Braun to Start at 1B vs Lefties

[wildcat83]

With starting pitchers going shorter into games it makes it easier for this log jam to get at bats. As we get into bullpens I think lefty lineups switch over late and vice versa. Instead of total off days I think there will be quite a bit of 5/4 or 6/3 early on in the year. Could see the starter get 3 AB and the defensive sub or opposite handed player get 2.

[adambr2]

Everybody's getting pinched, besides probably Cain and Yelich. People keep looking

for the one guy who is going to lose the game of musical chairs here when really they're just all going to lose a little. Braun will lose some, Thames will lose some, Santana will lose some.

 

I know people want to assume if Braun looks good they're just going to slide Thames out and Braun becomes the everyday 1B. Resist the temptation to pencil in Braun for 130-140. We don't want that, it's not in our best interests or his, especially at a new position. If Braun cam give us 50 at 1st and 65 in the OF and 5 at DH of all healthy starts I'll gladly take that instead.

 

By some miracle even if Braun held up for 130-140 starts at 1st you can bet he'd be playing hurt and ineffective at times. Keep him rested frequently and keep him at his best.

[monty57]

From MLBtraderumors:

 

As third baseman Travis Shaw puts it: “Depth is a nice problem to have, but I’m sure it sucks individually for a couple of guys.”

 

It may not be public, it may not make a difference, but some players are going to be upset when they get benched far more often than they feel they should. We can run numbers and show how in a vacuum everyone will end up with an "acceptable" amount of PAs, but players will see themselves sitting on the bench on days when they feel they should be in the game.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yelich in RF is a waste of his defensive talents.

 

I see comments like this all the time. Is his range that bad in RF or is it just because of his arm? If his range is the same and it's just because of his arm, then it's a totally overblown deficiency. I see he hasn't played an inning of RF in the majors and I would assume that is 100% because of a man named Giancarlo Stanton and has nothing to do with Yelich's lack of defensive ability in RF.

[coolhandluke121]

Yelich in RF is a waste of his defensive talents.

 

I see comments like this all the time. Is his range that bad in RF or is it just because of his arm? If his range is the same and it's just because of his arm, then it's a totally overblown deficiency. I see he hasn't played an inning of RF in the majors and I would assume that is 100% because of a man named Giancarlo Stanton and has nothing to do with Yelich's lack of defensive ability in RF.

 

It's not just arm strength. Reads are different and experience matters. Ballparks aren't symmetric and if you've spent your whole career in the NL in LF, then you know a lot about where the wall is, where the warning track is, how to avoid glare from the sun, etc. Moving to RF takes that advantage away. Plus all the stuff you've learned about how hitters tend to slice and hook makes a difference too.

 

And arm strength is a pretty big deal IMO. I am generally more than willing and eager to challenge established dogma, but I think a good arm in RF is very important for run prevention.

[istanbultaye]

It would be mostly about his arm, but also, he just hasn't played the spot. Additionally, although he is an above average defender in LF, he's certainly not "Lorenzo Cain" level of above average, and he was definitely below average CF.

 

I think he would clearly be an upgrade defensively in RF over Braun or Santana, but either way you're going to have a below average defender in an outfield slot. If you put Yelich in RF though, there is a possibility that he ends up as average at best there, and you end up with average or below defense in 2 outfield spots, rather than just one. That's why people are saying it would be a waste to put him there.

[brewerfan82]

[sarcasm]I guess we should just get rid of him if that ends up being the best way to get guys in the lineup[/sarcasm]

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

From MLBtraderumors:

 

As third baseman Travis Shaw puts it: “Depth is a nice problem to have, but I’m sure it sucks individually for a couple of guys.”

 

It may not be public, it may not make a difference, but some players are going to be upset when they get benched far more often than they feel they should. We can run numbers and show how in a vacuum everyone will end up with an "acceptable" amount of PAs, but players will see themselves sitting on the bench on days when they feel they should be in the game.

