Round Table No. 2: The Brewers' Good Fortunes
Hello, and welcome to another edition of the Round Table.
As of this writing, your Milwaukee Brewers are currently perched atop the NL Central standings and fresh off a sweep of the Chicago Baby Bears. (Man, did that L flag get a workout!) That got me thinking: what accounts for the Brewers' good fortunes, compared to last year? Getting two stud pitchers has helped, of course, but even then, our "ace" had an ERA over 5 as late as mid-July. It's hard to say the offense or defense had improved, not when the big offseason addition has been Yuni Betancourt. We asked some BCB experts for their explanation of the Brewers' turnaround from 2010. Nicole and TheJay, what do you think?
The Jay writes...This question made me think of the 2007 team that started out 24-10. That year, of course, the Brewers were up 8 games as late as mid-June before fading. But 96 games in, they were 54-42. After that season, things were looking up as Ryan Braun and Yovani Gallardo were going to have their first full seasons, Mike Cameron was added to center field, and Johnny Estrada was gone. Of course, the 2008 team stumbled out of the gate, lost Gallardo, and fell to 20-24 and 7 games back at one point. The CC Sabathia trade is what really sparked that team's playoff run but it's worth noting through 96 games (6 with Sabathia), that team was 53-43. Their hot streak just came a bit later than in 2007.
Winning 24 of 34 games has actually been a yearly feat for the Brewers. Acknowledging 34 is an arbitrary number of games to look at, it's still kind of odd that in 2007, 2008, and 2009, their top 34-game record was 24-10. Then last year, the team never really had a hot streak. That team's best 34-game stretch was 20-14. So maybe the question shouldn't be what changed for this year, but rather what went wrong last year.
But that's not the question. I think the turnaround is attributable to a couple things. First, this team is actually playing for something. When you're six games back by May and nine by June, it's easy to feel and consequently play like the season is over. Second, the pitching staff. Last year, the pitching was bad, just like the year before. This year, however, the pitching staff is improved, in reputation and performance. To make one obvious point: having strikeout pitchers means less reliance on a bad defense to end innings/rallies (of course, strikeouts are not a cure-all). Finally, and take this with a grain of salt, since I don't know what the clubhouse is really like, but this team just seems more positive than last year. A new coaching staff, a better pitching staff, and ego-boosting preseason picks for the playoffs sparked optimism, but the hot streak that got this team into first place is what's kept it going.
Nicole Haase writes:
I think the biggest difference from last year to this year is the pitching. It says everything you need to know about this starting rotation that Randy Wolf went from a #2 starter last year to a #4 starter this year. I'm much more comfortable with him in that role.
Sure, Greinke hasn't been the pitcher we've all hoped to be, Kam Loe has stumbled some out of the bullpen (though not as badly as perception has it) but overall, improved pitching is the reason the team has improved. Starters are going deeper into games and with the addition of K-Rod, the team just needs to get to the 8th inning and then opponents are facing a pretty shut-down pair.
I do also think there's something to be said about an improved attitude with the team. This started when Ken Macha was removed from the manager's role. Maybe it's just perception, but there doesn't seem to be "quit" in this team. I believe Tuesday night's game was their 26th come-from-behind win of the season. The guys are aware that the talent of this team is good enough to win and that the group will not be together next season. They're as eager to win and go to the postseason as the fans are and I think that attitude comes across on the field. That feeling of team togetherness just wasn't there under Macha.
So what do you think? How do you explain the Brewers' turnaround from 2010?
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One of the more pleasant surprises this season
Has been Chris Narveson. I think we all were comfortable with him in the 5 spot, but weren’t expecting him to rise to the occasion like he has this year. Last year he had a 4.99 ERA with a 4.22 FIP, this year he has a 4.41 ERA with an FIP of 3.49 FIP and has put up 1.9 WAR. I don’t think many teams can expect that kind of production from their 5th starter.
