MLB 2009 - Push to the All-Star Game and Trade Deadline

All Categories >> Sports >> Baseball

06/02/2009 5:50 pm

Scott's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.

176 posts is enough for the first blog of the 2009 Major League Baseball season.

Here are the last two comments of that blog so we know where we left off:

~~Sara~~ Sarah wrote:
http://blog.mlive.com/cutoffman/2009/06/brewers_gm_corey_hart_trade_ta.html So this probably means it'll happen any day now...

Scott wrote:
Does Corey Hart really have much trade value? What kind of pitcher could the brewers get for him that would actually help their rotation? Besides, he is just in an easily explanable slump.

	Sarah - So's your face 06/02/2009 @ 06:18:29 PM
Who's this Sara and why haven't we met?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/02/2009 @ 06:19:28 PM
Sorry, my sister's name is Sara, so I forget. Now change your 0-nut rating since I fixed the blog.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 06/02/2009 6:36:18 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/02/2009 @ 06:19:51 PM
Joe Mauer, everyone. Biased or not, I think it would be hard to claim that this isn't a hot streak quite yet. He very well may have made a legimate change to his game and that's why he's hitting the cover off of everything, but how long does something have to last for it to be considered legimate? This isn't an attack, I'm just curious. JJ Hardy had 18 HR's at the all star game 2 years ago in what was looking like an absolute tear of a season, but then he cooled off significantly in the second half, only hitting 8 homeruns. Now JJ is not the overall hitter that Mauer is, but Mauer has never been a homerun threat until the last 28 games of his whole career. Then again, Mauer's average is up significantly, too. So maybe there is a lot that would go into coming to a conclusion that something is a legimate change to his came. Even if it was a legimate change, what do you say if that "change" stops working as well; meaning, if pitchers figure out what he's doing? Anyway, food for thought. Don't 0-nut this just because I'm talking about Mauer. Furthermore, what I think is so special about Mauer is that he is a catcher. It doesn't take a baseball genius to know that catchers generally don't make the best hitters. In fact, Jason Kendall recently became just the 6th catcher EVER to reach 2000 hits. And also, catchers generally tend to wear down in the second half. While Mauer's overall BA is slightly lower post all-star break for most of his seasons, last year he actually a higher average with more RBI in fewer at bats post all-star break. In other words, Twins fans should pray that Mauer stays healthy and can remain a catcher. Because having a guy that can hit like that is great. Having a catcher that can hit like that is priceless.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 06/02/2009 6:34:32 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/02/2009 @ 08:02:23 PM
Ron Koomer was just talking about the change to Joe's swing this season versus last. I say it's legit, there seems to have been some significant building in his game in the offseason and during his rehab. I 'm biased, but I've also watched a lot more of his at-bats than someone who wasn't a fan.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 06/02/2009 @ 08:46:25 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:19:28 PM Sorry, my sister's name is Sara, so I forget. Now change your 0-nut rating since I fixed the blog. No Mauer's fo' real!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 06/02/2009 @ 10:03:00 PM
FYI 3-3 tonight with a walk, his 12th HR and 3 RBI's 100 AB's is still a pretty small sample size but man, 1.338 OPS is crazy. The Red Sox are up to their ears in drool.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 06/02/2009 @ 11:01:19 PM
Well, usually in those polls you can see obvious bias, but I'm not so sure it's true in this case. For one, either way it's a compliment to Mauer. More importantly though, like Carl hinted at, this particular question is only relevant to people that have seen enough of Mauer, both in the past, and this year. Not too mention, it's not an either/or proposition anyway. He could have made an adjustment for power, but also is, just by chance, outdoing his norm. Edit: Which is to say, I'm sure there's some bias on the part of people from MN, but the opinion from the people in Nevada is 99% irrelevant.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/02/2009 11:22:01 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/03/2009 @ 09:46:00 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:02:23 PM Ron Koomer was just talking about the change to Joe's swing this season versus last. I say it's legit, there seems to have been some significant building in his game in the offseason and during his rehab. I 'm biased, but I've also watched a lot more of his at-bats than someone who wasn't a fan. Found out later that it wasn't Koomer, it was some other dude I forget now. Just want to keep my journalistic integrity. Oh, and I second Mauer being fo' real. Anyone that disagrees is racist!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 06/03/2009 9:47:48 am

	Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 06/03/2009 @ 09:47:14 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:01:19 PM the opinion from the people in Nevada is 99% irrelevant. Nevada itself is 99% irrelevant.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 06/03/2009 9:47:25 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/03/2009 @ 09:47:51 AM
Some other dude, huh? That's a pretty credible source.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/03/2009 @ 11:15:16 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:47:51 AM Some other dude, huh? That's a pretty credible source. looked for ten minutes for the name of the source. couldn't find it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 06/04/2009 @ 06:42:00 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Scott Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Some other dude, huh? That's a pretty credible source. looked for ten minutes for the name of the source. couldn't find it. That would be none other than Roy Smalley.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/04/2009 @ 08:44:11 AM
Yes, thanks Joe- I saw the name again on last night's abomination and remembered it- but see you beat me to it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 06/05/2009 @ 03:17:04 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 06/03/2009 @ 09:46:00 AM Found out later that it wasn't Koomer, it was some other dude I forget now. "Koomer?" Is that a joke? As for Mauer, I don't know how this factors into the poll since I didn't look at it, but I find it interesting that probably about half of his homeruns, possibly more, have been op field shots that go about 1-3 rows up. In previous years he's had warning track power, and could always hit balls that way pretty well, so some of his power numbers come from simply being able to hit just a bit further. Though, it's also interesting how he absolutely jacked that one into the upper deck a week or so ago. It's almost unfair if he's going to be able to hit for this much power. I like this. [Click to Enlarge]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/05/2009 @ 08:01:50 AM
I always hear that being able to hit the ball to the opposite field is a sign of a good hitter. Anyone can pull the ball, but to have the patients to go the other way when the pitch lends itself to do that will generally result in a lot more hits.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 06/05/2009 @ 08:10:31 AM
koomer, coomer who gives. gg spelling.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/05/2009 @ 11:08:48 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 09:10:31 AM koomer, coomer who gives. gg spelling. I'm pretty sure this violates one of the written posting rules that you signed when applying for an account for this site.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/05/2009 @ 02:38:34 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:01:50 AM Anyone can pull the ball, but to have the patients to go the other way when the pitch lends itself to do that will generally result in a lot more hits. Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:08:48 AM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:10:31 AM koomer, coomer who gives. gg spelling. I'm pretty sure this violates one of the written posting rules that you signed when applying for an account for this site. I think you violate the rules all the time. Yet, your membership hasn't been revoked. (On a side note, I didn't know Mauer was a doctor, man he really can do everything!)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/05/2009 @ 02:43:30 PM
I type the word "patient" or "patients" at least 40 times a day. I forgot there even was a difference between the two meanings. At least I admit it though when someone points it out. None of this "who gives" stuff.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 06/05/2009 2:45:09 pm

