then why did they win 86 games? You're not making any sense.

 

Perhaps it's because Sterns managed to put a solid team on the field? Yes, we all know last year's team had its warts, including streaky hitting and a lot of swing-and-miss tendencies, but overall besides a little swoon after the All Star Break, it was a consistent team. Saying a player that is in the prime years of his career age-wise, such as Santana, Shaw, Knebel and Anderson, is due to regress just isn't very realistic. Now if you are arguing that Braun, Sogard and Thames are due to regress due to age, then you probably have something. Your hypothesis also doesn't take into account young players such as Arcia and Phillips that can realistically have break-out years, or talented bounce-back candidates like Villar. Even Broxton, should he not be traded, is at the age where he could realistically improve.

[KeithStone53151]

 

 

 

*Most* of the 2017 team did not have *much better* years than *realistically* expected.

 

Then why did they win 86 games? You're not making any sense.

 

Perhaps it's because Sterns managed to put a solid team on the field? Yes, we all know last year's team had its warts, including streaky hitting and a lot of swing-and-miss tendencies, but overall besides a little swoon after the All Star Break, it was a consistent team. Saying a player that is in the prime years of his career age-wise, such as Santana, Shaw, Knebel and Anderson, is due to regress just isn't very realistic. Now if you are arguing that Braun, Sogard and Thames are due to regress due to age, then you probably have something. Your hypothesis also doesn't take into account young players such as Arcia and Phillips that can realistically have break-out years, or talented bounce-back candidates like Villar. Even Broxton, should he not be traded, is at the age where he could realistically improve.

 

Luke, I feel like you must have looked at fangraphs and seen all their nasty projections for our young players and assumed we would be terrible. Fangraphs is absolutely awful at projecting young players accurately. In fairness, it isn't easy to do. It's hard to know if/when Arcia will break out, or what Phillips will do offensively when he comes up. Fangraphs tends to assume all young players will be awful until they prove otherwise, especially on small market teams.

 

For me, the only guys who's production was overly surprising last year were Anderson, Villar, and Sogard to some degree. Guys like Shaw, Santana, Pina, Nelson, Knebel, etc...had track records/talent that told us they could potentially produce like they did. Just because fangraphs probably said Shaw and Santana would post mid 700 ops numbers, Nelson would post a mid 4s era, and knebel mid 3s...doesn't mean these guys are all regression candidates.

[bill hAll Star]

To me, unless the bullpen is drastically improved depth-wise or they bring in Lynn or Arrieta, even if a lot of the other guys were not a mirage (Shaw, Anderson, Knebel, Sogard, Thames, Brinson, Phillips, Arcia) all either play the same or improve, the team will be in some trouble.

 

Without an addition to the rotation, you've got Anderson and Davies that are both good pitchers (let's assume they repeat/improve) and then you've got Suter, Hader, Woodruff probably and maybe Burnes or Guerra or Wilkerson factor in down the road. All of those guys are 4-5 inning guys a lot of nights. The bullpen is going to get torn up and there is also major risk that every guy in the lower portion of the rotation does not provide a good season.

 

I think that even being optimistic about guys having the same or an improved year could still see for more losses.

 

Arrieta or Lynn may be a 3 WAR pitcher this year in theory, but I think it could be worth 6 or 7 wins total because you are putting one more risk in the rotation of one of the rotation guys being a mirage (Suter, let's just say in this example) and then cycling through our AAAA guys that also may stink, meaning we end up with a -2 or -3 WAR guy in the rotation with poor performances and burning through our bullpen.

 

I think you could probably also get by with adding 2-3 free agent signings in the bullpen and being fine with the fact that Suter, Hader, or Woodruff may only go 4 innings some nights and yank them even if they're doing "OK" but knowing that the 3rd time the order that they'll struggle.

[coolhandluke121]

Is there a thread where we can find what people said about Villar and Guerra at the end of last season? I'm sure there were plenty of people saying 2016 was the "real" Villar or the "real" Guerra, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm curious to see if it's the same people. We had some arguments about it on realgm too. How anybody could basically say that Knebel, Shaw, Anderson, Santana are all truly ~top-10% players at their positions is beyond me, but that's what you're implying if you say they're not due for regression. It's like people were basically saying Villar was roughly a top-5 SS last year. I'll be happy if we just don't have several more players go completely down the sh*tter like he did.

[KeithStone53151]

Is there a thread where we can find what people said about Villar and Guerra at the end of last season? I'm sure there were plenty of people saying 2016 was the "real" Villar or the "real" Guerra, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm curious to see if it's the same people. We had some arguments about it on realgm too. How anybody could basically say that Knebel, Shaw, Anderson, Santana are all truly ~top-10% players at their positions is beyond me, but that's what you're implying if you say they're not due for regression. It's like people were basically saying Villar was roughly a top-5 SS last year. I'll be happy if we just don't have several more players go completely down the sh*tter like he did.

