4/19/05 - Dodgers(Cy Dessens) vs. Brewers(Glover) 12:05 CT

[squarepusher]

The number of people who are "fed up" with this team and still post at "brewerFAN dot net" is astounding to me.

 

Either some people simply like to revel in misery or like to get all fired up to tell people "I TOLD YOU SO".

 

Either way, I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation. Constructive criticism is awesome, but "the brewers stink and they will always stink" is simply flailing.

 

A 5-game skid capped by a game lost in a heartbreaking fashion is pretty miserable... but if you're not open-minded enough to find hope in anything regarding the Brewers, I don't know why you're here.

[CovingtonFan]

Yeah, I remember 1970, also. Wasn't Jerry McNertney the catcher? Can't remember anyone else on that team, but I remember him.

 

SteveV

[endaround]

I come for the avatars....

[UeckerAddict]

Bruce,

You never responded to the double play chance (you said we hit it on the ground religiously)

 

or that without the bunt we'd need 2 hits instead of 1

 

or the fact that you said when Miller struck out we'd need an error or the opposition to throw a "fatty" for us to win, when I said if he had bunted, all we would need is a Texas Leaguer.

 

Managers have charts about what works what percent of the time. The reason managers bunt is because history has STATISTICALLY shown that this is the way to go. Success rates shoots up. Only Art Howe has disagreed, and I've watched him get fired plenty.

[xisxisxis]

I'm a masochist.

[cooprules]

Thanks for the stern talking to Square.

 

I'll be back for more, obviously. We all love the Brewers. That's why we're here. It's almost like watching my daughter strike out to end a softball game and listening to the other parents whisper about how much she sucks. Would I be disappointed my daughter didn't hit a game winner? Sure. But I'd be the first one to hug her, tell her I'm proud of her and that I love her with all my heart.

 

And to go kick some ass next game!

[UeckerAddict]

The number of people who are "fed up" with this team and still post at "brewerFAN dot net" is astounding to me.

 

Either some people simply like to revel in misery or like to get all fired up to tell people "I TOLD YOU SO".

 

Either way, I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation. Constructive criticism is awesome, but "the brewers stink and they will always stink" is simply flailing.

 

A 5-game skid capped by a game lost in a heartbreaking fashion is pretty miserable... but if you're not open-minded enough to find hope in anything regarding the Brewers, I don't know why you're here.

 

I hear you Square.

Through thick and thin.

Constructive is good, as I don't mind going back and forth with Bruce about bunt strategy. That's fine with me.

However, the people just ripping into the Brewers and saying they're "done with them" should go to the Cubs fan site.

 

53% of you are ticking me off.

[homer]

Quote:

---

I come for the avatars....

---

 

End, that is your best post yet. LOL

[mikemercury]

I live in Green Bay a few blocks from Lambeau Field. I'm the biggest Packer/Brewer fan I know. When the Packers loose our whole city goes into a funk for a week. The best part of baseball is we have 149 more chances. We have Ben Sheets pitching tomorrow! Maybe the combination of playing a few games in Coors Lite and the returns of Branyan and Jenkins will help kick start our offense. Maybe it won't. With Sheets on the mound I like our chances. Today sucked bad. It downright hurt. However tomorrow is another day. Cheer up guys.

---------

[Bruce Ciskie]

Quote:

---

You never responded to the double play chance (you said we hit it on the ground religiously)

---

 

It's a valid point, but the odds of Miller bunting into a double play or not bunting effectively (leading to a forceout at third) were just as likely as someone hitting into a DP if Miller loaded the bases somehow.

 

Quote:

---

or that without the bunt we'd need 2 hits instead of 1

---

 

That's because we wouldn't. I did address that. If Miller gets on with nobody out, two ground balls would tie the game, as would two deep fly balls, or a combination of the two. Overbay and Lee aren't fast, but Magruder has some speed, as does Hardy, and Cirillo always hustles and isn't exactly slow.

 

Quote:

---

or the fact that you said when Miller struck out we'd need an error or the opposition to throw a "fatty" for us to win, when I said if he had bunted, all we would need is a Texas Leaguer.

---

 

How was a Texas Leaguer going to bring in the three runs we needed to win? Did you have a Texas League inside the park HR in mind?

 

Quote:

---

Managers have charts about what works what percent of the time. The reason managers bunt is because history has STATISTICALLY shown that this is the way to go. Success rates shoots up. Only Art Howe has disagreed, and I've watched him get fired plenty.

---

 

Just like two-point conversions and pulling the goalie late in a close game, there are times where normally sound strategy doesn't work, and the odds are so ridiculously stacked against it that it's and extremely flawed strategy to employ.

