The Chorus Grows Louder

great article, john.

im a bit curious why harveys wallbangers would keep his name private.  very good analysis.

------------------------

in retrospect, giving shouse pitcher of the month seemed to put too much pressure on him, no?

do you guys think that with doug's iffy comments about yost; that he is buying some time to see if any new candidates emerge to manage this team next year?

BTF has a nice stable of Brewers backers, and Harvey is obviously the most impassioned.  Sometimes when I read his ramblings, I think he comes off as a crazy guy with too much time on the internet, but he does bring up valid points.  I don't care much for the inference of clubhouse drama, though valid, he doesn't bring up specific events that would cause so much strife.  In any case, the drama in the clubhouse doesn't mean much to the play on the field.

In the end, poor bullpen management cost the team a few wins (they didn't say anything about getting the relievers up in games frequently and not using them).

Sorry to state the blindingly obvious, but Jeff is smarter than I am, on this particular subject at least, it's a wide margin.  But I squirm a bit at the comment that bullpens and teams don't collapse absent over-use or legit mental hangup.  Unless the latter category is so potentially massive that its an exception that can swallow the rule.  

Now I do realize that the sheer number of games and duration of the season makes baseball lend itself to statistical analysis and the hot stretches and cold stretches tend to even out.  But these guys are still human beings, not automotons, and while with most guys bad moods or distratctions (and the absence thereof) tend to balance out, there are times even in the apparent absence of a source of mental collapse (like Wise's situation this year), that human beings hit the wall and go into prolonged tailspins that can last months.  And not just in baseball.  Relying solely on statistical analysis doesn't take that into account, and baseball fans who love that side of game evaluation often refuse to acknowledge that failure.  

The concept that "additional evidence shows that the earlier evidence was misleading" is circular in nature, and therefore tells us basically nothing.  Quite frankly, it's the kind of statement that would get you laughed out of the room if you made it to anyone other than statisticians or data analysts.  

Does that mean it isn't true?  Not necessarily.  There have been Brewer seasons where I felt that way, particularly since 1992:  hot Aprils that weren't sustained, or successful second-half performances that struggled so badly earlier in the year.  But you have to be careful with that kind of analysis, and if you'll forgive me for saying so, you have to rely on more than mathematical calculation or trend analysis, at times, to determine whether that conclusion actually fits the situation you're analyzing.  Without that kind of restraint, or perspective beyond the numbers, the idea that "additional evidence shows that the earlier evidence was misleading" could be used to explain virtually ANY observed phenomena, and you'd be no closer to understanding any of them even after you apply that lable.  

With all due respect, I don't think that conclusion fits the 2007 Brewers at all. I think that John Brattain's analysis comes a lot closer to explaining what happened than Jeff's does in this particular instance, and in my opinion at least, the ideas expressed therein would go a longer ways towards cluing in the powers that be how to proceed from here.

... predictably, amidst a chorus of boos at Wrigley field.

I like to think that if the Brewers had made the playoffs, we would have won a game against the DBacks.  I also like to think that if our season would have ended in a playoff game at Miller Park, the Brewers wouldn't have been booed on their way into the clubhouse.  But I don't really know if either of those hopes would have come true...