 

I'll be honest that I thought Villar would break out, and I'm incredibly surprised by the year he had this year. His true talent is probably somewhere in between those extremes, closer to 2016 than 2017. But I didn't expect Guerra to post anything near what he did in 2016 again. Same with Jungmann a couple years back. I had him tabbed as almost a surefire regression candidate. Anderson is a bit younger, and we've all seen pitchers with plus changeups and command have solid or better results(marco estrada). Him finding mid 90s heat is a bonus and probably the difference between him being a low 4s ERA guy and a mid 3s ERA guy. I'm not convinced Anderson will maintain the velocity uptick, part of the reason I could see him regressing...but he won't be Guerra bad. Santana I believe is what he is, he could in fact be better than his 2017 season. Look no further than his minor league track record. Knebel was a first round talent as a known RP. As he's physically matured, he's added ticks to his fastball and become dominant. This shouldn't be overly surprising as he was 25 last year, it's not like Guerra who all of a sudden found mid 90s in his early 30s. And with Shaw, he's at his career peak. He could regress a bit, but he'll likely be a decent/good player for at least a couple more years. And he may even have some upside left if he isn't playing through injuries that he shouldn't be playing through in a playoff chase again.

[bill hAll Star]

Is there a thread where we can find what people said about Villar and Guerra at the end of last season? I'm sure there were plenty of people saying 2016 was the "real" Villar or the "real" Guerra, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm curious to see if it's the same people. We had some arguments about it on realgm too. How anybody could basically say that Knebel, Shaw, Anderson, Santana are all truly ~top-10% players at their positions is beyond me, but that's what you're implying if you say they're not due for regression. It's like people were basically saying Villar was roughly a top-5 SS last year. I'll be happy if we just don't have several more players go completely down the sh*tter like he did.

 

I'll be honest that I thought Villar would break out, and I'm incredibly surprised by the year he had this year. His true talent is probably somewhere in between those extremes, closer to 2016 than 2017. But I didn't expect Guerra to post anything near what he did in 2016 again. Same with Jungmann a couple years back. I had him tabbed as almost a surefire regression candidate. Anderson is a bit younger, and we've all seen pitchers with plus changeups and command have solid or better results(marco estrada). Him finding mid 90s heat is a bonus and probably the difference between him being a low 4s ERA guy and a mid 3s ERA guy. I'm not convinced Anderson will maintain the velocity uptick, part of the reason I could see him regressing...but he won't be Guerra bad. Santana I believe is what he is, he could in fact be better than his 2017 season. Look no further than his minor league track record. Knebel was a first round talent as a known RP. As he's physically matured, he's added ticks to his fastball and become dominant. This shouldn't be overly surprising as he was 25 last year, it's not like Guerra who all of a sudden found mid 90s in his early 30s. And with Shaw, he's at his career peak. He could regress a bit, but he'll likely be a decent/good player for at least a couple more years. And he may even have some upside left if he isn't playing through injuries that he shouldn't be playing through in a playoff chase again.

 

 

I think that the issue here is that if you assume Santana/Shaw/Knebel/Davies/Anderson do about the same, you're gonna need a big step forward from Arcia, Hader, Woodruff, Brinson, or Phillips to make a big difference. Because with the exact same performances (say Brinson breaks out but Shaw has a down year and everyone else is about the same), you're basically just taking last year's team and subtracting the 5-6 games that Jimmy Nelson was worth.

[KeithStone53151]

Is there a thread where we can find what people said about Villar and Guerra at the end of last season? I'm sure there were plenty of people saying 2016 was the "real" Villar or the "real" Guerra, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm curious to see if it's the same people. We had some arguments about it on realgm too. How anybody could basically say that Knebel, Shaw, Anderson, Santana are all truly ~top-10% players at their positions is beyond me, but that's what you're implying if you say they're not due for regression. It's like people were basically saying Villar was roughly a top-5 SS last year. I'll be happy if we just don't have several more players go completely down the sh*tter like he did.

 

I'll be honest that I thought Villar would break out, and I'm incredibly surprised by the year he had this year. His true talent is probably somewhere in between those extremes, closer to 2016 than 2017. But I didn't expect Guerra to post anything near what he did in 2016 again. Same with Jungmann a couple years back. I had him tabbed as almost a surefire regression candidate. Anderson is a bit younger, and we've all seen pitchers with plus changeups and command have solid or better results(marco estrada). Him finding mid 90s heat is a bonus and probably the difference between him being a low 4s ERA guy and a mid 3s ERA guy. I'm not convinced Anderson will maintain the velocity uptick, part of the reason I could see him regressing...but he won't be Guerra bad. Santana I believe is what he is, he could in fact be better than his 2017 season. Look no further than his minor league track record. Knebel was a first round talent as a known RP. As he's physically matured, he's added ticks to his fastball and become dominant. This shouldn't be overly surprising as he was 25 last year, it's not like Guerra who all of a sudden found mid 90s in his early 30s. And with Shaw, he's at his career peak. He could regress a bit, but he'll likely be a decent/good player for at least a couple more years. And he may even have some upside left if he isn't playing through injuries that he shouldn't be playing through in a playoff chase again.

 

 

I think that the issue here is that if you assume Santana/Shaw/Knebel/Davies/Anderson do about the same, you're gonna need a big step forward from Arcia, Hader, Woodruff, Brinson, or Phillips to make a big difference. Because with the exact same performances (say Brinson breaks out but Shaw has a down year and everyone else is about the same), you're basically just taking last year's team and subtracting the 5-6 games that Jimmy Nelson was worth.

 

I'm not advocating for doing nothing. I'd like to see a starter on a 1 or 2 year deal, CC Sabathia type...he would be ideal in my opinion. Add a couple relievers. And that's correct, I'm banking on big steps forward from the young guys. We have to be able to count on young guys to perform to be successful as a small market franchise. We can't just buy a team like the Yankees and Red Sox, and even they bring up some players from their farm systems.