The Brewers didn't address their real needs

[Weirdos19]

My money is on Cordero not being worth 46 million. As good as Cordero was the first half of the season, he was as mediocre the second half. That series in Texas blew his confidence for about 6 weeks.

Also, to address the starting pitching. The starting pitching is stronger this year, no doubt. Full years of Gallardo, Villanueva, and Parra will be a dramatic improvement over Bush, Cappy, and Vargas. And since all three of the latter pitched to contact more, the defense will have fewer chances as a whole.

The bullpen has been blown up. It was needed. Gagne's signing got the headlines, but the Riske signing will be more important. The guy was great last year. Also, no more watching Wise implode. He was good for a couple of years, but he lost it.

The defensive improvment is the most important part of this offseason. Heck, if Bonds can play like he did last year, a speedy Braun should be adequate if not good. Cameron will get to everything in Miller Park. The guy gets a great jump.

And to compare Jenks to Cameron is crazy. Jenks hit .271 last year with only 60 at bats versus lefties. If he played everyday, he may have ended up around .240. Cameron played in the worst hitters park in baseball and still was 20-20. He could get to 20-20 in just the 5 months he's eligible to play. How about a 90-90 outfield? It could happen.

I see 90 wins.

[Gopher74]

Gotcha - but whatever that class is, it's a good bet that the $10 mil. AAV will increase with each new top CP deal, so $10 mil. won't last through the 2009 offseason at the top.

Right, but again, that's also assuming that you have to go the Free Agent route. I look at our farm system and see several possibilities of guys that we could potentially be closers for us. I also think that developing BP arms is going to be a big point of emphasis for this scouting dept. All those things, I think it's possible we may end up looking at a reliever or to in the future, but not like we did this year, and I don't think there will be the same level of urgency as we had right now.

 

Luis Pena, Jeremy Jeffress, Mark Rogers. Those are the 3 best bets to be closers IMO. then again, option 2 and 3 are hopefully going to be starters. Can you imagine a rotation of Gallardo, Jeffress, Rogers, Parra, and Villanueva if they all reach their potential?

My argument has never been different from 'it may cost us more money.' I think you're getting some people's points jumbled. I love that the Gagne deal is for one year.

 

Yea, I must be, but you quoted me from when I was talking to "FatterthanJoey" and engaged in that argument, so that's why I confused the two.

 

Anyway, we could go 'round and 'round on this, but the bottom line is I think we upgraded our Bullpen substantially from when it was an issue, and that we saved ourselves at least some long term flexibility.

[TooLiveBrew]

While Pena looks promising, I'm taking the 'wait & see' approach with him for MLB, let alone the back end of the 'pen. With Jeffress, he's still so far away from MLB - on & off the field. I can't see him in Mil. any sooner than 2010. Rogers has had so much trouble with his shoulder, I think he's still a longshot to even sniff MLB.

 

I agree with the concept of developing RP - if there's any way in which a small-market team can save money in the most efficient manner, it's not spending it on the bullpen.

[Gopher74]

While Pena looks promising, I'm taking the 'wait & see' approach with him for MLB, let alone the back end of the 'pen. With Jeffress, he's still so far away from MLB - on & off the field. I can't see him in Mil. any sooner than 2010. Rogers has had so much trouble with his shoulder, I think he's still a longshot to even sniff MLB.

 

I agree with the concept of developing RP - if there's any way in which a small-market team can save money in the most efficient manner, it's not spending it on the bullpen.

Well obviously they're a long way away and all long shots. It was just kinda a side comment about who I think has the right stuff to be a closer currently in our system.

 

[logan82]

Weirdos19 wrote:

Also, to address the starting pitching. The starting pitching is stronger this year, no doubt. Full years of Gallardo, Villanueva, and Parra will be a dramatic improvement over Bush, Cappy, and Vargas. And since all three of the latter pitched to contact more, the defense will have fewer chances as a whole.