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 06/05/2009 @ 03:28:29 PM
[Click to Enlarge]		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/05/2009 @ 06:36:24 PM
How does that relate to what we are talking about?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 06/06/2009 @ 02:31:45 PM
It doesn't, I just thought it would be funny, as this thread had begun circling the drain.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 06/06/2009 @ 07:06:04 PM
Ok, back to baseball then. The brewers are definitely getting by with their pitching, but a couple starters are putting up some shaky starts, specifically Manny Parra. Should the Brewers take a chance on Tom Glavine?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/07/2009 @ 10:59:19 AM
No, too costly. The reason teams aren't giving older guys a chance and are using younger players more often is money. The Brewers are in no position to add to their payroll.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 06/07/2009 @ 01:57:31 PM
While I think you are probably right that it would be costly, the Brewers ownership has stated that it does have room to add someone to their payroll should their playoff hopes depend on it. Besides, how expensive could Glavine actually be?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/08/2009 @ 08:58:07 AM
No money for the payroll? Is that new, or did they pay CC in peanuts last year?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/08/2009 @ 09:00:56 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 09:58:07 AM No money for the payroll? Is that new, or did they pay CC in peanuts last year? I believe the Indians picked up a bunch of CC's salary last year. But the real question is this: who's comment are you questioning? That question seemed to come out of nowhere.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/08/2009 @ 10:10:22 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:00:56 AM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 09:58:07 AM No money for the payroll? Is that new, or did they pay CC in peanuts last year? I believe the Indians picked up a bunch of CC's salary last year. But the real question is this: who's comment are you questioning? That question seemed to come out of nowhere. I guess not. About 1/4 of the way down the page: There is also a financial component to adding Sabathia to the roster. The Brewers will have to pay nearly half of his $11 million salary, boosting their payroll near the $90 million level. I guess they just paid for what they got. Glavine would be considerably less, though, I would guess.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/08/2009 @ 12:26:21 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:00:56 AM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:58:07 AM No money for the payroll? Is that new, or did they pay CC in peanuts last year? I believe the Indians picked up a bunch of CC's salary last year. But the real question is this: who's comment are you questioning? That question seemed to come out of nowhere. It was a comment on alex's statement: Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:59:19 AM The Brewers are in no position to add to their payroll. Who did they add this year that ate up whatever money the Brewers had spent on CC last year? There should be $5.5M or so, barring any additions or pay raises.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 06/08/2009 12:26:46 pm

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 06/08/2009 @ 02:11:33 PM
I'm not sure if I just hit some key combo I never knew about but I just lost my comment. Their payroll is $80 million which is a little less than I thought. CC is gone and I think the bullpen is cheaper, but Fielder's getting way more and the arbitration guys (Hardy, Weeks, Hart, Bush, McClung, etc.) all got at least a bit of a raise. Also the CC level payroll was never meant to be permanent, it was beyond sustainable. I think it was up to $90+ million. They probably could afford Glavine, but I don't think it be worthwhile to bring him in. There's a good chance he's only going to be league average or worse anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/08/2009 @ 07:56:08 PM
Read my last post! Their payroll was near 90 million.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 06/08/2009 @ 09:57:18 PM
At least Sarah and I, and probably/possibly Matt and Jon will be going to Miller Park for the Twins/Brewers Games on the 24th and 25th. Does anyone else want in? There appears to be 500 sections you can request tickets for, anyone have any tips/preferences? We will then be heading down to St. Louis for the series there, so anyone that comes would have to get their on their own, as there would be no return trip.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 06/09/2009 @ 09:44:30 AM
I'm out, I have my annual training from June 1-27 at Fort Irwin.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 06/09/2009 @ 12:02:50 PM
Unless Jon can get off, we'll probably only be going to the Game on the 25th. Speak now or forever hold your peace. I'd like to order the tickets tonight.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 01:00:14 PM
I'm in for both or just the 25th, whatever you go with. As far as seats, I don't have much to recommend. I just checked best seats available for 5 and it was section 418. And 426 row 21 for 4. That's for the 25th. Edit: There's a bunch on StubHub too.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 06/09/2009 1:04:24 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 01:01:07 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:02:50 PM Unless Jon can get off...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/09/2009 @ 01:05:02 PM
That's during the work day on the 25th Alex, will that be a problem?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 06/09/2009 @ 01:41:46 PM
Just took the day off. On a totally unrelated note, did anyone else know that since the Yankees signed Teixeira and he was ranked higher than CC that the Brewers ended up with a 1st and 2nd pick instead of 2 1sts? Lame.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 06/09/2009 1:42:19 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 01:45:44 PM
Anyone have any objection to these? They're a bit below face, and more behind home than it looks like you can get otherwise. http://www.stubhub.com/milwaukee-brewers-tickets/?ticket_id=192516079&quantity_selected=5		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 06/09/2009 @ 03:27:38 PM
Fine with me. What time does the tailgating start?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 05:05:33 PM
Game starts at 1, so I don't know... 8? I am so excited that we're actually doing this!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 07:09:13 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:41:46 PM Just took the day off. On a totally unrelated note, did anyone else know that since the Yankees signed Teixeira and he was ranked higher than CC that the Brewers ended up with a 1st and 2nd pick instead of 2 1sts? Lame. Not to mention that because sheets never signed with someone, they lost out on that possible compensation as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - The girls all know he's "way cool" Jr. 06/09/2009 @ 09:02:49 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:05:33 PM Game starts at 1, so I don't know... 8? I am so excited that we're actually doing this! I can't go. Apparently I have "something" to do that day.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 09:06:37 PM
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 09:02:49 PM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:05:33 PM Game starts at 1, so I don't know... 8? I am so excited that we're actually doing this! I can't go. Apparently I have "something" to do that day. That sux that you can't see the awesomeness that is the Twins.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 06/09/2009 @ 09:36:44 PM
I gave you five nuts for being semi-funny.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 12:11:11 AM
Twins pitching sux. Except for Joe Nathan.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 06/10/2009 @ 07:51:59 AM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 12:11:11 AM Twins pitching sux. Except for Joe Nathan. Baker threw 8+ innings and only came apart in the end. So you say Slowey and Baker are the sux? Nathan isn't god, you know. That said, I think our pitching needs a ton of work, but I console myself on those three being dependable at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Shaken not stirred gets you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth 06/10/2009 @ 08:56:23 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:51:59 AM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:11:11 AM Twins pitching sux. Except for Joe Nathan. Baker threw 8+ innings and only came apart in the end. So you say Slowey and Baker are the sux? Nathan isn't god, you know. That said, I think our pitching needs a ton of work, but I console myself on those three being dependable at least. Agreed. Baker gave up 2 hits and no walks through 8 innings and was probably done at that point. This is the 2nd straight game that Gardenhire has thrown Baker out for an extra inning when he was clearly at his limit, and he predictably got knocked around a little. 2 singles and a walk is still a lot better than the home runs he has been giving up. Aside from Crain, the entire bullpen has also been pretty solid over the last 3 weeks or so as well. Guerrier, Henn, Dickey, Mijares and even Ayala (a little) have been pitching much better. Blackburn has been the best pitcher this year. I am also more worried about the 7-9 spots (and sometimes 2 spot depending on whether Tolbert or Punto is unexplainably batting there) than I am the pitching.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 09:40:17 AM
Yeah, I don't understand the complete games for complete game's sake. About the only thing you could say is that it saves the bullpen, but I don't think one inning of bypassing them is going to mean that much. The bullpen didn't have to get involved in the 4th inning, so he had already met that goal. Though, it's important to note that Casilla misplayed 2 sure outs and potential double play balls.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 10:13:58 AM
Do you mean A's pitcher Casilla or Twins "needs to be re-demoted" Casilla?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons 06/10/2009 @ 10:16:11 AM
Casilla of the Alexi variety		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 10:16:20 AM
And along with Micah, I'm Blackburn fan, and have been impressed by Henn and (although his last start was shakey) Swarzak		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 10:20:00 AM
According to the PP, the Twins are looking to trade for LaTroy Hawkins. Come on home to daddy, LaTroy!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 11:05:41 AM
would he give Nathan a run for his money, or would he serve as a middle reliever?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 01:08:23 PM
Nathan's job is about as safe as it gets. He'd be an 8th inning guy (Neshek's role)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 02:30:20 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 02:08:23 PM Nathan's job is about as safe as it gets. He'd be an 8th inning guy (Neshek's role) Neshek's born in Madison!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 06/10/2009 @ 02:41:27 PM
Wasn't Romo born down there too?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 06/10/2009 @ 04:33:28 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 12:11:11 AM Twins pitching sux. Except for Joe Nathan. To be winning 10-0 going into the bottom of the 9th, allow them to score 5 runs and get the bases loaded so that it becomes a save situation, well that doesn't make me happy. 2 relievers and our starter should've been able to get out of that mess, instead we had to bring in Nathan. That's ridiculous. I understand Baker had a great game all things considered, it's just that the 9th kind of tarnished it for me. I think Slowey and Blackburn have been doing great as well, but I don't trust Swarzak quite yet. I would love to see the Hawk as a Twin once again. Does he still throw hella fast?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 05:19:34 PM
Span may miss some time as well, so we also have the leadoffspot to worry about. Swarzak will probably be sent down again at some point and maybe Perkins will get another chance. I will be in Chicago this weekend for the Twins series against the Cubs, it's gonna be awesome.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/10/2009 @ 09:38:58 PM
At what point do you allow your starter to come off the mound and call it a night? 116 pitches are a lot, he should have been kept to 8 innings and let your bullpen carry him the rest of the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 06/10/2009 9:39:09 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 06/11/2009 @ 07:23:23 AM
Micah Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:20:00 AM According to the PP, the Twins are looking to trade for LaTroy Hawkins. Come on home to daddy, LaTroy!!! I'd be for that. Of course, they should have signed him this off-season. In fact, they should have traded for him last year when the Yankees were shopping him. That said, this is a Charley Waters article, so chances are the rumor is completely wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/12/2009 @ 09:23:54 PM
Is there anything Cory Hart can't do? Watching the game against the White Sox (I am not sure which team I dislike more at this point, but I guess it's good that the Brewers are winning) and he's had an amazing catch and 2 great hits that I've seen.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/13/2009 @ 07:27:02 AM
this season and last it seems like there's plenty that Cory Hart can't do. But he does have his moments.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 06/13/2009 @ 07:34:11 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:23:54 PM Is there anything Cory Hart can't do? Who's this Cory Hart, and why haven't we met?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 06/13/2009 @ 08:37:14 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 07:34:11 AM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:23:54 PM Is there anything Cory Hart can't do? Who's this Cory Hart, and why haven't we met? I had a feeling I was going to do that, but was too tired to take the 2 seconds to look it up. I don't think we'd meet either Cory/Corey though, we'd have to hang with a different crowd.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 06/13/2009 @ 09:33:03 AM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 08:37:14 AM I had a feeling I was going to do that, but was too tired to take the 2 seconds to look it up. Don't let Jon hear you say that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/13/2009 @ 11:04:56 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 09:33:03 AM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 08:37:14 AM I had a feeling I was going to do that, but was too tired to take the 2 seconds to look it up. Don't let Jon hear you say that. My lips are sealed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 06/13/2009 11:16:01 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/13/2009 @ 10:08:03 PM
And Manny Parra is gone. Well, not gone, just sent to the minors. They didn't even wait until the game ended to tell him. I really hope he can get a grip on things. Because he does have good stuff. He had a pretty good season last year until August and September, and he never got in a groove this year. He is young, and hopefully it's just a matter of getting the mental game down and getting his mechanics worked out. Maybe Crash Davis just needs someone to kick him in the butt and tell to just start pitching better. It looks like the Brewers won't even need to replace him in the rotation for at least a couple of weeks, so that's good. Honestly, I think Parra might just lack the mental toughness to be a major league pitcher. He had gotten into a scuffle with Prince Fielder last year after a bad outing. He seems to be a emotionless, which can be as bad as being over emotional.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 06/13/2009 10:13:31 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/13/2009 @ 10:49:18 PM
Jeremy and I watched his outing today. Purty turrible. We were wondering when Prince was going to slap him around.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 06/15/2009 @ 04:57:00 PM
Wrap up of my day at Wrigley Field. Saturday June 13. We got off the train at about 9:30, so we had a couple of hours to kill before the game. There is plenty of establishments to choose from right next to Wrigley, we went into the "Cubbie Bear". It filled up pretty fast and we started to notice that it was wall to wall Twins fans with a few Cubs fans speckled in. The atmosphere was great, there was even a loud cheer from the Twins fans when the showed the highlight of Milton Bradley's mistakes the day before. Lucky for us, the rain stopped right around noon, and the game was able to start on time. As we walked through the park, we noticed Twins fans everywhere we looked. There was a lot more than I expected. The first time Joe Mauer stepped up to the plate, a huge ovation came from the crowd. In the 2nd inning Jason Kubel hit a ball over the blechers onto the street and there was another huge roar. I honestly think it was at least a 50/50 split between Twins and Cubs fans. The Twins won the game 2-0 and the place went nuts as Nathan got the final out. I was so impressed by all the Twins fans. After the game was even more fun as we hit the bars around Wrigley again. Every place was packed with both Twins and Cubs fans and everyone was having a good time. Most of the Cubs fans I talked to said they had never seen an apposing teams fans show up like this, including the White Sox. It was probably the most fun I have ever had at a baseball game.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
jthompto perfected this at 06/15/2009 5:00:57 pm