 

Yep, which is why I believe the makeup of this roster is odd, if not stupid. Everyone is going to agree that having depth is nice, but typically on MLB teams, there is a pecking order of guys who are superstars, guys who are clear starters, and guys who are role players and reserves. Professional athletes by and large have big egos, and taking guys who have the talent to be superstars and clear starters, and telling them they are going to be platoon players or even reserves typically doesn't play well in the locker room. That point is alluded to in Shaw's quotes in Nightengale's story yesterday. It points to the fact that these guys are in the dark as to what is happening, and that is causing frustration. We can scream until we're blue in the face that depth is a good thing and these guys need to man up and play their role, but that's not really how professional athletes are wired.

 

I am bullish on the team's chances this year, but if they fail to live up to expectations, I fear it isn't going to be entirely because of a lack of solid starting pitching. The stupid roster make-up could theoretically cause locker room issues at some point. Both of those problems are going to be on Stearns's plate, too, because he's the only one that had the power to do something about them and decided not to.

[jerichoholicninja]

Teams shuttle AAAA guys and utility scrubs between LF and RF all the time, I know there are differences but if those guys can do it I just can't believe the drop off of an above average defender like Yelich going from LF to RF for maybe 1/3 of the games is any deterrent from doing it. I've posted my feelings on the whole doesn't have the arm to play RF before so I won't go into that again. But if we're talking Yelich vs Santana for RF, Yelich is going to get to and catch a lot more balls than Santana will and I'll take that over Santana's arm any day.

[monty57]

Teams shuttle AAAA guys and utility scrubs between LF and RF all the time, I know there are differences but if those guys can do it I just can't believe the drop off of an above average defender like Yelich going from LF to RF for maybe 1/3 of the games is any deterrent from doing it. I've posted my feelings on the whole doesn't have the arm to play RF before so I won't go into that again. But if we're talking Yelich vs Santana for RF, Yelich is going to get to and catch a lot more balls than Santana will and I'll take that over Santana's arm any day.

 

And when that happens, you will have Braun in LF instead of Yelich, negating the positives of having Yelich in RF instead of Santana. Until something happens that changes the roster (injury, trade, etc.), we will always have at least one below average defender in the OF. Good thing is that with Yelich and Cain we will still have a much better defensive OF than we've seen in Milwaukee in a while.

[sveumrules]

It points to the fact that these guys are in the dark as to what is happening

 

I find it highly unlikely that CC hasn't communicated to these guys some idea of what their roles are going to be this year & how it compares to their recent usage.

 

Yelich: starting LF, backup CF/RF when Cain/Domingo sit. One game off every other week. 149 starts. (Yelich has averaged 145 games over the last 4 seasons).

 

Cain/Domingo: starting CF/RF. One day off a week each. 136 starts. (Cain has averaged 133 games over the last 4 seasons, Domingo has started 250 games over one full & two partial seasons or about 125 games per full season).

 

Thames: starting 1B vs RHP. 115 starts. (Thames started 103 games at 1B last year).

 

Braun: starting 1B vs LHP (47), LF when Yelich is resting or in CF/RF (65). DH (10). 122 starts. (Averaged 129 games over the last 4 seasons).

[monty57]

It points to the fact that these guys are in the dark as to what is happening

 

I find it highly unlikely that CC hasn't communicated to these guys some idea of what their roles are going to be this year & how it compares to their recent usage.

 

Yelich: starting LF, backup CF/RF when Cain/Domingo sit. One game off every other week. 149 starts. (Yelich has averaged 145 games over the last 4 seasons).

 

Cain/Domingo: starting CF/RF. One day off a week each. 136 starts. (Cain has averaged 133 games over the last 4 seasons, Domingo has started 250 games over one full & two partial seasons or about 125 games per full season).

 

Thames: starting 1B vs RHP. 115 starts. (Thames started 103 games at 1B last year).

 

Braun: starting 1B vs LHP (47), LF when Yelich is resting or in CF/RF (65). DH (10). 122 starts. (Averaged 129 games over the last 4 seasons).

 

But those average games are due to injury, not due to being benched when healthy. All of these guys are very good players who would be starting every day for any other team in the league. Injuries don't happen on schedule, so we'll see how things work out.