For the last week while discussing Parra so much and why I think he will be in AAA, I have started to have a sneaking suspicion that Villy ends up back in the pen. One of the reasons that I kept presenting was that DM and Yost prefer experienced arms over young talent. I point to putting Vargas in the rotation over Villy last year. Thinking about it more I suspect that there is a chance that Bush would end up in the rotation over Villy. The chat with Yost, MA and DM today has done nothing but reinforce that suspicion. I do think that whoever we put out there to start will pitch more innings which I think will have a bigger impact on our bulpen than the change in relief pitchers. Also, having our better relievers in a more flexible role in the pen instead of locked into a closer role should make a big impact.

[lukevan]

They also said in the chat that Villanueva will get strong consideration for the starting rotation.

 

I have also had the feeling that you're having logan, that DM and Yost will decide to use Villy in the pen simply because we have a dearth of starting pitching right now. And maybe that wouldn't be a terrible move, considering we could always trade Bush or Vargas at the deadline after a full first half of starts, but I think Villy winds up in the rotation after Vargas is traded for prospects and Bush moves to the pen. He's been too good as a starter to leave him out of the rotation unless you really think you have 5 equal or better starters than him.

[TooLiveBrew]

The chat with Yost, MA and DM today has done nothing but reinforce that suspicion.

 

I got that exact same impression, logan.

 

They also said in the chat that Villanueva will get strong consideration for the starting rotation.

 

That sounded like an extreme dose of 'front-office speak' to me. That was the most startling part of the chat imo. Here's the quip from Nedly: "We have five strong armed right handers to begin with along with other guys that will be battling for jobs." I didn't think to count them up at the time, but... TBow, Riske, Gagne, Mota, Torres... hmmm - I'm thinking a trade of Vargas is imminent.

[sbrylski]

I could see three reasons for putting Bush in the rotation to start the season and leaving Villanueva in the pen:

• Though Villanueva pitched 182 innings in 2006, he only got 122.2 innings last season. Starting the season with a lesser role would allow the club to keep his overall innings down to a projected ~170 or so.
• Re-establish trade value for one or both of Chris Capuano and Dave Bush.
• Bush might be the better pitcher. He's had the better K/BB rate each of the last two seasons, as well as a better HR rate over that time.

[logan82]

I could see three reasons for putting Bush in the rotation to start the season and leaving Villanueva in the pen:

• Though Villanueva pitched 182 innings in 2006, he only got 122.2 innings last season. Starting the season with a lesser role would allow the club to keep his overall innings down to a projected ~170 or so.
• Re-establish trade value for one or both of Chris Capuano and Dave Bush.
• Bush might be the better pitcher. He's had the better K/BB rate each of the last two seasons, as well as a better HR rate over that time.

Bush has also been pretty durable over the last couple years going 210 and 186 innings. That 186 was with a few starts skipped so he could have very easily been over 200 again. Personally I would prefer Villy, but a very strong case for Bush over Villy could be made.

 

They also said in the chat that Villanueva will get strong consideration for the starting rotation.

 

The way Yost said it made it sound like Villy is on the outside looking in right now. Of course I could just be reading to much into it.

[strawbossisevil]

Ok, I have only been skimming the general argument. But I guess I don't see how our bullpen will be better than last seasons. Let's take a look.

 

Gagne vs. Cordero - Ok, our closer role may not be quite as good. It all depends on which Gagne we get. If he pitches like he did in Texas, or if he gets stronger being one more year further away from his surgery, this could be a wash. I'll give Cordero the slight edge here. My guess is it costs us 1-2 games tops though.

 

Bush vs. Villenueva - Ok, this is a bit of an assumption on my part that Bush will be in the pen. But Villy had an ERA in the upper 4s as a reliever last season. Yes, that includes a very bad month after he was very good to start the season. But a few other things to consider. Villy put up those numbers in only half a season. Bush should put up similar or better numbers over a WHOLE season. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Bush with a sub 4 ERA as a reliever (most starters perform better as relievers). All in all, having a full season of Bush in the long relief spot, over a half season of Villenueva + the garbage that replaced him once he began to start, is probably an advantage to Bush. Bush should have an ERA in the low 4s or high 3s, and do that over the whole season. My guess is that we gain about one win because of that.