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/15/2009 @ 05:11:22 PM
They were talking about that on the TV too. Even Cubs/Brewers games supposedly aren't like that. (Mauer/Nathan chants, cheering, over all ratio) Everyone was baffled by it, and many people from the Cubs staff were asked and were equally confused. Usually cameras pick out a pocket of fans here or there, but they panned the crowd many times to show that it was really packed with Twins shirts. No one really knows why, but I was also very impressed. At any rate, since you probably didn't see the games on TV being at them/traveling to them, it not only didn't go unnoticed, they spend a lot of the broadcast talking about it. I suppose it could just be coincidence, there are lots of people that want to see Wrigley at some point, and maybe it just so happened this year that twice as many people happened to decide this year as happen to decide normally. I think, however, it has a lot to do with what we've talked about before. The Twins seem to have a wide, shallow, fan base, rather than a deep narrow one, combined with people maybe giving up on the Cubs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/15/2009 5:14:22 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/15/2009 @ 06:37:55 PM
This seems like a good time to bring up my thought of the weekend. If you bought all the tickets to all the games for a team and then just sat on them so that no one showed up to the games, could you bankrupt the team?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 06/16/2009 @ 02:16:25 AM
Jon and I were talking about the number of Twins fans at Wrigley, and we decided the reason was something like this: The Cubs/Wrigley Field are a pretty big draw by themselves. Like Jeremy said, most baseball fans want to see a game at Wrigley sometime during their lives. Add in the fact that there are a lot of Twins fans within a reasonable driving distance to Chicago (even coming from the Twin Cities isn't that bad of a drive if you plan to stay the weekend) and you get a pretty big demand for tickets among Twins fans for a series at Wrigley. Now, for the aforementioned Twins fans, this series was a pretty big deal. Big enough that when they saw the games on the schedule before the season, they made plans and bought tickets early (possibly for all 3 games), or were willing to pay a premium later on Stub Hub or through a scalper. For most Cubs fans though, this was just another interleague series, so, unlike with Twins fans, there was no need in their mind to invest extra time or money to make sure they got tickets when they could just go to a game against a different opponent. As for the Twins fans "traveling" better than Brewers fans to Wrigley, it may or may not be accurate, but I guess it wouldn't surprise me too much if it was true. While Brewers fans have the same motivations to go to Wrigley that Twins fans do (if not more), the Cubs and Brewers play 9 games at Wrigley every year compared to 3 games once or maybe twice a decade for the Twins. This takes some of the urgency out of Brewers fans traveling to Chicago as there is always next series or next year.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt screwed with this at 06/16/2009 10:05:16 am