[pacopete4]

Injuries don't need to occur for it to work. The days of 162 games played are over. Dead. And good riddance. If we keep five guys(Braun, Santana, Yelich, Cain, Thames), who can play at an all-star level, fresh for the entire season, that is a huge win for this team. They will be better because of it. Counsell's job is to make sure they all buy into that and I have a feeling he will.

 

It's either that or one or more of those players won't produce or gets hurt and then playing time becomes really simple.

[wildcat83]

Injuries don't need to occur for it to work. The days of 162 games played are over. Dead. And good riddance. If we keep five guys(Braun, Santana, Yelich, Cain, Thames), who can play at an all-star level, fresh for the entire season, that is a huge win for this team. They will be better because of it. Counsell's job is to make sure they all buy into that and I have a feeling he will.

 

It's either that or one or more of those players won't produce or gets hurt and then playing time becomes really simple.

 

Yea, I think this is a good thing, odd, but good. Rested Braun always seems to go on a tear right when he comes back from injury. Plenty of rest is a positive for him.

 

Everyone talks about trading Santana but then we have less depth and still have 2 LF. Still odd and someone playing out of place. The only trade that fixes it is Braun going and bringing Phillips up to be the defensive replacement for Santana, and a Braun trade isn't happening.

 

Basically lace em up and let's go see what we got.

 

Still dying to see what finally happens with Aguilar/Choi though.

[monty57]

Everyone talks about trading Santana but then we have less depth and still have 2 LF.

 

The thought behind trading Santana was that we would get an upgrade at another position, notably starting pitching. One of those LF could play passable defense at RF, but they could not start 30 games on the mound. I would gladly lose our depth at MLB OFs if we could have received a good, young starting pitcher for Santana. I'm sure Stearns would have loved that too, but unfortunately the market for corner OF dried up, and we are in the situation we're in. At the end of the day, "odd" roster and all, we are a talented team that should compete for the playoffs. I am very excited to get the season going after a long off-season.

[topper09er]

The days of 162 games played are over. Dead. And good riddance.

 

They are adding extra off days in the season this year (why we are starting on a Thursday instead of Monday) so if anything 162 game seasons should be more common. And I have no idea why that would be a bad thing, the star players should play every game if possible. If Prince Fielder could do it no reason a guy like Yelich shouldn't be able to.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Everyone talks about trading Santana but then we have less depth and still have 2 LF.

 

The thought behind trading Santana was that we would get an upgrade at another position, notably starting pitching. One of those LF could play passable defense at RF, but they could not start 30 games on the mound. I would gladly lose our depth at MLB OFs if we could have received a good, young starting pitcher for Santana. I'm sure Stearns would have loved that too, but unfortunately the market for corner OF dried up, and we are in the situation we're in. At the end of the day, "odd" roster and all, we are a talented team that should compete for the playoffs. I am very excited to get the season going after a long off-season.

 

Not to mention the fact that Santana, while a valuable hitter, does not fit the way Stearns is remaking the lineup. You don't acquire Yelich and Cain, two high-contact, low strikeout guys, and stick with the opposite in Santana. I have a feeling there will eventually be a market for Santana. Hopefully he starts hot, and that market develops further.

[pacopete4]

The days of 162 games played are over. Dead. And good riddance.

 

They are adding extra off days in the season this year (why we are starting on a Thursday instead of Monday) so if anything 162 game seasons should be more common. And I have no idea why that would be a bad thing, the star players should play every game if possible. If Prince Fielder could do it no reason a guy like Yelich shouldn't be able to.

I am a firm believer that you will get more out of a player, production-wise, in 145-150 games than you would in 162 as long as you have quality players behind them (like we do). For me, it isn't about the iron-man streaks of saying you played 162 games it is the quality of output you get from playing those 162 versus 145-150. If I was a GM of a franchise or manager of a ball club, I would build my teams for this. It will only help players during that season and in the long run of their careers.

[istanbultaye]

Everyone talks about trading Santana but then we have less depth and still have 2 LF.

 

The thought behind trading Santana was that we would get an upgrade at another position, notably starting pitching. One of those LF could play passable defense at RF, but they could not start 30 games on the mound. I would gladly lose our depth at MLB OFs if we could have received a good, young starting pitcher for Santana. I'm sure Stearns would have loved that too, but unfortunately the market for corner OF dried up, and we are in the situation we're in. At the end of the day, "odd" roster and all, we are a talented team that should compete for the playoffs. I am very excited to get the season going after a long off-season.

