My ultimate frustration with the Brewers as a franchise: their inability to sustain success

[The stache]

Good morning, Brewers fans.

 

Last night, after the Brewers got blown out by the then last place Reds, I made a post to my Facebook page about the game, and alluded to Milwaukee's inability to sustain success as being my ultimate source of frustration as a Brewers fan. As I waited for responses from friends that still live in Wisconsin, and follow the team as religiously as I do, this thought crossed my mind: when was the last time the Brewers made back-to-back playoff appearances? Of course, I knew that answer right away: the 1981 and 1982 seasons. After losing the '82 Series to the Cardinals, it took 26 years for the Brewers to even get back to the post season again. While we have made three trips to the playoffs in the last eleven years, and this is clearly a step in the right direction, merely getting into the post season is not enough. Ultimately, the Brewers play to win the World Series, and the front office attempts to do this by maximizing their window for success: that means building a young, talented, and controllable team within the budgetary constraints established by ownership. Each post season appearance provides the Brewers another opportunity to win it all. This, obviously, is not a revelation.

 

I then began looking outside of Milwaukee as a means of comparing how the Brewers have performed relative to the other (now) twenty-nine teams in the Major Leagues. Not only recently, but since the Brewers came to be as the Seattle Pilots expansion team in 1969. How have the Brewers, as a smaller market franchise, compared to teams with a similar profile, as well as the big market teams. I first decided to look at all the teams, and document their most recent run of consecutive years in the post season. Teams with the most recent occurrences of back-to-back post season appearances are listed first. If they have appeared in more than two consecutive seasons, I've indicated this, as well. If that particular franchise won the World Series in a listed season, I've bolded it in blue. If they won the American or National League pennant, I've bolded it in green. If they reached their respective League Championship Series, I've bolded it in red. Much of what I found was expected, but some things began to surprise me.

 

Most recent consecutive post season appearances by franchise

 

Los Angeles Dodgers (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013)

Chicago Cubs (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015)

Boston Red Sox (2018, 2017, 2016)

New York Yankees (2018, 2017)

Cleveland Indians (2018, 2017, 2016)

Houston Astros (2018, 2017)

Colorado Rockies (2018, 2017)

Washington Nationals (2017, 2016)

New York Mets (2016, 2015)

Toronto Blue Jays (2016, 2015)

St. Louis Cardinals (2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011)

Kansas City Royals (2015, 2014)

Texas Rangers (2016, 2015)

Pittsburgh Pirates (2015, 2014, 2013)

Oakland A's (2014, 2013, 2012)

Detroit Tigers (2014, 2013, 2012, 2011)

Atlanta Braves (2013, 2012)

Cincinnati Reds (2013, 2012)

Philadelphia Phillies (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007)

Tampa Bay Rays (2011, 2010)

Minnesota Twins (2010, 2009)

Los Angeles Angels (2009, 2008, 2007)

San Diego Padres (2006, 2005)

San Francisco Giants (2003, 2002)

Arizona Diamondbacks (2002, 2001)

Seattle Mariners (2001, 2000)

Baltimore Orioles (1997, 1996)

Milwaukee Brewers (1982, 1981)

Chicago White Sox (have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons; won the World Series in 2005)

Miami Marlins (have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons; won the World Series in 1997 and 2003)

 

Clearly, back-to-back playoff appearances are not the only indication of sustained success. For instance, while the Giants have not been in the playoffs for consecutive years since 2002 and 2003, they made it to the playoffs in 2010, 2012 and 2014, and won the World Series in all three years. But it's a good place to start, because while good teams can fall short of expected results for a myriad of reasons, reaching the post season indicates a successful campaign. Those strings of consecutive seasons likely indicate a strong core, and a front office that is able to deal with adversity.