 

When you have a .351 hitter batting, and he's followed by three guys who are combining to hit .164 (with no one better on the bench available to help), I can't imagine even dreaming of having the .351 hitter give himself up.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

However, the people just ripping into the Brewers and saying they're "done with them" should go to the Cubs fan site.

 

Actually Cubs fans take losing a lot better.

 

"There's always next year" is what you hear.

 

For us it seems "there's always yesterday. And we sucked."

 

Unless we win 4 straight, then it's all caps "BELIEVE!!! and CREW FOREVER'S!!!!" and such.

 

I didn't grow up in Wisconsin. This team wasn't a "destiny" pick to be my favorite. It became that way because the team and the fans stood out as not being the Dodgers and Yankees.

 

That's still true. And the Brewers will continue to be MY team until it isn't.

[mikerollins]

A bunt in that situation is an absolute no brain decision. You put runners on 2nd and 3rd and give 2 guys a shot at a single to tie the game. I'm sorry if you disagree with his strategy and you want to throw out stats (based on 11 games). It didnt work out because Miller didn't get the bunt down on the first pitch, but he still struck out looking so he had a shot.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Quote:

---

I'm sorry if you disagree with his strategy and you want to throw out stats (based on 11 games).

---

 

What do you want to base it on? The fact that it would have worked if someone could have done their job? The fact that Ned was willing to give up a .351 hitter to leave the game in the hands of three guys who have done virtually nothing in 13 games shows me that he needs to put the book away.

 

What have you seen to suggest that either Jeff Cirillo or Chris Magruder could have realistically kept the game alive?

 

(Again...if the top of the order had been due up in that spot, a bunt is a no-brainer. I think it's anything but when the bottom of the order...especially this order...is due up.)

[mikerollins]

Quote:

---

What have you seen to suggest that either Jeff Cirillo or Chris Magruder could have realistically kept the game alive?

---

 

Um how about the 3-run homer by Magruder 3 innings earlier? How about the double by Cirillo in his previous at-bat?

 

OK...let's let you have your way for a second.

 

You say the bottom 3 had no chance at all whatsoever to get on base.

 

Miller singles. 8-7. Cirillo-magruder-hardy do as you suspect and we lose 8-7. The best option was to bunt them over and hope for one of the 2 of them to get a basehit instead of hoping for 2 hits. Any baseball sense would make this a no-brainer.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Quote:

---

You say the bottom 3 had no chance at all whatsoever to get on base.

---

 

No, I didn't say that. Try sticking to what I actually said. The odds of two of the three (out of Cirillo, Magruder, and Hardy) getting on base safely - considering the three have a combined .164 batting average - is so small that it isn't worth trying to calculate. This is especially true when you consider that the Dodgers had their best available relief pitcher on the mound at the time.

 

Quote:

---

Miller singles. 8-7. Cirillo-magruder-hardy do as you suspect and we lose 8-7. The best option was to bunt them over and hope for one of the 2 of them to get a basehit instead of hoping for 2 hits. Any baseball sense would make this a no-brainer.

---

 

If Miller singles, it's probably still 8-6 unless he hit one into the gap that was enough to score Overbay. Bases loaded, nobody out. Suddenly, NO ONE needs to get a hit, and the Brewers still have a good shot to tie the game. Two fly balls...two slowly hit ground balls...that's all you'd need.

 

By bunting, you need two of three (three guys who are among the worst hitters on the team) to not only make contact, but reach safely (barring someone jolting an extra-base hit).

 

All I'm saying is that if you calculate the odds, the odds were better not taking the bat out of Damian Miller's hands.

[burniebrewer]

Keep your chins up,

 

I will keep my chin up as I put the beers down. I will never give up on this team. Like has been said before, I've gone through too much torment to opt out now. Besides, who's gonna want all of my jerseys?

[AJAY]

Quote:

---

The number of people who are "fed up" with this team and still post at "brewerFAN dot net" is astounding to me.

 

Either some people simply like to revel in misery or like to get all fired up to tell people "I TOLD YOU SO".

 

Either way, I'm not sure what it adds to the conversation. Constructive criticism is awesome, but "the brewers stink and they will always stink" is simply flailing.

 

A 5-game skid capped by a game lost in a heartbreaking fashion is pretty miserable... but if you're not open-minded enough to find hope in anything regarding the Brewers, I don't know why you're here.

---

 

 

Yeah, it is human nature to want to vent a little after a bad stretch of baseball. And naturally, this is one of the places to do it. But who are we kidding? We'll all be back tomorrow. My personal boycott of the Brewers lasted a whole 8 minutes. Now I can't wait for the game tomorrow. I may jump ship again tomorrow. But if we win two or three in a row, I might be talking about the playoffs again.