 

Not to mention the fact that Santana, while a valuable hitter, does not fit the way Stearns is remaking the lineup. You don't acquire Yelich and Cain, two high-contact, low strikeout guys, and stick with the opposite in Santana. I have a feeling there will eventually be a market for Santana. Hopefully he starts hot, and that market develops further.

 

I don't necessarily think that Stearns acquired Yelich and Cain with the opinion that he wants hitters like them in every spot of the lineup. They are great hitters, and they have instantly made the top of the lineup incredible, but they aren't quite the mashers that you would want lower in the lineup. Though Santana does have high K rate, he also has a very good OBP, and loads of power. I think the fact that he wasn't just traded for whatever they could get is not only indicative of a weak market for corner OF this offseason, but also that Stearns sees a lot of value in having him in the lineup. With that said, he is still the most tradeable of the MLB outfielders, so I do think he will move on at some point, and Phillips will get his shot, but the market has to heat up first.

[monty57]

I am a firm believer that you will get more out of a player, production-wise, in 145-150 games than you would in 162 as long as you have quality players behind them (like we do). For me, it isn't about the iron-man streaks of saying you played 162 games it is the quality of output you get from playing those 162 versus 145-150. If I was a GM of a franchise or manager of a ball club, I would build my teams for this. It will only help players during that season and in the long run of their careers.

 

Very few teams have enough quality to justify sitting a star 10% of the time if he's healthy. The extra 5-10 starts by the star, even if he's tired, are likely going to be better than what the backup would provide. Generally, if the backup is good enough to justify sitting the star, then that backup should be starting somewhere and you're wasting his talent as a bench player.

 

The only reason we have that quality in the OF is because the market for OF dried up, so our quality backup means we'll have to have less-than-stellar production elsewhere. I'd be fine with Yelich playing an extra 5-10 games, even if he's a little tired, if it meant we traded for an upgrade at SP, allowing that SP to get 30 starts with Suter playing a valuable role as "swingman."

 

The relative increase in production at SP should far outwiegh any benefit received by sitting Yelich on the bench 5-10 extra days for rest.

 

But that trade didn't happen. I'm far too excited about the start of the season (odd roster and all) to continue to dwell on this. I am going to cheer for Woodruff and Suter to succeed. They may be question marks, but their success would greatly help the Brewers now and into the future. It's time to put the offseason in the past and watch the Brewers as they hopefully make the next step into the playoffs in 2018.

[pacopete4]

I am a firm believer that you will get more out of a player, production-wise, in 145-150 games than you would in 162 as long as you have quality players behind them (like we do). For me, it isn't about the iron-man streaks of saying you played 162 games it is the quality of output you get from playing those 162 versus 145-150. If I was a GM of a franchise or manager of a ball club, I would build my teams for this. It will only help players during that season and in the long run of their careers.

 

Very few teams have enough quality to justify sitting a star 10% of the time if he's healthy. The extra 5-10 starts by the star, even if he's tired, are likely going to be better than what the backup would provide. Generally, if the backup is good enough to justify sitting the star, then that backup should be starting somewhere and you're wasting his talent as a bench player.

Eh, I don't know about that. If the Brewers 4th OF was Brett Phillips this season, I would be all for them playing him to keep those other guys fresh. I can even think back to when Gerardo Parra was on our team and we have Khrush - Gomez - Braun as our starters but Parra was plenty good enough to "steal" starts away from those three that were good starters. I just think there is a new approach to how these players can be used and I'm glad the Brewers have this "problem" of having too many good players on their team.

[JosephC]

If Yelich stays healthy throughout the year and doesn't start at least 154 games then it will be a major disappointment. The Brewers, as a small market team, cannot give up the resources they gave up for Yelich with the idea that they will sit him extra games and downgrade that number of plate appearances by inserting "lesser" players into the lineup.