 

Though I have the White Sox and Marlins listed below the Brewers, as they have never appeared in the playoffs in back-to-back seasons, they have each recently won at least one World Series, Chicago winning in 2005, and Miami most recently in 2003. That raised another question for me: the Brewers last made it to the Series in 1982. What is each team's most recent Series appearance? I then compiled a list (bold blue indicating they won a World Championship in that year):

 

Most recent World Series appearance

 

Boston Red Sox, 2018

Los Angeles Dodgers, 2018

Houston Astros, 2017

Chicago Cubs, 2016

Cleveland Indians, 2016

Kansas City Royals, 2015

New York Mets, 2015

San Francisco Giants, 2014

St. Louis Cardinals, 2013

Detroit Tigers, 2012

Texas Rangers, 2011

New York Yankees, 2009

Philadelphia Phillies, 2009

Tampa Bay Rays, 2008

Colorado Rockies, 2007

Chicago White Sox, 2005

Miami Marlins, 2003

Los Angeles Angels, 2002

Arizona Diamondbacks, 2001

Atlanta Braves, 1999

San Diego Padres, 1998

Toronto Blue Jays, 1993

Minnesota Twins, 1991

Cincinnati Reds, 1990

Oakland A's, 1990

Baltimore Orioles, 1983

Milwaukee Brewers, 1982

Pittsburgh Pirates, 1979

Seattle Mariners have never appeared in the World Series

Washington Nationals have never appeared in the World Series

 

This got me thinking further. Should a team that makes the post season on a regular basis, but doesn't win the World Series, still be considered successful? Yes, I believe so, and I would assume most on our forum agree. Only one team can win the Series every year. A 162 game season is a marathon, and so much can go wrong to derail a team over the course of the season. Injuries can truly decimate a team's chance to win it all. But a team that consistently makes the post season should be considered as having a successful run. If they consistently go deep into the playoffs, even more so. This, I believe, is the truest measure of a team's success. Not just making the playoffs, not just winning the World Series (though that is clearly the main goal). Winning divisions, making the playoffs, and making deep runs in the post season-everything should be considered. Think about a team like the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s. The Braves franchise had fallen on hard times, with a combined record of 251-392 between 1987-1990 (.390). In 1991, the franchise turned it all around. From 1991 to 1999, they made the post season eight times in nine years (and they didn't make it in 1994 because the post season was cancelled by the strike). Their rotation featured three future Hall of Famers in Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, and by 1995, their high powered offense featured future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones at third, and another likely Hall of Famer, Fred McGriff, held down first base. Over this nine year span, the Braves went 860-532, good for a whopping .618 winning percentage. On a 162 game basis, this means they averaged 100 wins a season for nearly a decade. They won only one World Series (in 1995, beating the Indians), but they won eight division titles, made it to the World Series five times, and the NLCS three other times.

 

So, I decided to compare all the franchises in baseball since Milwaukee joined the Major Leagues in 1969 (as the Seattle Pilots, moving to Milwaukee for the 1970 season), and weighed the amount of success each team has had in this last half century.

 

I devised a point scoring system:

 

10 points awarded for a World Series Championship

6 points awarded for an American or National League pennant (they made it to, and lost the World Series)

3 points awarded for an American or National League Championship Series appearance

1 point awarded for any other post season appearance

 

This system is not perfect, of course, and some will argue that a team should get additional points for winning their division, as opposed to just securing a Wild Card spot. I would agree with this, and I will include this in my assessment at the next step. I've tried to award more points for more heavily-weighted accomplishments. Simply making the playoffs, while an achievement in and of itself, is not as hard as it once was. With the implementation of the Wild Card game, ten of the thirty teams in the Majors will reach the post season in 2019. Getting to the League Championship Series should represent an increased point total beyond just making the playoffs, as should winning the AL or NL pennant. Finally, winning the World Series is the ultimate prize, and should receive the highest point total.

 

Note: A team is only rewarded at one level, per season; ie a team will not get 1 point for making the post season, and another 3 for making it to the ALCS or NLCS.

 

Point totals by Major League team, 1969 to 2018.