	Matt - 3875 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 02:59:45 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:37:55 PM This seems like a good time to bring up my thought of the weekend. If you bought all the tickets to all the games for a team and then just sat on them so that no one showed up to the games, could you bankrupt the team? If you targeted the right team, maybe. It would have to be a team that depends heavily on concession revenue and can't afford to take a big loss in any given year. Even if you worked your plan perfectly, if the team could take the hit, they could just jack ticket prices up next year to the point where you would be covering all their costs, or it would be too expensive for you to buy all the tickets and they could survive on a smaller base of fans who could afford the increased prices (they wouldn't have to worry about fan backlash, since most would know by then what your plan was). Even if you found the right team, they could probably do things to foil your plan. Once they figured out what you were doing, they could start selling relatively cheap "standing room only" tickets and institute a rule that these ticket holders could sit in empty seats until the proper ticket holders show up. Until/unless you countered, this would make them better off than before. Of course, all this assumes that teams don't already have language in their ticket buying agreements that allows them to revoke and refund ticket purchases for any reason they want (I don't know if such language exists, but it wouldn't shock me if teams had some legal wording in there that they could try and stop you with). This also doesn't figure in the inevitable political response that would occur with laws that would try and stop you and/or allow the team to survive. I guess then that my view would be that it probably wouldn't work, and if it did, it would take so much money that you would be better off just buying the team outright.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this 2 times, last at 06/16/2009 7:07:41 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 12:11:15 PM
I guess I wasn't thinking about the practical aspect of actually doing it as much as questioning the existing pricing/revenue structure. I agree that in practice it would most likely not work. Maybe I should re-word it to, "If you bought all the tickets to one game and no-showed, would the team lose money?"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 12:42:58 PM
so if you BOUGHT all the tickets and nobody showed up, the tickets were still SOLD and the revenue was COLLECTED. moot question		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 12:58:48 PM
Well, he's wondering if teams have their tickets as "loss leaders," like a grocery store decides to make nothing on 24 packs of Coke, so once you're there you by other things. I think it depends on the deal the team has swung, and how empty the stadium is normally. The Dome is mostly empty, so the Twins would probably be better off taking $8 for every Gen Admission seat, than they would be from a 1/3 full stadium buying a hotdog. (Because I'm fairly sure the concessions are split with the entity that owns the dome anyway.) The Tigers on the other hand apparently AVERAGED about 1500 fewer people than their stadium holds last year, which means most games are already close, if not totally, sold out, so they'd make much much less, I'd assume.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 01:48:56 PM
I think maybe it's different for the Twins because they don't have their own parking lot (?), but the Brewers must make some money off parking too. And there's also merchandise. Also, I was originally thinking more about a minor league/summer league team where ticket prices are anywhere from 2 to 500 times cheaper than MLB prices but concessions and merchandise are generally the same to maybe 3 times cheaper. Jeremy hit on this already, but it'd be interesting to see an average ticket income vs "other" income by team, broken out for each ticket price.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 02:06:41 PM
Yeah, the Twins wouldn't lose anything on parking, at least currently. There's a ramp on Target Field, but there's also lots of parking in the area, so I'm not sure how it would play out in the future.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 02:30:30 PM
If you're man enough to park next to the Minneapolis Eagle (gay bar) and walk a mile, you can park for 5 bucks. Not man enough? Two blocks farther, still 5 bucks.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 06/16/2009 @ 03:30:21 PM
Minneapolis has a distinct lack of double entendres in their gay bars....disappointing		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 03:34:01 PM
Did anyone go to Rick Vaughn bobblehead night for the Brewers or did everyone forget about that? Talk about a Corey Hart offensive explosion!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 06/16/2009 @ 05:38:46 PM
http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090616&content_id=5355202&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min Muhahaha, although now I can't yell at him when we're sitting by the bullpen in St. Louis....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle! 06/16/2009 @ 09:00:03 PM
give him a good what-for for me too will ya? Chump.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/16/2009 @ 09:02:14 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 09:00:03 PM give him a good what-for for me too will ya? Chump. I think you missed the point of my post?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 06/16/2009 @ 09:03:10 PM
Joe Mauer is ridiculous.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 04:37:06 AM
Sarah Wrote - 06/16/2009 @ 05:38:46 PM http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090616&content_id=5355202&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min Muhahaha, although now I can't yell at him when we're sitting by the bullpen in St. Louis.... Do you actually like any Twins players?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 06/19/2009 @ 07:21:00 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 05:37:06 AM Sarah Wrote - 06/16/2009 @ 06:38:46 PM http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090616&content_id=5355202&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min Muhahaha, although now I can't yell at him when we're sitting by the bullpen in St. Louis.... Do you actually like any Twins players? I think only Mauer, Morneau, and whoever didn't strikeout or commit an error in the previous 5 games.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 06/19/2009 @ 09:29:56 AM
Well, she didn't like Morneau for a long time, because he was Aa-Rod to Doug Mientkiewicz's Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 06/19/2009 @ 12:55:56 PM
speaking of Doug, it's his birthday today. Also notice that since the twins, he's had one-season stints with every team he's been on. Journeyman, tool-bag, whatever.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 01:25:46 PM
I like basically the whole team except Crain. I get a little iffy sometimes with Cuddy, Nathan, the bullpen, (except RA Dickey) etc. I miss Doug, no one could stretch and chew gum like him at first base.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 01:52:39 PM
How do you get iffy with Nathan? He's blown 22 saves over his entire career with the Twins and has had an ERA over 2 once in 6 years. He's arguably the best closer in the league over those 6 years. Speaking of the other best closer in the league over the past 6 years, does anyone remember Ruben Rivera? I would get him and Mariano mixed all the time even though Ruben was a hitter		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 01:54:56 PM
Nathan likes to make things interesting a lot.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way! 06/19/2009 @ 02:09:35 PM
In his time with the Twins, he has a .93 WHIP, a BAA of under .200, and 1 more HR allowed than Rivera (22, also his number of blown saves). Just glancing at last years numbers, he had only 12 appearances out of 68 in which he allowed more than 1 baserunner. This year its 5 out of 26 appearances. How less interesting would you like him to be?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 06/19/2009 @ 02:29:52 PM
Way less.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 06/19/2009 @ 02:54:40 PM
Well, quantifiably he's as good, or better, than anyone, but we're not watching other team's closers every night with a vested interest of being a small amount away from a win. It's the whole "My QB sucks because I watch him throw a couple interceptions and miss 5 wide open guys, then go home and watch highlights where every QB completes every pass" factor. It's not really a logical position, or Nathan's fault, Nathan just comes in during the most nerve wracking situations (and always looks so nervous himself) that you associate angst with Nathan.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 06/19/2009 2:55:15 pm