 

Linebrink vs. Riske - First of all, it should be pointed out that we got Linebrink at the trade deadline last season, so before coming over his spot in the bullpen was occupied by lesser pitchers. While he was decent, he was not exactly a lights out pitcher. Riske we'll have for the full season and if his numbers over the last few years are any indication, he should put up better numbers. A full season of Riske vs. a half season of Linebrink is an easy advantage for this coming season. Again, probably at least a one game improvement, if not two.

 

Turnbow '07 vs Turnbow '08 - Having a deeper pen should allow Turnbow to not be forced to pitch as often on back to back days (where he really struggled last season). With better rest, I could see him posting better numbers. However, for the sake of not arguing this too much, I'll call it a push with perhaps a one game advantage for '08.

 

Wise vs Torres - Torres admitted to not training in the offseason last year because he was backstabbed by the Pirates organization (thus his numbers took a hit, and he had injury issues). However, this year he is back to training hard, and other than last season has had an ERA in the low 3s all the way down to the mid 2s. He is also an innings eater, pitching over 90 innings in the three seasons before last season. Wise pitched well for half a season and then disappeared. So once again, Torres should be a safe bet for an ERA probably in the mid to high 3s (could be lower than that), and he should pitch about 20-30 more innings than Matt did last season. I'll call that a one to two game advantage for '08.

 

Mota vs Spurling - Mota has the better stuff. It remains to be seen how well he will pitch. He has crazy potential, and for many years in LA was a very good set up man. While many say Spurling was never used in tight situations, that is not altogether true. Especially in extra innings he was used frequently. I see this as a slight improvement to the bottom of the pen, with the potential of being a huge improvement. I would say this may be a push, but also could be a one to two game advantage if he pitches even slightly as well as he has shown to be capable of.

 

Shouse '07 vs Shouse '08 - Shouse pitched very well last season. He might not be quite that good next season, but it shouldn't be significant enough to cost us more than one game tops.

[Ennder]

Linebrink and Wise should really be counted as one guy, by the time we traded for Linebrink Wise was unreliable and not being used in important situations anymore. So Riske basically is a sidegrade to Wise+Linebrink. Torres gets compared to Spurling and Mota is eating up the innings that guys like Dessens pitched. It isn't a huge upgrade but it is a small one, mostly a depth related one.

 

Even if Gagne ends up hurt and a bad risk you slide every one of those up a level and you have Riske vs Cordero, Torres vs Linebrink/Wise and Mota vs Spurling types and the bullpen is pretty close to the same as last year.

[Fatter than Joey]

I guess we don't have to upgrade from the first half of the year, but our BP was awful the second half.

 

I think that this may be due to the use of the pen rather than the pitchers in it. Villy was overworked and Wise wasn't the same after crashing that dude's melon.

 

I think our problems were in the 7th and 8th innings last year for the most part.

 

Innings -- Runs

 

7th -- 110 (In Bottom 3)

1st -- 104 (Not in Bottom 3 in NL)

6th -- 101 (In Bottom 5)

8th -- 98 (In Bottom 3 in NL)

 

Certainly you are right the 6th-7th-8th are a problem. I took a quick look at what happened -- In the 6th our starters gave up the most runs, giving up a lot of HRs (2nd most in NL) -- this could be an indication that Yost left starters in too long. Cappy, Vargas, and Suppan really struggled.

 

In the 8th, Turnbow gave up the most runs and pitched the most, followed by Spurling and Shouse.

 

In the 7th, Villy, Bush, Wise and Shouse in that order -- Villy and Wise had the most PAs, but Bush got absolutely lit up.

 

So in a very cursory manner here are my conclusions.

