|
|
May 2009 - Posts
-
LHP Chris Cody:
All Chris Cody does is produce. Since being acquired from the Detroit Tigers in exchange for the underachieving Jose Capellan in 2007, Cody has pitched just about as well as you can ask a guy with his stuff to do. Last week he threw 13 innings, allowing 3 runs on 10 hits while striking out 9 and allowing only 1 walk. Drafted in the 8th round in 2006 out of Manhattan College by the Tigers, Cody's fastball maxes out in the mid 80's. He mixes in two effective breaking pitches (slider and curve) and a good change. All of those, along with his control, considered the best in the system by Baseball America, have allowed him to have success so far in his pro career.
Last year, splitting time between low and high A ball, Cody posted a 1.81 ERA in 114 2/3 innings and limited opponents to almost exactly one baserunner per inning (1.003 WHIP). Of course, a 24 year old with fringey stuff doing that in A ball is going to be treated with skepticism in the scouting community. Since being promoted to AA Hunstsville this year it's been basically more of the same. In 58 2/3 innings, so far he's posted a 2.30 ERA, struck out 48 while walking 10 and held opponents to a .195 batting average.
The Brewers have taken it slow with Cody so far, so it's hard to say if he'll get to see AAA this year no matter how well he pitches in Huntsville. It's also hard to say just what Cody will be able to do in the major leagues. With all due respect to Mark DiFelice, not many guys with mid 80's fastballs have broken in with much success lately, though plenty of savvy veterans have been able to get by on that sort of stuff and extend their careers. Ultimately, if he keeps this up, he will get a chance to pitch in the majors at some point, and stranger things have happened than someone like this having some modest success.
Three Up
OF Brendan Katin: Ryan Braun's teammate from the U got off to a slow start this year, but had two multi HR games this last week and posted a 1.262 OPS. He's probably a AAAA slugger, but those guys have some value.
1B Chris Errecart: Yeah, he was demoted back to high A ball after struggling to do much in AA, but the guy had a big week last week going 8 for 18 with a homer and a double.
RHP Donovan Hand: It's been a big week for fringey types so far here, so we might as well keep it going with Hand. He pitched 8 shutout innings last week and has a season ERA of 1.72 in AA Huntsville. Granted, he's basically repeating the level after pitching more than 80 innings there last year, but it's still eye opening when you consider his age.
Three Down
LHP Efrian Nieves: The strong start seems but a distant memory now. Nieves allowed 7 earned runs in 4 1/3 innings last week, and has allowed 12 in his last 11 1/3 innings.
RHP Cody Adams: Adams wasn't that bad in terms of how many runs he's given up lately, but he's been putting far too many baserunners on. Going back to last week, he's walked 8 and allowed 11 hits in 8 1/3 innings pitched, for a WHIP well over 2. Add in the fact he hasn't been striking many out (5 K's) and you've got a recipe for disaster...even if it hasn't happened yet.
1B Joe Koshansky: Living up to his reputation as an all or nothing slugger, Koshansky went 5-26 last week with a homer, a double and 10 K's. If something happens to Prince Fielder, help won't be coming from AAA.
-
Something interesting happened in the 9th inning of the Brewers 3-2 loss at the hands of the Cardinals on Wednesday, but it wasn't nearly as interesting as the explanation that came after the game. As you probably remember, Mat Gamel opened the 9th with a walk from Cards closer Ryan Franklin. At this point, most were expecting Jody Gerut to bunt to move Gamel to second. Gerut was pinch hitting for the pitcher's spot in the 8th hole. Instead, Gerut swung away and was quickly retired when he popped up. After Mike Rivera hit what should have been a double play ball, but ended up being only one out at second, Craig Counsell singled, putting two on and leaving the impression that, had Gerut successfully bunted, the game would probably be tied. Of course that isn't certain, because no one can say how Franklin and Counsell would have proceeded differently with a runner in scoring position. JJ Hardy ended the threat by grounding sharply to short which ended the game and sent the Brewers to their 5th loss in 7 games.
While it certainly wasn't something every manager would do, bunting the runner is something of a standard move for a team at home trying to at least tie the game. As you might expect, Manager Ken Macha was asked after the game why he didn't bunt by the writers on hand. Macha's response to the question was such, as per Tom Haudricourt:
When I asked Macha why he didn't bunt with Gerut, he made it seem as if he didn't think Gerut could get a bunt down. A bit strange, and more than a bit disappointing for a newly acquired backup outfielder.