Team name, Total points (total playoff appearances), (WS wins (x10) + WS losses (x6)+ LCS appearances (x3) + other (x1)):

 

New York Yankees, 118 points (25 appearances), (70 + 24 + 15 + 9)

Oakland A's, 75 points (19 appearances), (40 + 12 + 15 + 8)

St. Louis Cardinals, 75 points (16 appearances), (30 + 24 + 18 + 3)

Los Angeles Dodgers, 74 points (19 appearances), (20 + 30 + 18 + 6)

Boston Red Sox, 73 points (17 appearances), (40 + 12 + 15 + 6)

Atlanta Braves, 61 points (20 appearances), (10 + 24 + 18 + 9)

Baltimore Orioles, 55 points (12 appearances), (20 + 18 + 15 + 2)

Philadelphia Phillies, 54 points (12 appearances), (20 + 18 + 12 + 4)

Cincinnati Reds, 54 points (11 appearances), (30 + 12 + 9 + 3)

San Francisco Giants, 52 points (11 appearances), (30 + 12 + 6 + 4)

New York Mets, 48 points (9 appearances), (20 + 18 + 9 + 1)

Kansas City Royals, 45 points (9 appearances), (20 + 12 + 12 + 1)

Pittsburgh Pirates, 44 points (12 appearances), (20 + 0 + 21 + 3)

Toronto Blue Jays, 35 points (7 appearances), (20 + 0 + 15 + 0)

Detroit Tigers, 35 points (8 appearances), (10 + 12 + 12 + 1)

Minnesota Twins, 35 points (11 appearances), (20 + 0 + 9 + 6)

Houston Astros, 34 points (12 appearances), (10 + 6 + 12 + 6)

Cleveland Indians, 30 points (11 appearances), (0 + 18 + 6 + 6)

Los Angeles Angels, 29 points (10 appearances), (10 + 0 + 15 + 4)

Chicago Cubs, 29 points (10 appearances), (10 + 0 + 15 + 4)

Miami Marlins, 20 points (2 appearances), (20 + 0 + 0 + 0)

Chicago White Sox, 18 points (5 appearances), (10 + 0 + 6 + 2)

Texas Rangers, 18 points (8 appearances), (0 + 12 + 0 + 6)

Arizona Diamondbacks, 17 points (6 appearances), (10 + 0 + 3 + 4)

San Diego Padres, 15 points (5 appearances), (0 + 12 + 0 + 3)

Milwaukee Brewers, 14 points (5 appearances), (0 + 6 + 6 + 2)

Colorado Rockies, 10 points (5 appearances), (0 + 6 + 0 +4)

Seattle Mariners, 10 points (4 appearances), (0 + 0 + 9 + 1)

Tampa Bay Rays, 9 points (4 appearances), (0 + 6 + 0 + 3)

Washington Nationals, 7 points (5 appearances), (0 + 0 + 3 + 4)

 

Now, I am going to take an extra step, and award one additional point per division title won. Greatness in the regular season should count for something, agreed? If team A wins 100 games, and takes their division, and team B wins 89 games, and gets a wild card, at this point, each team has earned one point. But wouldn't winning a division typically represent a greater achievement? There are exceptions, of course. If the Yankees win 105 games, and the Red Sox win 100, and Boston's 100 wins is the second best win total in the American League, they are penalized for playing in a very strong division. I believe this phenomenon is somewhat rectified by the sheer strength of the team. A Red Sox team that wins 100 games will likely progress deeper into the playoffs than a division winner that only won 89 games. The team winning their division will now receive an additional point, slightly raising their overall rank.

 

Total division titles, by team for the period 1969-2018

 

New York Yankees, 18

Los Angeles Dodgers, 17

Atlanta Braves 18

Oakland A's, 16

St. Louis Cardinals, 14

Cincinnati Reds, 12

Philadelphia Phillies, 11

Minnesota Twins, 10

Cleveland Indians, 10

Boston Red Sox, 10

Baltimore Orioles, 9

Los Angeles Angels, 9

Pittsburgh Pirates, 9

Houston Astros, 8

Texas Rangers, 8

San Francisco Giants, 8

Chicago Cubs, 7

Kansas City Royals, 7

Detroit Tigers, 7

New York Mets, 6

Toronto Blue Jays, 6

Chicago White Sox, 6

San Diego Padres, 5

Washington Nationals, 5

Arizona Diamondbacks, 5

Milwaukee Brewers, 4

Seattle Mariners, 3

Tampa Bay Rays, 2

Miami Marlins, 0

Colorado Rockies, 0

 

Next, I am making an adjustment for the 1994 season, which was ended by the strike. Teams that would have made the playoffs, were there any, will receive one additional point, each. There would have been three division winners, and one wild card. In the American League, the Yankees, White Sox and Rangers would have been division winners, and the Indians would have won the Wild Card spot. In the National League, the Reds, Expos and Dodgers would have won their divisions, with the Braves getting the Wild Card nod.

