No help from Vets either

[JohnBriggs12]

There were two major themes this past offseason that the Brewers would be improved for two reasons: Starting pitching depth and a veteran bench.

We all know the first isn't working out too well, but what about the "veteran bench"?

Thanks to a nice first half by Damian Miller, the vets seemed to hold their own. But since the All Star break instead of steadying a young team, they've contributed to the slide.

Miller is 5 for 44 since the All Star break. Counsell is 10 for 56. That's a combined 15 for 100!. Graffanino hit some HR, but even he was just hitting .220 after the break.

So much for the value of spending $8.3 million on bench guys in their mid to late 30's. Wouldn't that money have been better spent on another quality reliever or saved to be used down the road?

[Ennder]

I dunno, the bench hasn't been the problem this year so its hard for me to complain about it. It also was there as a safety net since 3/4's of our IF were coming off of injuries and we didn't know when Braun would be ready.

[homer]

I haven't read the JS this morning, but aren't the Brewers improved over last year? Record wise anyway. I don't know if they were over .500 this late in 2006.

[RU Rah Rah]

All things considered, I would rank Counsell and Miller pretty far down on the list of the team's problems. I'm not sure that their specific lack of production has really made a huge overall difference in the W/L record.

 

I see your point more with Counsell than Miller. I expect Miller to basically give Estrada a breather and not play too horribly, either offensively or defensively. I think he's been OK on both counts.

[joepepsi]

Miller is a much better backup catcher than most team have. If I have one complaint, it's that he doesn't play enough. It's hard to make a contribution when the manager never plays you. He's used to being a regular, so I'm sure the adjustment to his current role plays a factor.

 

Counsell simply plays too much. Graffy was a much better alternative from outset. Counsell is basically having the same year as Weeks, but Craig gets a pass. Probably because so much more is expected from Weeks. Counselnino combo was a roster snafu that has hurt the Brewers somewhat. With one of them gone the Crew might have had more success with Rottino or Dillon all season. On the other hand, on any given night Ned has a couple hitters in the form of spare OF'ers to use. Those guys aren't too bad.

[JJHardy7]

They are better than last year record wise. I don't think anyone ever thought Counsell, Graf, or Miller would carry us. I wonder more about leadership from them at this point then what they're doing on the field. I think we could use more leadership from a vet, but maybe to have that you need to produce?

[JohnBriggs12]

No, I didn't think those guys would carry us either. But combined they are making $8.3 million and in the offseason, we heard over and over what a solid veteran bench would do for this young team. They're record right now is 5 games better (62-59 vs 57-64) and at their recent pace they could be lucky to match last year's victory total at year's end, and they haven't lost their starting shortstop and 2nd baseman nor traded their number one power hitter as they did a year ago.

 

My point is that they spent a lot in an area that wasn't likely to make any difference on the team at all, and frankly hasn't and in fact while the ship is sinking, the vets have completely stopped producing.

 

I'm not blaming them. I'm blaming Melvin for allocating that much for the same production you could get for major league minimum then justifying it all winter by touting what a solid bench they had.

[JJHardy7]

The spent the money a Miller a few years ago. They didn't want Counsell and Graffy...that kind of backfired. Graffy was close to signing with San Diego. Instead he got arbitration and stayed with the Brewers. The Brewers were thinking it'd be about 5 - 6 million for Counsell and Miller. I don't think it's really the veteran benches fault. I don't think they'd win more games for us based on their history. I just was looking for more leadership and I think it's safe to say it's lacking at least a bit due to the tail spin the Brewers are on.

[joepepsi]

It's not too much to spend for a team that wants to compete for a playoff spot. While the offense could be more consistent, the real issue is the pitching, specifically, the starters. If Capuano and Suppan were even league average they'd be up by 5 games at the least. If they were close to their career numbers they'd be up by 8-10 games. If Sheets could actually stay healthy.....