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 03:09:50 PM
He does breathe heavily a lot. I concede there		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 06/19/2009 @ 04:39:12 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 01:52:39 PM Speaking of the other best closer in the league over the past 6 years, does anyone remember Ruben Rivera? I would get him and Mariano mixed all the time even though Ruben was a hitter Well they are cousins. Though I hear that Mariano adores a minuet, the Ballets Russes, and crêpes Suzette; while Ruben loves to rock 'n' roll, and a hot dog makes him lose control. What a wild duet!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 06/20/2009 @ 03:07:39 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:25:46 PM I get a little iffy sometimes with Cuddy, Nathan, the bullpen, (except RA Dickey) etc. Yeah, anyone in the "know" will tell you that Cuddyer and Nathan are just a poor man's Punto and Dickey. I'm telling you, Corey Hart would be an all-star this year if Sarah didn't give him entrance into her favorite players club. By the way, great headfirst slide into first again by Punto. Maybe this will actually work one of these days. Punto's value would double overnight if he just learned to run through first and consistently bunt without popping up.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/21/2009 @ 01:16:40 AM
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:07:39 AM Sarah Wrote - 06/19/2009 @ 01:25:46 PM I get a little iffy sometimes with Cuddy, Nathan, the bullpen, (except RA Dickey) etc. Yeah, anyone in the "know" will tell you that Cuddyer and Nathan are just a poor man's Punto and Dickey. I'm telling you, Corey Hart would be an all-star this year if Sarah didn't give him entrance into her favorite players club. By the way, great headfirst slide into first again by Punto. Maybe this will actually work one of these days. Punto's value would double overnight if he just learned to run through first and consistently bunt without popping up. His value dropped a bit tonight, he hurt himself sliding into first, again.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 06/21/2009 @ 08:23:52 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:16:40 AM Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:07:39 AM Sarah Wrote - 06/19/2009 @ 01:25:46 PM I get a little iffy sometimes with Cuddy, Nathan, the bullpen, (except RA Dickey) etc. Yeah, anyone in the "know" will tell you that Cuddyer and Nathan are just a poor man's Punto and Dickey. I'm telling you, Corey Hart would be an all-star this year if Sarah didn't give him entrance into her favorite players club. By the way, great headfirst slide into first again by Punto. Maybe this will actually work one of these days. Punto's value would double overnight if he just learned to run through first and consistently bunt without popping up. His value dropped a bit tonight, he hurt himself sliding into first, again. Not in my eyes. I hope he's able to play when we see them!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/21/2009 @ 01:01:20 PM
I hope he learns how to not slide into first.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 06/23/2009 @ 09:40:12 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090623&content_id=5485216&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min Don't you have to be good to be the set up man? What an ass. Glad we paid him a million.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/24/2009 @ 08:43:54 AM
No kidding. Ayala- "I wanna pitch the 8th!" Gardy- "Learn how to pitch!"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower." 06/24/2009 @ 08:44:38 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:40:12 PM http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090623&content_id=5485216&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min Don't you have to be good to be the set up man? What an ass. Glad we paid him a million. 1.3, to be exact. And to what benefit to the Twins? 4.18 ERA and 3 blown saves?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/24/2009 @ 12:59:34 PM
Was there a game on last night? funny, it's damned quiet here today.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 06/24/2009 @ 01:40:01 PM
Brewer fans are too dejected to have anything to say at this point, and the Twins are clearly such a vastly superior team that saying anything just seems like it would be unnecessary. Ready for tomorrow Alex? We're sitting behind home up top somewhere. We should be there with about half an hour to an hour to spare. Do you plan on meeting us at Miller Park, or should we avoid taking two cars there for monetary/ass-pain reasons? We have a big drive to make after the game too, so if you live a long ways "past" Miller Park maybe we should meet there? (As I understand it, though I've never been there, Miller Park is on the edge of Milwaukee, and you more or less take I-94 and don't get off until you're at your row of seats.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/24/2009 @ 02:25:43 PM
If you're getting down here that close to game time and hitting the road right away afterwords it'd probably be best to just meet at the park. Unless we did a park and ride somewhere on 94, which isn't going to save anyone any time, just a couple dollars worth of parking. Miller Park is right off of I-94, I guess I'm not too sure when the Milwaukee city limits actually are but you drive past a bunch of the greater Milwaukee area to get there coming from the west.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/24/2009 @ 03:45:05 PM
Yea, I think our best option is to meet at the park. Can we get ur cellphone # Alex? Either here or send one of us a message on facebook or email or whatever.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 06/24/2009 @ 11:31:31 PM
Glad I DVRed the last 2 innings while watching DVRed USA smackdown of Spain!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/25/2009 @ 07:18:34 AM
Apparently throwing strikes to home is WAAAAAYY easier than throwing a catchable ball from home to third. Right before Blackburn threw the ball into left field allowing the winning run to score, the Brewer Announcers were saying how it seems like the Brewers just bring out the best in the Minnesota Twins recently.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 06/25/2009 @ 09:24:02 AM
lol. Until Blackie gets too excited.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 06/26/2009 @ 10:02:11 AM
Yesterday's game was much better. I liked where our seats were because we were out of the beyond grueling sun. Right now in St. Louis it's 89 and feels like 97. Yippy!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 06/26/2009 @ 10:49:21 AM
If you can't take the heat... sit in the shade.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 06/26/2009 @ 09:48:29 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 11:49:21 AM If you can't take the heat... sit in the shade. And don't come to Tampa. Just last weekend, the temperate was 97 and felt like 114. Of course, it gets hotter in the summer in placese like St. Louis than in Tampa, but still, it's freaking hot here; and it will be like this until the end of september.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 06/26/2009 9:49:58 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 06/29/2009 @ 11:57:01 AM
We sat in 99 degree weather (heat index 110) for 3 hours, just to watch the Twins lose. I'm sure we'll write more about the trip, but I though I'd add some pics to whet everyone's appetite. I'll probably put more on Facebook too. [Click to Enlarge] These were all over the place, Lando advertising for Colt 45? Yes! [Click to Enlarge] This is for you Scott, we all enjoyed this pennant put up to commemorate the Brewers getting their butts kicked in the wild card series last year. [Click to Enlarge] Maybe the highlight of the trip. Redmond was playing catch with Liriano (not pictured) while Mauer was putting on his gear a few feet away. Liriano threw a bit wildly and the ball headed straight for Mauer. Redmond was able to jump to the ball to make a great catch and save the franchise. Redmond knew it too, because he started laughing after the catch. The crowd cheered, or maybe it was just me.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah edited this 2 times, last at 06/29/2009 11:59:17 am