 

+1 point

New York Yankees

Chicago White Sox

Texas Rangers

Cleveland Indians

Cincinnati Reds

Montreal Expos (Washington Nationals)

Los Angeles Dodgers

Atlanta Braves

 

To total everything

New York Yankees 137 (118 + 18 +1)

Los Angeles Dodgers 92 (74 + 17 + 1)

Oakland A's 91 (75 + 16)

St. Louis Cardinals 89 (75+14)

Boston Red Sox 83 (73 + 10)

Atlanta Braves 80 (61 + 18 + 1)

Cincinnati Reds 67 (54 + 12 + 1)

Philadelphia Phillies 65 (54 + 11)

Baltimore Orioles 64 (55 + 9)

San Francisco Giants 60 (52 + 8)

New York Mets 54 (48 + 6)

Pittsburgh Pirates 53 (44 + 9)

Kansas City Royals 52 (45 + 7)

Minnesota Twins 45 (35 + 10)

Detroit Tigers 42 (35 + 7)

Houston Astros 42 (34 + 8)

Toronto Blue Jays 41 (35 + 6)

Cleveland Indians 41 (30 + 10 +1)

Los Angeles Angels 38 (29 + 9)

Chicago Cubs 36 (29 + 7)

Texas Rangers 27 (18 + 8 + 1)

Chicago White Sox 25 (18 + 6 +1)

Arizona Diamondbacks 22 (17 + 5)

Miami Marlins 20 (20)

San Diego Padres 20 (15 + 5)

Milwaukee Brewers 18 (14 + 4)

Seattle Mariners 13 (10 + 3)

Washington Nationals 13 (7 + 5 + 1)

Tampa Bay Rays 11 (9 + 2)

Colorado Rockies 10 (10)

 

So, these point totals will show us which teams in the Major Leagues, from 1969 to 2018, have been the most successful. The Yankees are clearly still the class of baseball, even when their dynasty years of the DiMaggio and Mantle eras fall outside the period considered.

 

However, one last adjustment needs to be made, because obviously, not every team in baseball has been around since 1969. So, I've taken the total points and divided it by the number of seasons each team has played from 1969 forward. This gives me an average yearly score:

 

Yankees 137 / 50 = 2.74

Dodgers 92 / 50 = 1.84

A's 91 / 50 = 1.82

Cardinals 89 / 50 = 1.78

Red Sox 83 / 50 = 1.66

Atlanta Braves 80 / 50 = 1.60

Cincinnati Reds 67 / 50 = 1.34

Philadelphia Phillies 65 / 50 = 1.30

Baltimore Orioles 64 / 50 = 1.28

San Francisco Giants 60 / 50 = 1.20

New York Mets 54 / 50 = 1.08

Pittsburgh Pirates 53 / 50 = 1.06

Arizona Diamondbacks 22 / 21 = 1.05

Kansas City Royals 52 / 50 = 1.04

Toronto Blue Jays 41 / 42 = 0.98

Minnesota Twins 45 / 50 = 0.90

Detroit Tigers 42 / 50 = 0.84

Houston Astros 42 / 50 = 0.84

Cleveland Indians 41 / 50 = 0.82

Miami Marlins 20 / 26 = 0.77

Los Angeles Angels 38 / 50 = 0.76

Chicago Cubs 36 / 50 = 0.72

Texas Rangers 27 / 50 = 0.54

Tampa Bay Rays 11 / 21 = 0.52

Chicago White Sox 25 / 50 = 0.50

San Diego Padres 20 / 50 = 0.40

Colorado Rockies 10 / 26 = 0.38

Milwaukee Brewers 18 / 50 = 0.36

Seattle Mariners 13 / 42 = 0.31

Washington Nationals 13 / 50 = 0.26

 

As low as Milwaukee's average score is, if this analysis had been done just a year earlier, the Brewers would have challenged the Nationals for the lowest score; 14 points over 49 years would have given them a .2857 score, with the Nationals at .2653.

 

My frustration comes from the knowledge that, even in the past eleven years, whenever the Brewers have made the playoffs, the next season represented a substantial step backwards.