 

1.) The Brewers were one of the worst teams in the NL in innings 6-8.

2.) It is interesting that once Suppan, Cappy, Vargas got to the 6th they got crushed, Bush could make it to the 7th. The starters however gave up the lion's share of the runs, this is probably more of a pitching staff utilization problem than problems with the actual staff.

3.) Turnbow was the biggest contributor to the 8th inning (bottom 3 in NL), if he pitches for the Brewers in 08, he may not pitch in the 8th, but it will probably be in the 6th-8th, and the good and the bad of Turnbow will probably remain consistent next year.

 

And that we saved ourselves at least some long term flexibility.

 

There is no question about this. Our BP will almost have to be blown up in 2008 off-season as well just because most of the players will be gone.

[logan82]

Fatter than Joey wrote:

2.) It is interesting that once Suppan, Cappy, Vargas got to the 6th they got crushed, Bush could make it to the 7th. The starters however gave up the lion's share of the runs, this is probably more of a pitching staff utilization problem than problems with the actual staff.

It wasn't like they were out there with a high pitch count though. Left in after 100 pitches or something. Unless you are trying to say those 3 guys should have been on an 80 pitch count. The one time Yost pulled a guy early, Suppan, we heard about that for the rest of the year.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think that this may be due to the use of the pen rather than the pitchers in it. Villy was overworked and Wise wasn't the same after crashing that dude's melon.

 

Wise never pitched well in the second half of the season. I think his collapse last year was coincidental to the beaning more than a cause of it. As far as the useage of the pen goes I think you're right. Melvin did a poor job of getting certain types of relievers for Yost to use. He very often had to use square pegs for round holes. Villy was a perfect example of that. Well rounded pens tend to have an innings eater who can play in 80 or so games and log as many innings a year without a huge drop off. They are guys who can play multiple days in a row take a break and do it all over agian if needed. Villy was supposed to be that guy but he wasn't up to that role. That inbalance looks to have been addressed this winter. I think we can expect the pen to be used better with players filling roles they are familiar with and capable of handling.

[Fatter than Joey]

The one time Yost pulled a guy early, Suppan, we heard about that for the rest of the year.

 

Suppan averaged 6IP 98 pitches -- he wasn't too good once he got over 80 pitches. I don't think a manager can just say -- "He's good to go, he only threw 70 pitches" it depends on the situation.

 

EDIT: The Brewers pitching staff had the highest OPS & BAbip, for pitches 76-100 in the NL last year.

 

MIL -- .964

FLA -- .915

PHI -- .912

 

(The Brewers were 4th in PAs with 822)

[strawbossisevil]

Our bullpen was worn out and abused as it was. You can't tell me we should have had them pitch more innings. Funny thing is I think you've complained about the "abuse" of the RPs as well (if I'm remembering correctly). You can't have it both ways. Either we would have had to kept our starters in longer (in the case which your numbers showed that we were poor), or pull them sooner and have a tired and abused bullpen.

 

That was one of the biggest problems last season (aside from defense). A problem that hopefully will be fixed some this season. We will have Gallardo in there, who I believe can be a solid innings eater. Sheets when healthy eats innings (fingers crossed). Villanueva also did quite well when he started. And then it comes down to Suppan (who despite not always going late into the game hit 200 innings last season) and Capuano.

 

With Vargas out of the rotation, our starters will go deeper into games on average.

 

Then, we look at the bullpen. This year we added two guys with rubber arms in Mota and Torres. Torres especially who before last season had 90 innings in consecutive seasons. Add Bush into the bullpen and we have three guys who can soak up the innings (last year we really only had Villanueva who could do that, and he only did that for the first half of the season - thus the bullpen being overworked in the second half).

 

So what's the big point: With starters who will go later into games than last season and a good number of middle relief options who can soak up a large number of innings, the back end of the bullpen should be significantly more rested, and significantly more effective than they were last season.