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 06/30/2009 @ 08:19:53 AM
I saw your pictures on facebook. Busch Stadium is quite scenic. It is nice having such a picturesque skyline to build a stadium into.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 06/30/2009 @ 10:13:04 AM
Yeah, it was really cool.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/30/2009 @ 11:44:06 AM
What your impression of your first visit to Miller Park?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/30/2009 @ 11:49:45 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:57:01 PM This is for you Scott, we all enjoyed this pennant put up to commemorate the Brewers getting their butts kicked in the wild card series last year. Well, they did get beat by the eventual World Champs, so I don't really feel that bad. But, come on, if you were a Brewer fan, that last week of the 2008 season was one of the best moments in your sports fan life (or at least one of the best moments since the Packers won the Super Bowl). Don't get me started, I still get excited watching highlights from the game that eventually clinched the Wild Card.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 06/30/2009 @ 01:39:44 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:44:06 AM What your impression of your first visit to Miller Park? Well, I was going to save it for if/when someone wrote a post about our trip, but I was massively underwhelmed. Some of it had to do with it being so hyped I'm sure. The concourses were cool, especially when we were exiting and walked by the sections that were actually open to the field. The food was reasonably priced, but the hot dog was tasteless. The field it self was pretty underwhelming. It was the first outdoor game I'm aware of seeing, but, like others suggested, it doesn't really feel like an "outdoor" anything. It just feels like an uncomfortably hot indoor building. They can open the outfield, but all that reveals is nothing. The only reminder you get that you're actually "outside" is a sharp shadow down the middle of the field, which is distracting at best and an inexcusable design flaw at worst. The scoreboard feels like they went back in time to manage to find a company that still did the black and white lightbulb style, and the color portion is low-def and about the same size people have in their living rooms now-a-days. (Now, I don't mean to say my experience was ruined because there wasn't a big pretty scoreboard, but it's unmistakeably the center piece, and it's 45% ads and 40% black and white.) They are trying to get that replaced, but apparently they're having trouble with the finances because they've had to dip into the emergency funds a couple times to replace the grass because it's hard to grow it evenly when half the lawn is baked mercilessly and half of it never sees direct sunlight. All of Miller's flaws were amplified 100 fold 10 seconds into walking into Bucsh Stadium, it's really something to behold. (Though, black metal armrests in an area where merciless sun and 100 degree days are common probably should have been rethought.) Both still beat the Metrodome handily though, if for no other reason than because getting a hot dog isn't a 2 inning, and 400 stair, commitment. Also, both parks let you bring in food and certain drinks, which is a concept so foreign to me, and against everything I've been taught, that I actually didn't beleive Alex, who brought some peanuts and beef jerky, so I left a car full of snacks behind. We finally brought stuff of our own on the last Cardinals game, but even then I felt like even if we duped the guy at the gate, we'd be tackled by a security guard 4 steps in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/30/2009 1:42:12 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/30/2009 @ 05:22:34 PM
Hot dogs are for kids, plus you can grill your own in the parking lot if you want. And you spelled Busch wrong, so it must not be that great after all.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 06/30/2009 @ 06:13:22 PM
I like Miller Park. It's not as great as most Brewer fans would have you believe, but it's certainly not as bad as our own Ebenezer Scrooge portrays it two posts up.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 08:35:45 AM
I don't think I have ever eating anything other than roasted almonds inside Miller Park. You can bring in your own food, and half the reason to go to a Brewer game is to tailgate before the game. Miller Park's apparent aesthetic flaws (which are one man's personal opinion) pale in comparison to Busch Stadiums health hazards (scalding hot, third-degree burn producing black metal in the sun seats). I still can't figure out how Miller Park doesn't feel like an outdoor stadium with everything open. County Stadium had absolutely no skyline to look at. I suppose the lack of a skyline can make you feel like you are sort of in the middle of nowhere, and the skyline definitely adds to th atmosphere. But if you compare Miller Park to some of the "cookie-cutter" stadiums built in the 70s (the old Busch Stadium, Fulton County Stadium, the Reds' old stadium, and others) which were perfect circles all the way around, you could see even less of the outdoors than at the indoor confines of Miller Park when the roof and panels are opened. To prove that I'm not a homer, I'll list what I think are Miller Park's flaws: When you sitting anywhere behind thirdbase and first base, you can't see portions of fair territory in the both outfield corners. When you sitting in the left field bleachers, you can't see some of the deep portion of left field. Also, when you are sitting in the left field bleachers, the big American Flag blocks your view of the centerfield scoreboard. The shadow produced by the giant windows above the field in left and right foul territories make for some unusual shadows, even when the roof is closed. I've personally never noticed that the jumbotron is that small, but I've also haven't been to that many stadiums (the Metrodome, Miller Park, County Stadium, and Tropicana field are the only baseball parks I've been to; not exactly a list that provides good comparison, but I still know what I like). One thing that probably provides for some Brewer fans talking Miller Park up too much is the roof. Despite it's problems, it is by far the most unique design in pro sports, and that's not even an opinion. When they designed the roof, it seemed like an engineering marvel, and it definitely was. However, putting it into practice was much more difficult than anticipated, and sometime either during construction or shortly after it was declared that nothing like it would ever be attempted again. So while it might have some structural annoyances that cause headaches to the building managers, having a truly one of a kind stadium is a worthy source of pride.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 07/01/2009 8:41:28 am