 

In 2008, Milwaukee went 90-72. In 2009, they fell to 80-82, missing the playoffs.

In 2011, Milwaukee went 96-66. In 2012, they fell to 83-79, missing the playoffs.

In 2018, Milwaukee went 96-67. So far, the Brewers are 53-50. We are currently 1.5 games back of the wild card.

 

While I believe the Brewers are still trending up with the Craig Counsell era-in his fourth season, the Brewers are 308-281 (.523) overall, and 235-192 over the past three seasons (.550)-I am hoping that we are able to achieve sustained success in the form of multiple deep playoff runs in the next few years. Is this ownership and front office the group to get it done? Time will tell.

[pacopete4]

Winning 90+ games in the market that we are is not an easy thing to do which would explain a lot of why the sustained success doesn’t happen much. Not only for us but for a lot of the bottom feeders. The Brewers are in a nice stretch as a franchise since 2008. If they continue on this path, luck will hopefully turn in their favor with a WS win or multiple playoff appearances.

[MrTPlush]

Okay, I just want to know how long it took to write that.

[Austin Tatious]

I think the best thing they can do to sustain success is to not trade off a boatload of key prospects. If they only deal superfluous players in the Ryan Cordell mode, that’s good. As for impact prospects, you can trade them for controllable players.

 

But if you start trading off potential major league starters for rentals or guys with 1.5 years of control, you’re asking for trouble unless it is only done sparingly.

 

The Brewers’ minor league system isn’t rated particularly highly, but that’s fairly meaningless. By definition, you don’t know how well players will perform in the majors because the ultimate development is not easily discerned.

 

Ethan Small, Aaron Ashby, Antoine Kelly, Max Lazar. For all we know, that’s four future major league starters with upside.

 

Grisham, Lutz, Ray. They could be starting major league outfielders.

 

Feliciano, Peyton Henry, you might have two starting catchers.

 

Dubon and Turang may be major league leadoff hitters from middle infield positions.

 

Drew Rasmussen and Devin Williams may be legit relievers for leverage situations.

 

That’s 14 guys off the top of my head (without even looking at a list) that are pretty darn good prospects that have all given reason to believe they have very significant impact potential. Some may not work out or be fringe players but there’s potential for much more than that in all of them. If those guys were Dodgers, Cubs, Bosox or Yankees, we’d be hearing about how great they are.

 

I didn’t even get into players from foreign signings. Several of them are toolsy with good potential. You look at Garcia the infielder, the catcher we just signed, the young Asian pitcher and a host of outfielders including Carlos Rodriguez and a bunch of bigger, athletic guys. Garcia could be a major leaguer by the age of 20-21 the way he’s going.

 

I think we’ve got underrated assets in our minors and having a fair share of them develop well will be a key element to sustained success. Imagine the boost the roster would get by the gradual infusion of young precocious talent like that. That was the problem with our last up cycle with that Fielder, Weeks, Braun, Hardy, Hart crew. We didn’t get enough of the infusion of talent, in numbers and the team fell off. Those guys essentially had only two good runs. You’d like much more consistency but it’s going to take fresh talent continually coming up.

[stoutdude04]

It would be nice if the Brewers had someone who isnt a top prospect come up and have sustained success too. It seems like the Cubs, Cards, and Dodgers have someone who know one has really heard of come up and make a multi year impact. Or maybe they were highly touted prospects and I just hadn't heard much about them. Bote, Muncy, DeJong, etc.

[Brew crew 92]

This Ownership? This front Office?

 

This ownership will probably not change in most of our lifetimes, at least according to Mark A, saying he wants his son to run the team at some point. But, with the way teams value’s keep skyrocketing upward, it might get to the point where it makes too much sense to sell. Some, or maybe it’s most people on this site think that I hate Attanasio, by my posts with regards to imo, chronically low payrolls. I do understand he has limited partners or investors he needs to answer to, and based upon history, a minimum profit that needs to be realized every year.