[And That]

The last two posts points out the primary thing the pitching staff needs to get better at next year - starters pitching effectively not through some arbitrary inning count, but pitching effectively and evenly through their pitch count. As a result, the bullpen not only likely gets worked more lightly, it has a better chance of being more effective due to stronger finishes by the starters. I know they'd never come out and say it but that bullpen had to dread Vargas and company getting beyond 75 pitches, and as the stat FTJ pointed out proves.

 

That stat is almost so bizarre, I'd think it would have to go down as an outlier last season. That actually gives me some confidence in the staff next season, especially given the likely departure of Vargas from the rotation, unless there's some underlying problem that caused the OPS to bloat so much so late in pitch counts.

[logan82]

I believe Ender has pointed to Capuano having the bulpen let in alot of runs for him last year. Maybe we have enough guys now to actually have aquality guy pitch those innings.

[Fatter than Joey]

You can't tell me we should have had them pitch more innings.

 

Here's the thing. Let's say Starting Pitcher A, is coming into the 6th inning with 75+ pitches. The manager knows that the pitcher is about to run out of gas, but decides to see if the pitcher can gut out the 6th. Starting Pitcher A gets rocked, and then you bring in the relief pitchers. My point is, is that if a manager leaves a starter in to long, the BP generally pitches about the same amount of innings in that game, so I would rather see the BP just start the inning rather than than inheriting runners, and letting the starter get racked.

 

People assume that in the grand "left the starter in too long debate" -- that the BP always ends up picking up extra innings, when in fact, many times the BP ends up pitching the same amount of innings if they had started the inning, only now they have to pitch with inherited runners.

 

Funny thing is I think you've complained about the "abuse" of the RPs as well (if I'm remembering correctly).

 

If you are speaking to me you are remembering incorrect. My criticisms of Yost's handling of the pitching focus more around things like letting Shouse pitch to a lot of RHers, and not bringing in Cordero in the bottom of the 8th when T-bow is clearly not effective, bringing in Aquino because "he fields his position better", bringing in a guy like Grant Balfour to pitch in a BL extra inning situation, when he hasn't pitched in the bigs in 4 years. Moreso who he has pitch it what situation rather than the overall volume of use.

 

I don't think you can find a post of mine where I claimed that Yost "abused or overused his BP." -- I think that there were some pitchers like Villy that got a bit tired.

[strawbossisevil]

My bad Joey. But the point is simple. You can't pull a pitcher at 75 pitches. A starting pitcher should be able to approach 100 pitches per game. Perhaps that reflects poorly on the conditioning that our pitchers were doing last season, perhaps that needs to be stepped up.

 

In a lot of those situations you are referring to, our pitchers were pitching very well. And to pull them would seem foolish, especially with a run down bullpen. (Let's face it, if we pulled every starter a 75 pitches, the bullpen would get a lot more work, that's undeniable).

 

So really, how do you determine then who goes beyond 75 pitches and who doesn't? That's a difficult problem, because even over the course of a season, how a pitcher pitches between pitches 75-100 is still a small sample, and would fluctuate greatly over the course of a season.

 

The idea is as long as the pitcher hasn't gone beyond his 100 pitch limit and he is pitching effectively, you don't pull him, because said pitcher could get two more innings in there and save the bullpen a lot of work. (Such as Sheets on opening day last season)

 

I'll admit that sometimes sending a pitcher out there works out poorly for the bullpen, but often those instances are only recognized clearly in hindsight. (Which is great for armchair managers, but not so cut and dried for people in Nedly's shoes.)

[TooLiveBrew]

You can't pull a pitcher at 75 pitches. A starting pitcher should be able to approach 100 pitches per game. Perhaps that reflects poorly on the conditioning that our pitchers were doing last season, perhaps that needs to be stepped up.

Good question about conditioning. But imo you can't analyze things in a vacuum & say 'you can't pull at only 75 pitches' - though in essence I agree with that.