	Micah - 584 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 09:07:33 AM
I would split the difference here. Miller Park comes in 5th out of 6 stadiums I have been to, but it is beaten by Wrigley, Shea, Old Yankees and Camden Yards so that's come tough competition. I agree that it does feel indoorsy even with the roof open, but if you're sitting in an area with sun it doesn't really matter at all. I don't really remember not liking the scoreboard, but I think Wrigley's old school scoreboard is the best anyway. Let's keep the times square jumbotrons out of ballparks. I do like the Parking Lot and atmosphere both times I have tailgated there. Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:35:45 AM One thing that probably provides for some Brewer fans talking Miller Park up too much is the roof. Despite it's problems, it is by far the most unique design in pro sports, and that's not even an opinion. When they designed the roof, it seemed like an engineering marvel, and it definitely was. However, putting it into practice was much more difficult than anticipated, and sometime either during construction or shortly after it was declared that nothing like it would ever be attempted again. So while it might have some structural annoyances that cause headaches to the building managers, having a truly one of a kind stadium is a worthy source of pride. A piece of engineering was so horrible both during and after construction that no one wants to ever do it again, and it is a worthy source of pride? Does that make Skylab a worthy source of pride?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 07/01/2009 @ 09:45:23 AM
Why not? It's cool looking, it does the job, and it will never be replicated.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 09:46:12 AM
Well, I think my negative feelings on the stadium are being overblown. It more or less just didn't live up to the hype. I went in thinking I would be blown away by one of the most awesome achievements of mankind. I gave it a couple compliments and a few marks off, one of which was nothing new/earth shattering to be said about it. It was indeed a crap-hole compared to Busch, but that's more a compliment to Busch stadium than it is an "insult" to Miller Park, I guess I could have made that clearer. I've been in Coors field, but for like 3 seconds (not for a game), so of the 3 stadiums I've actually watched a game at Miller falls in the middle. One thing I really like about the "modern" ball parks. (Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say "What I like about not the dome") is that they are nice and small, and built upward. If you've ever been to the Metrodome and you've gone in a gate near home and you're sitting in center field, you better have supplies, oxygen, and a Sherpa with you. Everything just seems like 10 times more of a trek in the dome.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 07/01/2009 9:51:14 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 09:57:38 AM
It's in it's 9th season after opening a couple years late too, you probably would've been more blown away if you saw it in 2001.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 09:59:57 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:46:12 AM Well, I think my negative feelings on the stadium are being overblown. It more or less just didn't live up to the hype. I went in thinking I would be blown away by one of the most awesome achievements of mankind. I gave it a couple compliments and a few marks off, one of which was nothing new/earth shattering to be said about it. It was indeed a crap-hole compared to Busch, but that's more a compliment to Busch stadium than it is an "insult" to Miller Park. I've been in Coors field, but for like 3 seconds (not for a game), so of the 3 stadiums I've actually watched a game at Miller falls in the middle. One thing I really like about the "modern" ball parks. (Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say "What I like about not the dome") is that they are nice and small, and built upward. If you've ever been to the Metrodome and you've gone in a gate near home and you're sitting in center field, you better have supplies, oxygen, and a Sherpa with you. Everything just seems like 10 times more of a trek in the dome. I've noticed this too. Miller Park has less seating than County Stadium (and the Dome), but it is built much higher so every seat is still closer to the field. While County Stadium had just 2 decks, Miller Park has 4, which each deck having far fewer rows than the previous stadium. And because the concourses are so wide, it is very easy to get around even when the stadium is full of people. And, compared to other older parks (the Trop, the Dome), the seats are actually comfortable. The seats at the trop are way too small, and I'm not even a big guy. This I'm sure is pretty common among the newer ballparks though. If Miller Park is a crap-hole compared to Busch Stadium, then what is the Dome? What is so awesome about Wrigley Field? The history about it is cool and all, but it's kind of a dump, isn't it?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 07/01/2009 @ 10:13:57 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:59:57 AM If Miller Park is a crap-hole compared to Busch Stadium, then what is the Dome? What is so awesome about Wrigley Field? The history about it is cool and all, but it's kind of a dump, isn't it? I think we've established 1000 times over that by any measurable objective reason the Dome is an abomination, especially for baseball. I'll miss it for sentimental reasons, and I'm sure they'll be days I wish the roof was back on, but Busch stadium got me awfully excited for Target Field, which is saying something, given it was 110 degrees, and I had never sweat so much in my life. The night game was especially cool. (Both in that is was neat to see, and because the temp dipped to a mere 92.) I've never been to Wrigley, but I think there is something to be said for the tradition/history counting for something.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 07/01/2009 @ 01:00:54 PM
Scott Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM What is so awesome about Wrigley Field? The history about it is cool and all, but it's kind of a dump, isn't it? Having just been to Wrigley, I will agree that it is old and it seemed like there was only 1 bathroom and 2 beerstands in the whole joint. But you don't go to Wrigley for the ammenities, you go for the atmosphere, tradition and whole experience. Miller Park is definatley practical because you always know there will be a game, no weather delays. But I don't really think it has much of an atmosphere unless your a Brewers fan. I guess it would have been cool if they could have built the stadium downtown or near the lake or something, but it's a nice stadium for what it is. After seeing Busch this weekend, I thought it was great. Once you got near your seats it was a short walk to a bathroom or consession stand and all the seats seem to have a good view. The heat was unbearable but every game is not like that. I would rank the stadiums I have been too in this order 1. Busch 2. Wrigley 3. Anaheim 4. Kauffman (Royals) 5. Miller 6. Arizona 7. Dome		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 07/02/2009 @ 04:55:22 AM
I started thinking about Busch stadium and how I really liked it but then again, prices inside were a bit higher and prices to get in the door were substantially higher than Miller park. So then I wondered about how much Busch cost to make. You know, a bang for your buck kind of thing. I did a quick web search and was actually somewhat shocked. Someone actually wrote a pretty good blog/article comparing Miller to Busch (stadiums, not beer). The cost numbers are in there, along with a lot of other thoughts and facts. I'll link to it shortly. But here are the numbers first. Oh yeah, and I'll throw in Target Field too. Miller park: $400 million (2001), Busch stadium: $365 million (2006), Target Field: $425 million (2010). So Busch actually comes in substantially below the two other parks in nominal dollar figures. I don't want to steal the article's thunder, but I do want to mention two things. One, the roof cost was about 50 mil for miller, so that is part of it. And in a separate note, Busch was financed almost totally privately, while Miller was funded mostly by public dollars. (For the interest of comparison, Target field is also more public than private, but less so than Miller, from the information I found.) Anyway, READ THIS ARTICLE: http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/miller-park-vs-busch-stadium-milwaukee-vs-st-louis/		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 07/02/2009 @ 05:42:16 AM
As for my own thoughts, I was quite impressed with Busch Stadium. And I'm on record already as liking Miller Park and I still do. But there was just something cool about Busch. And I'm a little hesitant to say that because I feel we probably all oversold it at this point anyway. The rest of you are now ruined because it can't live up to expectations. And it is just a stadium. It's not like earth-shattering or something. But here's what I liked about it. The first thing was how nice everything looked. Part of that is that it's new so it's clean, and part is probably because it will almost by definition be more "in-style" than a stadium built even five years prior, so it's understandable. But still, I just really liked how much of the stadium is decorated with nice looking red brick. It just seemed classy to me. And as much as the stadium structure itself, the views the stadium gives are part of the experience. Busch just does really well on this. You can see the arch. No other stadium has that. And there are some decent looking skyscrapers, though these aren't any more or less impressive than other downtown skylines. Plus, one of the coolest things at the stadium for me was the "rooftop" concourse experience. It's not technically the rooftop of the stadium, but actually just the concourse between the two highest decks. But it's only partially covered by the top deck, so the majority of it feels like a rooftop cafe or something. I mean, it's just regular concessions (plus a hardees) and some dining tables, but when the sun is shining and you're a couple stories up and there's nothing between you and the sky except the view of the arch and the skyline, and you can look out on the city and even catch a part of the Mississippi, it's just pleasant. It was just cool. I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, I just thought it all came together really nicely. Also, as a shoutout to the Cardinals/Busch staff, I should mention how they set up stands in the concourses to give away free cups of ice (and water on the first night, but for the second two games just ice) on what turned out to be a really hot weekend of games. Obviously they didn't want people passing out all over, but still, I thought it was well done and a good public service on their part. The cons of the stadium: Most notably prices. Food is generally a bit more expensive than at Miller, as I mentioned before, and ticket prices are more expensive by more than just a bit I think. I'm not sure what prices are like at a lot of other stadiums these days, but Miller actually seems like it's probably one of the more affordable experiences a new stadium could possibly offer. Busch is probably more in line with other newer stadiums, though I'm sure new Yankee has them all beat. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Busch was actually a bit higher than other new stadiums, because their fan base is probably more willing to pay than those in other cities. (I know stadiums are getting nicer and everything, but I'd really like it if baseball can stay the kind of sport where people, and especially families, can actually afford to go to a few games a year and not have to worry too much about the prices. So far the teams are at least keeping some seats at decent prices, and luckily the stadiums are nice enough where they are still good seats, but I worry that it won't be that way too much longer.) The other "con" that I thought of while at the stadium was the food. Not that it was bad (it was average to good from what I tasted), I just felt it was lacking a bit in one sense. They didn't seem to have what I'd call any "specialty" food vendors. It was mostly just ballpark food. Granted, they had a hardees, but that's not what I mean. Even the metrodome has Famous Dave's. And "The Carvery" is nice at the dome too, for a change of pace. But if Busch had things like that, I missed them. There were big concession stands where you could get a variety of regular ballpark items, or smaller booths where you could basically get just hot dogs or just nachos. Look, I don't need sushi, but where's the creativity St. Louis? Give me something out of the ordinary. To end with a nice thing though, I don't remember waiting in a line behind more than one or maybe two people for any food item (except the free ice), and it was a packed stadium all three games. Amazing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this at 07/02/2009 5:50:36 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/02/2009 @ 09:46:50 AM