 

Back in 16 during the short rebuild, when the brewers had the lowest payroll in baseball, he made the statement, now I’m paraphrasing, we’re banking money that can be used for payroll when we’re in serious contention. In 16 & 17 with the crew’s lowest payroll or one of the lowest, saved 70-125 million, which was used not for payroll but for capital improvements. Ok, it’s good for the long term health of the team, so I’ve changed my thinking to conclude I was wrong to think that $ should have been used for payroll now, because the rebuild was too fast to save enough for payroll, AFTER the Capital improvements. So just the fact attanasio said he’d bank $ to be used for future payroll gives me hope that this will happen in the future.

 

Now the front office.

Stearns mantra to have an abundance of controllable assets, has not been realized nor will it imo, without a payroll tank of enough length of time to accomplish 2 things each of equal importance:

 

1.) bank a minimum of 150-200 million to be used for a 3-4 period to add 50 million per year to payroll.

 

1.) sell off enough talent to accumulate an ABUNDANCE of IMPACTFUL controllable assets.

 

Imo, we can’t do Stearns mantra with a max payroll 70-100 less than more talented teams. The front office might be smart, but not that smart. It’s not logical to assume that one front office can outsmart 30 other front offices, most of which are run by Ivy League educated men just as smart as Stearns, and most of which also have more resources than we do. Front offices in baseball aren’t run by the Dean Taylor‘s And Sal Bando’s of the world anymore.

 

I could be wrong, I hope I am actually, because I don’t think Stearns is going to tank. We’ll see what happens.

[Austin Tatious]

It would be nice if the Brewers had someone who isnt a top prospect come up and have sustained success too. It seems like the Cubs, Cards, and Dodgers have someone who know one has really heard of come up and make a multi year impact. Or maybe they were highly touted prospects and I just hadn't heard much about them. Bote, Muncy, DeJong, etc.

 

This is a good point and also highlights the folly of the system rankings.

 

Ben Gamel and Suter come to mind. Clancy pushed hard on Suter but hardly anyone else from our site ranked him. All he did was keep advancing. We could have used him this year.

[MrTPlush]

1.) bank a minimum of 150-200 million to be used for a 3-4 period to add 50 million per year to payroll.

.

 

I will spare acting like I am an expert on giant sports franchise finances/taxing, but if they start banking/saving money every year I am guessing it is going to get taxed...and probably quite a bit.

 

I think that is why we saw them buy the Mudcats, upgrade Maryvale, and upgrade the food service. Probably doesn't get taxed the same way if they put it into the business etc. Is it really surprising all those things started when the Brewers payroll was rock bottom? I don't think so. There was likely a financial purpose at the time to do it.

[tigerbrew]

It will be kinda depressing if/when we don't have Grandal and Moustakas for next season.

[pacopete4]

It will be kinda depressing if/when we don't have Grandal and Moustakas for next season.

 

Shaw will be just fine replacing Moose. Grandal has been a great offensive addition but I am questioning his part in how lousy our staff has become.

[The stache]

Okay, I just want to know how long it took to write that.

 

Too long. Over two hours, for sure, including generating a spreadsheet to use in Excel. But it's not atypical for the kind of stuff I think about that's not readily available from BBR or Fangraphs. I enjoy it.

[jerichoholicninja]

Percentage of teams that make the playoffs each season:

 

NBA: 53%

NHL: 52%

NFL: 38%

MLB: 27% or 33% (depending how you feel about the wild card game)

 

MLB is the "hardest" to make the playoffs out of every major league. It's not surprising teams don't make the playoffs consecutively very often based simply on the numbers. I understand this is in no way a perfect way to look at things as the odds of making the playoffs are not technically exactly the same for every team each season. But the point is if you doubled the number of teams that make the playoffs in MLB more teams are going to have more "success".

 

I also don't think you can simply look at postseason appearances when determining success. Regular season wins has to be the determining factor. Almost every year there are teams with records that would win a division that don't even make the post season or lose the wild card game. Hard to call having a top 5 record in your league but not advancing to the "final four" a not successful season.

 

I do agree with your overall premise though. It's incredibly frustrating to watch this team put together a great season and follow it up with a series of popcorn farts.

[OnTheBlack]

Okay, I just want to know how long it took to write that.

 

 

 

I'd imagine a while, and really...we're all Brewers fans here. It's kinda like writing your thesis on "why Christian Yelich is good."

 

But if you enjoy writing and you enjoy breaking things down to see just how much your perception matches reality, then I guess it's fun.