 

Such is the life of a Brewers fan. Angry, but always loyal too. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[mikerollins]

Quote:

---

The odds of two of the three (out of Cirillo, Magruder, and Hardy) getting on base safely - considering the three have a combined .164 batting average - is so small that it isn't worth trying to calculate.

---

 

Exactly my point. By bunting the runners over you only need one of Cirillo or magruder to single and the game is tied. By letting miller swing away, you need 2 of them to get on.

 

You are defending my argument. Thanks. You make this easy.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Quote:

---

Exactly my point. By bunting the runners over you only need one of Cirillo or magruder to single and the game is tied. By letting miller swing away, you need 2 of them to get on.

---

 

So if you have the bases loaded and nobody out, you need two hits to score two runs?

 

Ummmmmm...okay. Last I checked, you could score two runs in that scenario without hitting another ball out of the infield.

[mikerollins]

You're assuming Miller gets a hit. That's where I said you are basing that on his .350 average over 11 games. The way you wanted it would have required 2 PEOPLE to get on base safely (miller, cirillo, or magruder).

 

I'm saying...Miller successfully puts down a bunt...and you need one of cirillo or magruder to get a hit.

 

I just like my odds of needing 1 of 2 (50%) to get a hit. Instead of 2 of 3 (67%).

 

It's not really worth arguing. I guess we just have different opinions. I've been an avid baseball fan since I was little and I can't think of too many situations where I wouldnt have bunted there unless Barry Bonds was up with Billy Jo Robedeaux and Alex Sanchez were on deck.

[rluzinski]

Something isn't the right way to do something just because it's "always been done that way." There are HUNDREDS of examples of common knowledge being flat out wrong.

 

Most managers make decisions based off what other managers have done, not necessarily what's best for the team. They are handicapped by what's always been done, since the media will chastise them if they don't follow the book.

 

Studies have shown it would be advantageous football coaches to go for it on forth down much more often. They don't however, in part because of the huge media scrutiny they would receive if they played the odds and lost.

[UeckerAddict]

It's a valid point, but the odds of Miller bunting into a double play or not bunting effectively (leading to a forceout at third) were just as likely as someone hitting into a DP if Miller loaded the bases somehow.

 

I know it's happened, but the odds of a bunt DP the same as a swing? C'mon. And if you trust Miller so much to swing the bat, you have to assume he can lay one down.

 

That's because we wouldn't. I did address that. If Miller gets on with nobody out, two ground balls would tie the game

 

I have a hard time with the fact that you think 2 groundballs with no doubleplays would happen. Besides, if Miller would have bunted with1 strike, we have 2nd and 3rd. He didn't. He struck out.

 

How was a Texas Leaguer going to bring in the three runs we needed to win? Did you have a Texas League inside the park HR in mind?

 

NOT WIN. TIE. That was the immediate goal right? I know I said win in an earlier post. Look at the very next post 1 minute later. I corrected myself.

[UeckerAddict]

However, the people just ripping into the Brewers and saying they're "done with them" should go to the Cubs fan site.

 

Actually Cubs fans take losing a lot better.

 

"There's always next year" is what you hear.

 

For us it seems "there's always yesterday. And we sucked."

 

Unless we win 4 straight, then it's all caps "BELIEVE!!! and CREW FOREVER'S!!!!" and such.

 

I just meant for them to go to the Cubs site in order to get off of this one.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Quote:

---

Studies have shown it would be advantageous football coaches to go for it on forth down much more often. They don't however, in part because of the huge media scrutiny they would receive if they played the odds and lost.

---

 

Exactly. It plays out for what happened today, too.

 

IF Miller swings away and bounces into a 5-4-3, Yost has to hear about how he didn't bunt in an "obvious bunt situation".

 

But if Yost has Miller bunt and Miller doesn't get the job done, it's the players' fault.

 

I'm not assuming Miller gets a hit. But the odds of him getting a hit are better when he swings away than they are when he's bunting. He came to the batter's box, and Ned decided to take the bat out of his hands.

 

The mileage of others may vary, but I thought it was a "manage not to lose" strategy. With that in mind, I'm not surprised we lost, because that's usually what happens when you manage or play not to lose.

[ja002h]

In between all the "I'm going to go and stick a shotgun in my mouth" posts, I particularly enjoyed end's "I come for the avatars" and square's "It's April 19 not July 19" piece of wisdom. There's nothing wrong with saying "This loss really sucked," but to go and dive off the deepend is a little drastic. One, your expectations may need to be adjusted, and two, they've played 13 FREAKING GAMES.

 

That is all.