"In my assessment of watching Jody out there (in batting practice), I felt more comfortable with him swinging the bat there."
Gerut is 1 for 6 since being acquired from San Diego last week. Asked if he thought Gerut was swinging the bat well enough to forego a bunt, Macha said, "It's not the swinging part. I'm not sure (about his bunting)."
On the surface, this is at least somewhat plausible. Macha may not have been comfortable with Gerut's ability to bunt, for all we know. The problem is that Gerut was his choice to come into the game at that time. He could have turned to Corey Hart or Bill Hall, both of whom have gotten down bunts in big situations in the past for this team. He could have also chosen any one of his starting pitchers who didn't start that day. Braden Looper, Dave Bush and Jeff Suppan are all experienced bunters. If Macha really did want to bunt in that situation and wasn't comfortable with Gerut, he certainly could have found someone else to do so.
Thus, it is fairly clear that Macha didn't really want to bunt there. It is a defensible move on several fronts. Gerut does possess good power, with 18 HR in his last two seasons in the majors covering less than 500 AB's. Giving up the out there does decrease your chances of scoring more than one run while barely increasing the chance of scoring one, at least in the most basic sense. There are lots of reasons Macha could have given for not bunting there, ultimately.
Instead, he chose to throw his perception that Gerut can't bunt out there for public consumption as the reason for his doing what he did. Now, this is thus far sort of an isolated incident. There was talk, however, that his tenure in Oakland ended in large part due to the fact that he couldn't get along with players. It's easy to see how Gerut, who wasn't even given the chance in the game to prove Macha wrong here, might take this as a slap in the face. Hopefully it will remain an isolated sort of incident, but it's hard to find a reasonable conclusion to draw here other than the press came to Macha to justify his decision and he chose instead to lay it at the feet of a player.
-
SS Alcides Escobar:
With JJ Hardy's back giving him trouble, Alcides Escobar picked a good week to get hot with the bat. Escobar gets our nod as prospect of the week after posting a .429 batting average, a .985 OPS and 2 steals in AAA Nashville. He has been playing relatively well lately after starting slowly, but needed a boost in production to climb up to a season line of .289/.333/.389.
Coming into this season, many organizations had Escobar as a top 50 prospect, based largely on the strength of his defense. That defense is already major league ready, as he flashes exceptional range and possesses a very good arm. His bat broke out last season at AA Huntsville, where he posted a .328 batting average and a .434 slugging percentage. While the high batting average might impress some people, Escobar's 5.3 percent walk rate and OBP only 35 points higher than his average shows a big need for improvement in the plate discipline department. The fact that his OBP is still only .333 this season shows he still hasn't improved his plate discipline to match major league levels yet. He has shown some impressive speed, though, stealing 20 in only 44 games this year while being caught only 4 times.
Alcides Escobar is only 22 years old, so he still has time to develop some more discipline and power. Until he does, though, he will only be a great defensive player that will rely on batting average to provide usefulness to a offense. That being said, Escobar could provide some help to the Brewers' injured middle infield in the near future. With Rickie Weeks out for the year, he is seeing some action at second to give the team another option. The club could choose to move JJ Hardy to third or trade him after this season if Escobar continues to develop in AAA as well. If the Brewers decide to keep the current infield in place, look for Escobar to be a possible trade piece in the near future of the club.
Three Up
OF Chris Dennis: Dennis, coming back from a injury, was a menace to opposing pitchers this week, hitting 11 for 26 with 3 doubles and 2 homers. That comes out to an impressive OPS of 1.233 for the week.
RHP Willy Peralta: Peralta had a unreal week, throwing 9 scoreless innings while striking out 17. Most weeks that would merit the prospect of the week, but we decided to go with Escobar because he might be called up to the majors soon.
OF Logan Schafer: Schafer played well when Brevard County could play this week. Schafer went 7 for 17 with 3 doubles, 2 walks and 2 steals. With a .811 OPS for the year, Schafer is starting to gain some attention at Brevard County.
Three Down
LHP Bobby Bramhall: Bramhall got lit up for 10 ER in 9 innings this week. He has struggled most of the season with a 7.36 ERA. Bramhall was a pitcher that we wanted to keep a eye on going into the season so let's hope he turns it around.