 

I looked at some of the numbers and they were really well done and the whole post was really well written, but I really didn't need to I'm guessing kids who are 18 and who've been fans of this team during the 2nd best stretch in it's history would be disappointed. Us older fans? We already know.

 

 

But still, great post. I guess the ONLY real reason I could give would be the absolutely atrocious leadership from the time Bud took the job as interim commish through when Mark Attansio bought the team. Wendy Selig-Prieb was awful.

 

And hell, just the way Sal Bando ran Molitor out of town and the way he ran the team was just ugly. Just in that transaction, how it wasn't until the last minute that the Brewers made any effort to retain Molly and Bud Selig called at the last minute despite his job at the Commissioner to fix the mess that Bando was the perfect microcosm of the issues the Brewers dealt with during that...what, 10-15 year period.

 

 

Looking at it now, I feel much better about the Brewers chances to sustain a level of success. They're drafting better, they've got a competent scouting in Latin America, they've made the draft and international signing periods more fair. Teams are trying harder to stay under the luxury tax and the Brewers are spending more. The fundamental gaps are closing. They'll never be all that close and they'll never be equal with teams of the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels of the world, but...that's life of a mid-market team. Only the NFL has figured out how to maximize revenues and provide a fair playing field for teams and even then, you can't account for location. If the Rams and Packers are both equally likely to win, where is a FA going to go?

 

But again, ATM, Mark Attanasio, David Stearns, Craig Counsell....that's the best trio we've had in a looong time and they're doing a good job.

[MrTPlush]

Okay, I just want to know how long it took to write that.

 

Too long. Over two hours, for sure, including generating a spreadsheet to use in Excel. But it's not atypical for the kind of stuff I think about that's not readily available from BBR or Fangraphs. I enjoy it.

 

I mean I give you credit, it looks pretty nice. Usually when someone decides to go on a rant and make their own thread it is not of such quality. Good portfolio piece when you apply for a Fangraphs writing job.

[KeithStone53151]

Keep in mind, there are 29 other teams all try to improve and contend at the highest level. Being consistently good is an excellent goal, but so much easier said than done.

[bill hAll Star]

I get the point and also understand with this next comment that I am too young to have enjoyed the 80s/early 90s Brewers, but I bet if you did those success calculations since Attanasio took over, they'd be outkicking their coverage in terms of market size.

 

It would likely show exactly what Mark is. Not a terrible meddling owner but does like to keep driving to win "this year." That would probably explain not being patient enough to build for a steady stream of dominant prospects (other than 2004-2009 after taking over). However, overall, making the playoffs 3-4 times in 15 years is probably par for the course for a market of the Brewers' size. Bump a few unlucky/poorly run teams like the Mariners down and some well-run smaller markets up, but I'm not really surprised by it.

[owbc]

I would like to see similar stats computed with negative points assigned to 100-loss and 90-loss seasons. While the Brewers have failed to sustain success, they have also generally succeeded at not being really awful (except for the early 2000s).

 

My other comment is that the Brewers' success strategy in both 2008 and 2011 was generally to sacrifice the future in exchange for short-term success. So it isn't surprising that there was a drop-off in wins afterwards. As long as there are revenue imbalances this is kind of inevitable.

 

Finally, this might be more controversial (and maybe shows my age), but I don't really care what happened prior to 2000 or so. It's ancient history. In the Attanasio era the Brewers have possibly the best ownership group out of any small-to-mid market team. They legitimately care about providing the best fan experience in baseball and delivering a winning product as much as possible given the constraints of being the smallest market in MLB in an unfair system. They haven't always succeeded but they have shown a willingness to adapt and learn from their mistakes. It's hard not to argue that the franchise is headed in the right direction.

[BruisedCrew]

It will be kinda depressing if/when we don't have Grandal and Moustakas for next season.

 

Keep in mind that they won’t have their salaries either and that will give the Brewers an opportunity to pursue other free agents.

 

Hopefully the loss of Grandal and Moustakas (who could possibly be back) could be offset by improvement from other players, especially pitchers, the return of pitchers like Knebel and Wahl, and some new acquisitions.