[topper09er]

I am a firm believer that you will get more out of a player, production-wise, in 145-150 games than you would in 162 as long as you have quality players behind them (like we do). For me, it isn't about the iron-man streaks of saying you played 162 games it is the quality of output you get from playing those 162 versus 145-150. If I was a GM of a franchise or manager of a ball club, I would build my teams for this. It will only help players during that season and in the long run of their careers.

 

Very few teams have enough quality to justify sitting a star 10% of the time if he's healthy. The extra 5-10 starts by the star, even if he's tired, are likely going to be better than what the backup would provide. Generally, if the backup is good enough to justify sitting the star, then that backup should be starting somewhere and you're wasting his talent as a bench player.

 

The only reason we have that quality in the OF is because the market for OF dried up, so our quality backup means we'll have to have less-than-stellar production elsewhere. I'd be fine with Yelich playing an extra 5-10 games, even if he's a little tired, if it meant we traded for an upgrade at SP, allowing that SP to get 30 starts with Suter playing a valuable role as "swingman."

 

The relative increase in production at SP should far outwiegh any benefit received by sitting Yelich on the bench 5-10 extra days for rest.

 

But that trade didn't happen. I'm far too excited about the start of the season (odd roster and all) to continue to dwell on this. I am going to cheer for Woodruff and Suter to succeed. They may be question marks, but their success would greatly help the Brewers now and into the future. It's time to put the offseason in the past and watch the Brewers as they hopefully make the next step into the playoffs in 2018.

 

 

Totally agree Monty, I don't think there is any evidence that you would get more production from a player if they sit 10 extra games, and if so, a less than 100% starter is better than a bench player. If that is not the case, then you are wasting that bench player's near starter level of talent sitting them on the bench for 140 games, and you would benefit your team much more by trading that near starter bench player for another player who could start for you and contribute more.

[brewerfan82]

Everyone talks about trading Santana but then we have less depth and still have 2 LF.

We'd still have Broxton and Phillips for depth, which is still pretty excellent. I'm not sure of many teams that would have those two guys forced into AAA the way we do.

[jerichoholicninja]

I am a firm believer that you will get more out of a player, production-wise, in 145-150 games than you would in 162 as long as you have quality players behind them (like we do). For me, it isn't about the iron-man streaks of saying you played 162 games it is the quality of output you get from playing those 162 versus 145-150. If I was a GM of a franchise or manager of a ball club, I would build my teams for this. It will only help players during that season and in the long run of their careers.

 

Very few teams have enough quality to justify sitting a star 10% of the time if he's healthy. The extra 5-10 starts by the star, even if he's tired, are likely going to be better than what the backup would provide. Generally, if the backup is good enough to justify sitting the star, then that backup should be starting somewhere and you're wasting his talent as a bench player.

 

The only reason we have that quality in the OF is because the market for OF dried up, so our quality backup means we'll have to have less-than-stellar production elsewhere. I'd be fine with Yelich playing an extra 5-10 games, even if he's a little tired, if it meant we traded for an upgrade at SP, allowing that SP to get 30 starts with Suter playing a valuable role as "swingman."

 

The relative increase in production at SP should far outwiegh any benefit received by sitting Yelich on the bench 5-10 extra days for rest.

 

But that trade didn't happen. I'm far too excited about the start of the season (odd roster and all) to continue to dwell on this. I am going to cheer for Woodruff and Suter to succeed. They may be question marks, but their success would greatly help the Brewers now and into the future. It's time to put the offseason in the past and watch the Brewers as they hopefully make the next step into the playoffs in 2018.

 

 

Totally agree Monty, I don't think there is any evidence that you would get more production from a player if they sit 10 extra games, and if so, a less than 100% starter is better than a bench player. If that is not the case, then you are wasting that bench player's near starter level of talent sitting them on the bench for 140 games, and you would benefit your team much more by trading that near starter bench player for another player who could start for you and contribute more.

 

During the Pirates back to back playoff years they applied the strategy of playing guys less after learning from the Golden State Warriors whose research showed that playing their starters less kept them fresh for the playoffs and improved the performance of their bench. Pittsburgh wasn't just not starting guys though, they would give the starter 2 or 3 PA's and then sub them out. There was an SI article about it at the time.