C Jon Lucroy: Lucroy struggled at the plate this week going 2-20 with 0 extra base hits. Lucroy's walk rate of 15 percent on this the season is excellent, but he has to start raising his .234 BA.
Brevard County Weather: 4 straight rainouts left us short on stats for the week. We wanted to mention Jeffress again this week after being demoted to Brevard, but three weeks in a row is kicking a man while he's down.
-
The last time that I talked about playoff chances in a happy way, things got ugly in a hurry, so I'm going to tread a little more lightly this time. For those unfamiliar with the work of the very smart folks (specifically Clay Davenport) over at baseballprospectus.com, they have assembled several different ways of keeping tabs of the playoff odds of teams as the season progresses. The most basic is the simple playoff odds report, where they take the data accumulated from all of the games played up to that point, feed it into a simulator that runs 1 million simulations, and then they mark how many times a team wins the division, the wildcard and the playoffs in general. As of the close of baseball business on Friday May 22nd, the Milwaukee Brewers were simulated to win the division almost exactly 38 percent of the time, win the wildcard 14.47 percent of the time and make the playoffs 52.47 of the time. At this point in the season, those numbers are pretty volatile, as simply losing to the Twins on Friday night dropped the Brewers playoff odds significantly (something in the neighborhood of 5 percent). Nothing earth shattering there. What is interesting, though, is that when they start using the projections system, PECOTA, to filter the results, things change fairly significantly. PECOTA was developed by Nate Silver as a player projection system. It takes mountains of data on a player's history, compares it to past data, and then projects what the player is likely to do in the future. Click on the link above for a basic breakdown of the system. Once run through PECOTA, the Brewers chances of making the playoffs brighten quite a bit. Their chances of winning the division jumps a lot to 46.07 percent, the wildcard percent jumps slightly to 16.47 percent and the overall odds of making the playoffs climb to 62.53 percent. Apparently, PECOTA thinks very highly of the Brewers, especially in comparison to their division rivals. To what can this be attributed specifically? I haven't the faintest idea. Assuming that PECOTA is constantly updating it's player projections based on injury and such, it may be that the system is projecting that the Cubs and Cardinals will have trouble keeping their guys on the field going forward, based on the fact that they already have both suffered multiple impact injuries. Of course, the Brewers being without Rickie Weeks would also be factored in if that is the case. It could also be that PECOTA is sold on the improvements the Brewers have made in plate discipline this season, that they are going to sustain themselves and that the pitching staff will continue to do what it has done. Without detailed information about PECOTA's process, it's hard to say for sure. The fact that most of their bump comes from within the division, as opposed to the wildcard, may well mean that this is more a case of PECOTA being down on the Cubs and Cards than it is up on the Brewers.
Either way, take heart Brewer fans. Though ESPN's analysts may not have taken notice, the computers apparently love our team.
-
The MLB draft is fast approaching, and unless you've been living under a rock the last 3 or 4 months, you've probably heard that pitcher Stephen Strasburg of San Diego State is the runaway pick to be taken first this year. He throws 100 MPH, is striking out around 2 batters per inning and threw a 17 K no-hitter earlier in the year. Strasburg's adviser, Scott Boras (cue the Imperial March from Star Wars), is rumored to be looking for a record shattering bonus from the Washington Nationals, the holders of the first pick. On the Nationals side of things, they desperately need something to get fans excited about their team and the cache that Strasburg possesses is something that they can't even consider passing on.
So it's a perfect match, right? Well, not so fast, writes Tim Marchman of CNNSI.com. He makes a fairly compelling argument that it may not be in the Nationals best interest to hold on to the pick and pay Strasburg what he is demanding. After all, they aren't close to contending for anything at this point and have more extensive needs than simply getting a top of the rotation starter. Add in some real concerns about Strasburg possibly having a limited shelf life, and one can reasonably say the Nationals would be wise to consider trading the top pick. The only problem with that is that teams cannot trade draft picks. This is where Marchman makes his best point:
This would be the most basic sort of economic transaction: One party with a valuable but possibly depreciating asset trading it for assets of less immediate value more likely to appreciate with time. It could position Washington to run the table in the National League East in the near future; it could mean a pennant or two or many to a team willing to take a calculated risk. And under the rules, it can't happen.