[rickh150]

Not a level playing field... we aren't designed to have continual success. Even with our highest salaries EVER this season, we are just average salaried compared to the rest of the league. The best we can hope for is two or three playoff years strung together, most likely followed by trading assets and rebuilding for a future run.

[josh]

Should a team that makes the post season on a regular basis, but doesn't win the World Series, still be considered successful? Yes, I believe so...

 

Could not agree more. This is entertainment. It's entertaining when they're in the mix and it's not when they're not. It'd be fun to win it all, too, but after that... it would be entertaining when they're in the mix, and not when they're not.

[bm1090]

It will be kinda depressing if/when we don't have Grandal and Moustakas for next season.

 

Shaw will be just fine replacing Moose. Grandal has been a great offensive addition but I am questioning his part in how lousy our staff has become.

 

Chase and Davies have both been better this year. Chacin far worse. Woodruff took a step although it started at the end of last year. Gonzalez has been fine.

 

The bullpen obviously collapsed but I think it is clearly a lack of talent.

[rickh150]

It will be kinda depressing if/when we don't have Grandal and Moustakas for next season.

 

Shaw will be just fine replacing Moose. Grandal has been a great offensive addition but I am questioning his part in how lousy our staff has become.

 

Chase and Davies have both been better this year. Chacin far worse. Woodruff took a step although it started at the end of last year. Gonzalez has been fine.

 

The bullpen obviously collapsed but I think it is clearly a lack of talent.

 

Chase and Davies are two pitchers not deemed worthy of a playoff spot last year. Gonzo can maybe get 4 quality innings for you. Don't expect much from Chacin. Nothing playoff worthy. Bullpen poor. I like the offense with Hiura in the mix, but pitching wins and we don't have it.

[pacopete4]

MVBraun doing it again!

[xisxisxis]

I get the point and also understand with this next comment that I am too young to have enjoyed the 80s/early 90s Brewers, but I bet if you did those success calculations since Attanasio took over, they'd be outkicking their coverage in terms of market size.

 

It would likely show exactly what Mark is. Not a terrible meddling owner but does like to keep driving to win "this year." That would probably explain not being patient enough to build for a steady stream of dominant prospects (other than 2004-2009 after taking over). However, overall, making the playoffs 3-4 times in 15 years is probably par for the course for a market of the Brewers' size. Bump a few unlucky/poorly run teams like the Mariners down and some well-run smaller markets up, but I'm not really surprised by it.

I believe an indirect answer was performed at 538 back in 2014. The full article is here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/billion-dollar-billy-beane/

 

This figure is telling:

 

 

The article was written in 2014 so the analysis covers all of Doug Melvin's tenure and 2+ years of Dean Taylor (no David Stearns and mostly Attanasio as owner). In essence, the analysis is an attempt to come up with a value that each team has gotten from their leadership over the 2000-2014 seasons above what you would expect simply from the size of the teams payroll. There's good and bad from this analysis - the good being the fact that the Brewers or Brewers leadership are in the positive side of adding value to the team above the payroll expense. The bad (IMHO) is that as the smallest market in MLB with a limited ability to increase payroll, the Brewers need to do much, much, much better in being smart. For all of his efforts, Doug Melvin added very little to the teams record than was possible given the teams payroll. There's some noise in this type of analysis, but taking a wide window of ~15 years will compensate for that.

 

I believe if we have a GM that through draft & develop and talent acquisition can move the Brewers into the top 10 of this type of analysis then I think we will see less of the feast and famon (going to the playoffs 1 year and several years before next playoff appearance) and a more consistently successful team.

 

Ultimately, as the smallest market in baseball, the Brewers leadership has to be much smarter than they have been for a vast majority of the first 45 years.

[wildcat83]

Length of staying in contention is why I flipped to hoping we sell this year. I just see no way we can match up with the Dodgers in a series even if we make the playoffs. To do so we would need multiple arms, which would gut what’s left of our system. That puts us as make or break this year, maybe next if the arms have multiple years left.

 

To me, the better option is to sell Moustakas and Grandal. This lengthens our competitive window out. We will have money to spend this summer, along with getting Knebel, Wahl, Suter back and possibly more development from Burnes, Peralta, Houser, etc.

 

To me this isn’t our all in year, we have a chance to be more competitive in the next 1-3 years by selling this year.