(Let's face it, if we pulled every starter a 75 pitches, the bullpen would get a lot more work, that's undeniable)

I think this is only logical. Regardless of how frequent or infrequent FtJ's 'inherited runners' situation comes up - as in, RP still has to get the same number of outs as if he'd started the inning - over a whole season, a 75-pc will clearly result in more work for the bullpen.

So really, how do you determine then who goes beyond 75 pitches and who doesn't?

The magical powers of Ned - with math on his side!

I'll admit that sometimes sending a pitcher out there works out poorly for the bullpen, but often those instances are only recognized clearly in hindsight. (Which is great for armchair managers, but not so cut and dried for people in Nedly's shoes.)

I agree - but there were more than just a handful of instances last year when Yost made - at best - the 2nd best choice. This was not just once in a blue moon, hence all the debate. But I grant you that there are some that will only criticize his moves, and not make any attempt to understand why they were made... or give credit when he makes a nice move.

[Thurston Fluff]

I agree - but there were more than just a handful of instances last year when Yost made - at best - the 2nd best choice. This was not just once in a blue moon, hence all the debate.

 

I agree with you this sometimes happens but if the first choice is always used it means one or two guys are going to pitch until their arm falls off leaving the pen with the second or third choice for the stretch run in August and September. The real key to bullpen management is to have enough viable options that the choices are 1 and 1A.

[Fatter than Joey]

You can't pull a pitcher at 75 pitches.

 

Right, and generally I would agree. 75-100 pitches is about a 25% range, but 75-100 pitches probably best represents the danger zone for a starting pitcher. I think it would be ridiculous to pull pitchers at 75 pitchers, but on the other hand, I think it is just as silly to have pitchers throwing until 100, just for the sake of hitting 100.

 

In a lot of those situations you are referring to, our pitchers were pitching very well.

 

No they weren't, and the stats bear that out.

 

So really, how do you determine then who goes beyond 75 pitches and who doesn't?

 

Who said that pitchers have to be pulled at 75 pitches? -- The problems could have and probably happened closer to 100 than to 75. As far as who determines it, I am not sure who did last year, Ned probably should have some input.

 

That's a difficult problem, because even over the course of a season, how a pitcher pitches between pitches 75-100 is still a small sample, and would fluctuate greatly over the course of a season.

 

This is not a good small sample argument -- our staff pitched lousy in pitches 76-100, over 800 plate appearances, plus we know that in most cases pitchers are going to start to falter in that pitch range.

 

The idea is as long as the pitcher hasn't gone beyond his 100 pitch limit and he is pitching effectively, you don't pull him, because said pitcher could get two more innings in there and save the bullpen a lot of work.

 

Right -- however our pitchers were not pitching well up to pitch 100 (generally speaking)

[Ennder]

The national league had an OPS against of .817 from pitches 76-100 last year. That is the worst OPS of any range of pitches and most certainly is the danger zone. The time to be careful with a pitcher is in that range most of the time.

[Gopher74]

logan3825 wrote:It wasn't like they were out there with a high pitch count though. Left in after 100 pitches or something. Unless you are trying to say those 3 guys should have been on an 80 pitch count. The one time Yost pulled a guy early, Suppan, we heard about that for the rest of the year.

That game you are refering to which I believe was vs the Chicago Cubs when he brought in Linebrink and we got killed by a 4 run inning and lose the lead was about a week after he'd left Bush in in a near identical situation vs the Giants.

 

I understand they are two different pitchers, but a lot of the time last year, Yost seemed to be screwed no mater what he did.

 

Now of course leaving Mench in with a left hander on the benc, or leaving Turnbow in after he sends the first 8 pitches over the batters head, or at the peanut vendor in the stands can be put uon Yost, but far more is blamed on him than reasonably should be.

 

That game however is one game I was really upset with Yost though. I felt as though he made the right decision to leave Bush in that Sunday get away game vs the Giants, it just didn't work out right, and then he compounded the problem by making a stupid decision that didn't end up working out alright anyway.