Lurking in the waters of BCB since May 21, 2010
-Talk more baseball at @MarcumsChangeup on Twitter
Given the change in context
Narveson is really the same pitcher he was last year. Yes, he has been somewhat unlukcy, but in terms of the raw numbers, going from 4.99 last year to 4.41 this year isn’t really saying anything given the league wide decrease in run scored. His ERA+ has gone from 82 to 89. His WAR has actually gone DOWN.
As for 5th starters, many teams have guys like Narveson in the 5-hole.
- Worley (Phils) has been much better
*Beachy (Braves) has been much better
*Pelfrey/Capuano (Mets) have been the same
*Gorzelanny (Nats) has been the same
*Westbook (Cards) has been about the same
*Correia (Pirates) has been about the same
*Sanchez (Giants) has been better
*Hammel (Rox) has been the same
*Latos (Pads) has been about the same
The teams noticeably worse have been the Marlins (Volstad), Reds (Volquez/Arroyo), Cubs (variety), Stros (Happ), D-backs (Duke), Dodgers (Lilly…thought really unlucky).
So, Narveson isn’t really a great asset as a 5th starter….more of a middle of the pack guy or about what most teams are trotting out there as their #5.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
In terms of performance...they are
They are all the “worst” of their staff based on performance.
Remember, where you slot really doesn’t mean anything after you are once around the rotation. You aren’t labeled as a #3 or a #4 in any formal way.
The question is how does your worst starter (Narveson) compare to others?
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh....and if you don't want to list those guys as #5's....
…the numbers get even worse for Narveson, as most of those teams have everyone else who is actually better than the guy I listed.
So, if you aren’t going to list Correia as the #5, who do you list? Karstens and his 2.80 ERA? How does Narveson then compare?
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
BTW, Narveson isn't actually our "worst" starter this year in terms of performance.
Wolf is.
Lurking in the waters of BCB since May 21, 2010
-Talk more baseball at @MarcumsChangeup on Twitter
this is true...
…but I didn’t bring that up since it makes him look worse as it would compare him to the other team’s 4th best pitchers.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I disagree that Narve has been a middle-of-the-road fifth starter
Health and eating innings matter, too, all of which WAR measures. NL fifth-best starters by WAR:
Vance Worley (PHI): 2.2*
Chris Narveson (MIL): 1.3
Chris Capuano (NYM): 1.2
Jason Hammel (COL): 1.2
Derek Lowe (ATL): 0.9
Mat Latos (SD): 0.7
Jonathan Sanchez (SF): 0.7
Kevin Correia (PIT): 0.4
Tom Gorzelanny (WAS): 0.1
Jake Westbrook (STL): 0.1
Zach Duke (ARI): -0.1
Ted Lilly (LA): -0.2
Doug Davis (CHC): -0.9
Chris Volstad (FLA): -0.9
Edinson Volquez (CIN): -1.1
J.A. Happ (HOU): -1.8
*Oswalt is actually fifth-best on the Phillies, but he’s clearly not the fifth starter. His WAR is 0.8.
Second-best fifth starter in the NL by WAR is not middle of the pack.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jul 30, 2011 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
splitting hairs
First off, there isn’t any significant difference between say, 1.3 and 0.9. They are the same pitcher. As I noted, just about everyone has a 5th starter that is basically a replacement level pitcher (say, between 0 and 1 WAR). Whether you rank 2nd or 8th in that bunch really doesn’t matter.
This is especially true when some of those guys only rank slightly lower because they have missed some starts.
If you want to make a big deal about Narveson’s durability, that is fine, but it really isnt reflective of the quality of his pitching, which is what the initial post was referring to.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions
That's also rWAR, which is less generous to Narve-Dog than fWAR because it's ERA not FIP
By fWAR, Narveson has been worth the same as Marcum and the 25th most of any starter in the National League. That’s extremely good for the cheap guy at the bottom of your rotation (aka fifth starter).
"PLUSH ALERT: THERE WAS AN UNTUCKING AT FENWAY!"
a few factors
1. First off, I would say that they aren’t significantly better. For instance, their Pythagorean expectation is that they should be right at .500. So, they have been a bit lucky in terms of their overall record. That is only 3 games better than their winning percentage last year.