It's a compelling argument. Even if the Nationals couldn't take the public relations hit of trading away the rights to the top pick with a fanbase that is already accusing the organization of penny pinching, they should at least have the option to use the asset of the first pick in the way it could best help them build a winning organization. As Marchman points out, they could probably land a bevy of prospects to help fill out their thin system in exchange for the pick, and that could very possibly be more valuable than simply drafting and signing Strasburg. After this, though, is where things start to go very wrong for the article.
Baseball is a moralistic sport, one that promotes free competition for talent but guards against the prospect of one team becoming too rich or too powerful with several vacuous hedges, the worst of which amount in essence to protecting teams from themselves. No matter how much it's in their self-interest to do so, a team can't sell or buy a player with more than a relatively token sum of money involved, and unlike the other major team sports it can't trade or sell draft picks. The nominal purpose of this is to ensure that the weakest teams get the best talent; in practice it's more about keeping the best teams from getting it, and thus about preventing an efficient spread of talent throughout the game.
That begins harmlessly enough, as a good case that can be made is that the only reason for the prohibition of trading draft picks is to protect teams from themselves. Where Marchman takes it too far is when he extends that argument to include buying and selling players under the heading of protecting teams from themselves. That rule exists in direct response to owners in the first half of the 20th century who used their teams as piggy banks to finance outside areas of personal interest. It was correctly decided that fans should not have to suffer the outrage of having an owner simply sell off good players to turn a buck without getting player compensation in return.
Where it really gets dicey, though, is where Marchman claims that these rules are meant to prevent "an efficient spread of talent throughout the game" because they prevent the best teams from easy access to the best players at any given time with any given means. He seems to have a real problem with the notion that there would be restrictions that prevent the powerful (read: wealthy) teams from acquiring all the talent their money can buy. It may be more "efficient" for talent to find it's way to the wealthiest teams even more quickly than it already does in a purely Economics 101 sense, but what would lowering restrictions on that flow of talent mean to the non-wealthy teams in the game? What else would following this argument that talent should be free to move to the best heeled teams ASAP bring upon the game in general? It is the restrictions on player movement (the 6 year control period for players, arbitration, the reverse order of finish draft) that allow small market teams like the Brewers to compete with the big money boys to begin with.
Finally, after Marchman pays some lip service to the notion that; "Lousy teams aren't unworthy of premier players; rich ones don't deserve them by right." he manages to pass off one final bit of wrongheaded analysis:
That Washington is prevented from following on a rational line of argument, though, and that other teams won't even have the chance to make the kinds of offers that built the Dallas Cowboys and ruined the New York Knicks, is a small disgrace. And it would be a somewhat larger one if Strasburg, at the peak of his powers, were kept from baseball's grandest stage by nothing other than a vague fear of a caste system, in a day when the Tampa Bay Rays and Milwaukee Brewers have an easier time making the playoffs than the New York Mets. Where do you even start with that? First off, baseball teams may not be able to make the trade for future commodity in the form of a draft pick, but there is nothing stopping them from trading prospects a year after being signed for "win now" players. That makes things a little more difficult, but doesn't stop talent from finding it's way to the best teams dead in it's tracks. Furthermore, why is it a capital crime that Stephen Strasburg should be kept off of the "grandest stage" at the "peak of his powers?" It happens in every sport, even the ones that allow draft picks to be traded, all the time! When is the last time a #1 pick in the NBA or NFL played in their respective sport's championship in their rookie year? Even within a few years?
The coup de grace is that last bit about the Brewers and Rays supposedly having an "easier time making the playoffs" than the Mets. It's a nice little try to slip one past the goalie at the end of a period, as it were, but it's just such a clumsy shot that it looks silly. Clearly, it is not actually easier for the Brewers or Rays to consistently contend for playoff spots than the Mets. The fact that they made it last year and the Mets did not is proof that it is possible for smaller markets to overcome their limitations and beat out a big boy, not that those restrictions make it easier for them. It may seem like picking at nits, and perhaps it is, but these sorts of arguments are made all the time by fans of larger market teams to justify the large discrepancy in means between the haves and have nots. It's exactly this sort of slippery mention by Marchman that feeds that mindset and the more prevalent it becomes the more difficult it will likely become to address the revenue differences between the various teams in the game. It's a big market first mindset, barely disguised.
(H/T to Lake County for the heads up on the article)
More Posts Next page »
|
|