 

Everything else is just nitpicking.

[JohnBriggs12]

It's not nitpicking because they touted their bench as a real plus coming into the season. I didn't tout it, they did. Were you listening? I heard Melvin, Yost and even Attanasio just gushing this spring that they had such a talented veteran bench.

 

Certainly they're other factors most notably the pitching, the demise of Rickie Weeks, the road woes of Cordero, Sheets injury, etc. have been major factors and the bench not contributing much is just a very minor thing in comparison, but juxtaposed with what they were telling us this spring, I think it's worth at least mentioning.

 

And perhaps you are right that it's not too much to spend but you can't possibly argue they have received their money's worth when Counsell and Miller have combined to hit .150 since the break?

[Invader3K]

I agree that, to a point, the veterans have underperformed a bit. That said, look at our "starters"...Hall, Weeks, and Hardy are all having mediocre seasons. Even Corey Hart has been struggling since the All-Star break.

 

I find it hard to blame someone like Craig Counsell...he's never going to put up stellar numbers, and he's simply playing so much because Weeks has been incredibly bad this season. Counsell and Graffy have both been way overused than they should have been.

[joepepsi]

Counsell and Miller have combined to hit .150 since the break

 

In precisely 100 at bats. Small sample size. Plus, these guys are the part of the bench that is there largely for defense. I think the bench has actually been better than average. As I said, I didn't like the idea of Graffy and Counsell on the team, but I think we all understand how that came about. As Invader said they've played way more than should have because of Weeks.

[Ennder]

And perhaps you are right that it's not too much to spend but you can't possibly argue they have received their money's worth when Counsell and Miller have combined to hit .150 since the break?

 

Because you are looking at a ridiculously useless sample from each player.

[sheethead]

And perhaps you are right that it's not too much to spend but you can't possibly argue they have received their money's worth when Counsell and Miller have combined to hit .150 since the break?

 

Because you are looking at a ridiculously useless sample from each player.

I don't see ridiculous or useless. I see 100 ABs. When I entered this thread - and read the main post - I thought I was going to see conversation of topic around "help from the vets." Why has this turned into a "bench hasn't been the problem" topic of choice? The point is that the vets have done little to help the team win. They aren't here to win games, they are here to help win games. If you want to talk about ridiculously useless, feel free to chime in everytime Craig Counsell comes to the plate.

[Ennder]

If you are going to judge Counsell by his last 56 AB's then you are going to come up with all kinds of silly complaints. Other than maybe Braun there isn't a player on this team that hasn't been bad over 56 AB's at some point this year.

 

Counsell has done more or less exactly what you should expect out of him, his RC's are the same as normal and he's one of the few decent defensive players on the team. He got payed a little more than he should have but if you are starting to blame our problems on someone like him you really need to take a look at the rest of the team and if you are going to try to judge a player by 56 AB's you should pay more attention to baseball and realize its a meaningless sample of AB's.

[sheethead]

If you are going to judge Counsell by his last 56 AB's then you are going to come up with all kinds of silly complaints. Other than maybe Braun there isn't a player on this team that hasn't been bad over 56 AB's at some point this year.

 

Counsell has done more or less exactly what you should expect out of him, his RC's are the same as normal and he's one of the few decent defensive players on the team. He got payed a little more than he should have but if you are starting to blame our problems on someone like him you really need to take a look at the rest of the team and if you are going to try to judge a player by 56 AB's you should pay more attention to baseball and realize its a meaningless sample of AB's.

 

You're missing the point. This thread isn't about blaming the Brewers problems on the vets. Its about discussing how they haven't really helped out that much, especially lately. We are heading into the stretch run, and that is when focus turns to recent production, not career production.

[joepepsi]

I don't think that's true. Miller is a fine backup catcher. You can't judge his season on his last 44 at bats. Gwynn was very good for a stretch off the bench. Gross has been disappointing, but that's what happens when you only get to play 3 time a month. Who's fault is that? Mench is not a great player but he has done pretty well in his limited. Dillon is hitting well so far.