2. So, where has that slight improvement come from? Well, obviously the pitching. They have gone from ranking towards the bottom of the NL to the middle of the NL. Replacing Bush and Parra with Grienke and Marcum will do that. (Given that Grienke has been less than expected, we can really give credit to Marcum here).
3. The Reds last year were better than anyone in the division this year. So, being in first place (as opposed to 2nd, a few games back) tends to change perspective a bit.
All the stuff about attitude and morale and all that is just kind of superfluous.
"3. The Reds last year were better than anyone in the division this year. So, being in first place (as opposed to 2nd, a few games back) tends to change perspective a bit."
The Reds are pretty much the same team this year as they were last year. I think they just overperformed last year and are underperforming this year.
Kind of....
They were right at their expected win total last year, so that statement is not accurate.
They ARE underperforming this year though. They actually have a better expected record than the Brewers this year.
So, it is more a case of them being unlucky this year. In fact, a quick glance at the numbers suggests that they have been the unluckiest team in baseball this year.
The Brewers are 23-14 in one run games. The Reds are 16-23.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the bigest problem with the expected win-loss atuff is that it doesn't account very well for teh bullpen.
Teams with good bullpens will win a lot of close games and every team will sometimes get blown out. Those blow out games completely mess up the XWL%
Example:
3-2 W
2-0 W
4-2 W
2-12 L
Since the XWL is just factoring runs it would assume that you would have lost more of those games than you won since you were outscored in the series. I think it’s an interesting stat but extremely flawed.
Remember the D-Backs a few years ago? The disparity in their actual W/L vs. XWL was insane.
For your health!
Yes
..the bullpen can skew the numbers a bit, but I don’t know that it applies here. Remember, we have Loe, Braddock, Estrada, Green, Stetter, etc. that have all been mediocre.
By comparison, the Reds bullpen looks better.
Our relievers have a 3.89 ERA. The Reds are at 3.21(in a better hitter’s park).
So, I don’t think it works to explain things here…but rather, random luck at work.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions
We also have an awful defense
So we probably shouldn’t be looking at ERA.
irrelevant
The issue isn’t really whether or not one bullpen is better than the other. The issue is whether the luck factor in one run games is skewed because of bullpen performance (the research suggests that a very good or bad bullpen has more of an influence on record in one run games, pulling teams away from the expected norm of .500).
I am simply pointing out that having a bad bullpen does not appear to be an issue in the Reds losing more games than expected.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Also, I thought I had heard last year that the Reds were ridiculously good in one run games
But, I just went back and checked and they were .500. So i must be remembering wrong.
We don't really. We have an awful shortstop though, I'll give you that.
"PLUSH ALERT: THERE WAS AN UNTUCKING AT FENWAY!"
FWIW
We have 16 blown saves this year. The Reds have 15.
by badgermaniac on Jul 30, 2011 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I Don't Know About Sabremetrics
And I’m not posting to argue or prove I’m right, like most of the posts I read.
I’m just going to state the opinion I have, primarily because this is an easy outlet and my wife could really care less.
It seems like the Crew’s record should be better than it is. They have significantly upgraded their starting pitching, Prince is playing around MVP caliber, and their core unit has been somewhat healthy.
I read a lot of bashing of Yuni Betancourt. He hasn’t been great, but he’s come through more than Casey McGehee. I think it’s time to give Gamel a shot to prove he’s a bona fide major leaguer.
I’m not sold on Ron Ren’s ability. I keep thinking if Joe Torre or another top flight manager was working for our beloved Brewer’s we’d be running away with the division.
Bottom line—this team is much like it was in years past. Too many strikeouts, too many left on base (sorry, this is the eye test, I don’t have any newfangled stat to back my statement). A good pitcher strikes Ricky Weeks out half the time.
The team seems to beat mediocre pitching and is hamstrung by above average pitchers. I see them getting swept by a good team if they make it to the playoffs.

by 



