 

It seems to me this topic should be retitled "No help from Counsell". Which isn't true either.

[BrewCityUnit]

I'm confused? When does sample size matter? How many atbats does a bench player to need to validate their stats?

[sheethead]

Counsell is being used as an example, mainly because he has seen the most playing time of the vets that are left.

[Fatter than Joey]

How many atbats does a bench player to need to validate their stats?

 

1 AB is all they need -- Where the small sample confusion comes from is in its application.

 

For example -- Can we say Joe Dillon has been a positive contribution? -- (9 hits 16 ABs) Absolutely -- Dillon has done great so far. Should we say Dillon is the answer for the next 5 years at 2b? -- No, it's too early to tell.

 

I actually agree with Ennder and JB in this thread.

 

I think what JB is trying to say, is that "we are not getting offensive production from our bench/vets". With this I would agree -- it was touted as a strength at the beginning of the season, and it has been far from a strength for us. Having 13 pitchers certainly doesn't help your bench, veteran or otherwise. Mench sucks, but is a good LHP option, Gross and TGJ have underwhelmed, Graffy and Counsell have not produced offensively. The other thing that hurts the bench aspect of the team is that guys like Mench/Jenks would be MUCH better if they were PH for each other later in games, but of course Yost never does that.

 

Then on the other hand Ennder is saying "why should we expect Counsell to be anything that he isn't". Regardless of sample size Counsell is going to be a slap hitter and good fielder. Counsell's impact could be greater if he was used as a late inning def. repl. Counsell's value is always going to be defensive, and will only have marginal offensive contributions.

 

Perhaps we could have found a more complete player than Counsell -- that would have been cool.

[Fear The Chorizo]

And perhaps you are right that it's not too much to spend but you can't possibly argue they have received their money's worth when Counsell and Miller have combined to hit .150 since the break?

 

Because you are looking at a ridiculously useless sample from each player.

I guess I'm new to this...but at what # of ABs, IP, etc does a ridiculously useless sample become useful? Is there a statistical industry standard for this? If so, I'd really like to know how that standard is determined. Does that standard factor in stages in a player's career? For instance, is there a way to quantify the expected decline of a veteran's #'s for X number of years beyond what is considered their "prime"? The same can be asked for a young player's #'s prior to them playing their "prime" years. Does it factor in FA contract years? Since we are discussing bench players in this thread, wouldn't the # of AB's required to become useful information be lowered, since they don't have the same amount of opportunities than they did earlier in their careers when they played everyday?

 

I'm just really sick and tired of constantly hearing about stats for everything under the sun from people on this board, but when other opinions are brought up based off situations/statistics that have just occurred, rather than using stats from seasons' past, they get shot down with the "small sample" and "regression/progression to the mean" responses. Not just in this thread, but in general. Specifically for this thread, while I agree that 56 ABs taken out at random are statistically meaningless - the issue I have with those 56 ABs (or the ABs since the all-star break, or Capuano's/Suppan's/Brewer Pitching's ineffectiveness, defensive ineptitude, etc) is that they're what's happening now, in the middle of a supposed pennant race.

[JJHardy7]

I guess you also have to realize who was touting this bench...the Brewers were. Every team "gushes" about their team in spring training. From career numbers or whatever you want it was downright silly to think the bench would carry the team. They've done what I expected as far as production. I don't think you can expect Miller, Counsell, or Graffy to do too much. They were solid (not great or even above average) at defense and usually take pitches. That's what I expected and that's what I got.

 

Like I said up top...listen to who is touting the bench. It was the national media it was the local media and the Brewers. I expected maybe more leadership from this bunch and to me that's the important thing. We don't have a vet to settle things down.

 

Graffy wasn't in the original plan for this year so we're basically talking about Miller and Counsell.