There was water the last day too. I thought the rooftop plazas were great too. As you said, there's nothing really definable as to why. The prices were definitely up there. I paid $8 for chicken strips hoping that would include fries like Miller Park did (and should advertise so I don't get a hot dog to save $1.50 thinking the choice was between just a hot dog or strips) but it didn't. It was $6.50 at Miller. I think the expensive prices at Busch are more a reflection of what the locals are willing to pay than an indication of what we have to worry about at target field. (Which, for one thing, looks like it will have lots of $12-$14 seats.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/05/2009 @ 02:29:31 PM
Morneau got robbed, should've been the starter! I would post stat comparisons, but I can't figure it out. J-Mo's average is .320 vs the .279 of Teixeira. HRs, they're tied, Morneau has more runs, triples, hits, RBIs, etc than the Yankee who hits in a park that's very friendly to hitters. I demand a recount!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/05/2009 @ 02:48:40 PM
Watching the Twins game, and some guy just caught a foul ball. Nothing odd about that right? Uh... he was wearing a Favre Vikings jersey...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/06/2009 @ 06:54:45 PM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:29:31 PM Morneau got robbed, should've been the starter! I would post stat comparisons, but I can't figure it out. J-Mo's average is .320 vs the .279 of Teixeira. HRs, they're tied, Morneau has more runs, triples, hits, RBIs, etc than the Yankee who hits in a park that's very friendly to hitters. I demand a recount! A recount? You want to recount the votes between the New York Yankees market and the Minnesota Twins market? Although I should say, Prince fielder had a pretty starter-worthy first half; unfortunately he has to be in the same league as Pujols. Gallardo may have gotten a bit hosed, and Hoffman may have been deserving, but Hoffman struggled lately, and you can't have too many closers on an all-star roster. And Gallardo doesn't have enough wins to be really impressive, although his ERA is right up there. All-in-all, I'm satisfied with the Brewers participation. The guys that got in deserve it, and there aren't any glaring snubs.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 07/06/2009 @ 08:28:13 PM
I thought we established that wins is a horrible stat for pitchers?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 07/07/2009 @ 04:25:29 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:54:45 PM Sarah Wrote - 07/05/2009 @ 02:29:31 PM I demand a recount! A recount? You want to recount the votes between the New York Yankees market and the Minnesota Twins market? They actually did do a recount and Al Franken is now the starting first baseman for the next 6 All-Star games. Stay classy Minnesota.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 07/07/2009 @ 07:27:27 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:28:13 PM I thought we established that wins is a horrible stat for pitchers? I don't think that has been established at all. Maybe from a fantasy standpoint, but judging all stars from a fantasy standpoint is just plain stupid. They don't tell the whole story, just like a lack of walks doesn't tell the story, just like strikeouts don't tell the whole story. Baseball teams need to win, and good pitchers win. An occasional 1-0 game will waist a good pitching performance, and I'm sure there are some pitchers that had a season worth of good starts blown by poor offensive support, but over the long hall, I don't know very many good pitchers that don't win games.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 07/07/2009 @ 02:08:16 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:27:27 AM Maybe from a fantasy standpoint, but judging all stars from a fantasy standpoint is just plain stupid. Why? How is actually analyzing stats a bad way to judge All-Stars? I'm not saying there should be a BCS like formula to fill out the All-Star rosters, but shouldn't stats be part of the process? Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:27:27 AM Baseball teams need to win, and good pitchers win. Teams win, good pitchers pitch well (which is one way that the team can win). Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:27:27 AM An occasional 1-0 game will waist a good pitching performance, and I'm sure there are some pitchers that had a season worth of good starts blown by poor offensive support, but over the long hall, I don't know very many good pitchers that don't win games. Homophone alert. There is no rules really for All-Star selections but I think it's reasonable to look at the current year's performance most and then the previous year's, particularly the second half, can be taken into account too. Point being that in that time span it's not unlikely to have some pitchers with flukily high or low numbers of wins. So the long haul has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I'm sure you've heard of Ben Sheets. 86-83 in 221 starts, 3.72 ERA, 116 ERA+ (ballpark adjusted), 1.20 WHIP, 1428 IP Josh Beckett 98-65 in 209 starts, 3.77 ERA, 117 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP, 1294 IP John Lackey 94-66 in 216 starts, 3.85 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.32 WHIP, 1386 IP Sheets has better ERA and WHIP numbers, more starts, and longer average starts (more time for his team to score) and still has only 87% of the wins of Beckett. Actually that's not even that bad, but I used baseball-reference.com to find similar players. What I really need is a pitcher with inflated win totals... Ben Sheets Win% = .509 Jeff Suppan Win% = .508, 133-129 in 383 starts, 4.63 ERA, 99 ERA+, 1.44 WHIP Braden Looper (including bullpen time) Win% = .512, 4.01 ERA, 107 ERA+, 1.36 WHIP		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/07/2009 @ 05:08:00 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:08:16 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:27:27 AM An occasional 1-0 game will waist a good pitching performance, and I'm sure there are some pitchers that had a season worth of good starts blown by poor offensive support, but over the long hall, I don't know very many good pitchers that don't win games. Homophone alert. That's exactly watt I was thinking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/07/2009 @ 07:37:24 PM
I don't think "watt" is a homophone of what. I didn't say wins are the only thing that matter. I simply implied that wins do matter. Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:28:13 PM I thought we established that wins is a horrible stat for pitchers? You're saying wins should be ignored. I'm saying they should not be ignored. And if you have a better reason why Gallardo was left off the all-star roster than his Win total, I want a good explanation. And I also apologize if I appeared to suggest that Jeff Suppan or Braden Looper were as good or better pitchers than Ben Sheets. Clearly that was my intention.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 07/07/2009 8:12:31 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/07/2009 @ 09:55:33 PM
What's the argument for not ignoring them? The rules on assigning wins are totally arbitrary and they clearly aren't a good measure of a pitcher's worth. Honestly, it has to be the least meaningful stat in baseball. If baseball was invented 10 years ago, there's no way this ever would have been a stat, official or otherwise. Check out wikipedia, "Wins, though a traditional method for determining a pitcher's success and ability (for instance helping journalists determine the recipient of the Cy Young Award), have become significantly less popular as a gauge of pitcher skill in the past fifteen years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_(baseball) Coincidentally the article also mentions Sheets. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but it's the empirical result of putting any emphasis on wins.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 07/07/2009 @ 11:31:06 PM
Saves is probably the least meaningful stat in baseball (at least among the "major" stats). Wins, like RBIs and runs, are still useful in that good players tend to be among the leaders, but they aren't really good for trying to decide if one player is better than another. This is especially true when looking at a single season. If you look at whole careers, then I think that these stats become a little better at distinguishing whose better. For instance, you couldn't say that Player A with 19 wins in a season is definitely better that Player B with 16. If they have similar careers, though (say 10 seasons), and Player A has 190 wins and Player B has 160 wins, then it's probably more likely that Player A is the better pitcher. It's still not definitive, but its probably the case more often than not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 07/07/2009 @ 11:33:10 PM
Gallardo's ERA is 4th best in the NL, 5th in Ks, but 47th in walks which drops his K/BB to 16th. His opponent BA is 2nd best, but the walks again drop him to 6th in WIP Here's a comparison with the starters that made the team NL Ranks - ERA, K/BB, WIP, WPA, WAR Chad Billingsley 8, 23, 10, 18, 7 Matt Cain 3, 30, 12, 4, 15 Dan Haren 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 Josh Johnson 5, 9, 4, 5, 4 Ted Lily 14, 5, 5, 14, 11 Tim Lincecum 2, 3, 1, 3, 1 Jason Marquis 23, 43, 19, 1, 8 Johan Santana 12, 10, 13, 9, 21 Yovani Gallardo 4, 16, 6, 6, 12 stats from fangraphs.com So he's roughly in the middle of this pack, which means he certainly could've been selected. Things working against him: 2 other Brewers already on team, 5 closers selected, Lily was easily the best choice from the Cubs, Santana has the rep. Also wouldn't the fact that Gallardo's win total kept him off the team be all the more reason to admit that win total is meaningless? Since Hawpe is also representing the Rockies there's not much reason to pick Marquis except that he's leading the league in wins. Lastly, I'm assuming that Billingsley's K total was part of his selection, but Gallardo has just as many and better numbers in most other areas so that's another guy who's spot he could have. Maybe Charlie Manuel wants to give him some rest as he's the only starter the Brewers have to fight off the Cubs in the 2nd half, and Manuel fears the Cubs more in the playoffs, since the Brewers only have one pitcher. Yikes, he's the only starter with a WAR (wins above replacement) over .2 and Parra is the guy with the .2. The Brewer's team batting WAR is 13.9 (5th in majors) and their pitching is 4.1 (5th worst). ESPN has some ranking system that I didn't attempt to understand, but Gallardo was ranked 5th http://espn.go.com/mlb/playerrating?type=pitching&league=nl&position=all&season=2009&ratingId=0		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 07/07/2009 @ 11:39:27 PM
If you don't acknowledge that there should be such a thing as closers, then saves is as useless as wins. Otherwise can't you make the same generalizations that a closer with more saves is probably better over a career (or use saves converted %)? Obviously it's pointless to compare saves between closers and "other" relievers, but it's also pretty much pointless to compare win totals between relief pitchers or between relief pitchers and starters. I say tracking wins for relievers is twice the crime of tracking wins for starters and worse than tracking saves for relievers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/07/2009 @ 11:47:37 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 11:39:27 PM Otherwise can't you make the same generalizations that a closer with more saves is probably better over a career (or use saves converted %)? You could, and you would probably be right, but I think that the correlation between wins and "greatness" is probably tighter than between saves and "greatness".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 12:04:06 AM
Saves isn't meaningless. Well, on a ranking scale of baseball stats it might be low, but it's 1000 fold more meaningful than wins. Generally speaking you're talking about something that happens, contained to one inning, that the pitcher has infinitely more control over than Wins. You can't give up 7 runs on 14 hits and still get a save, you can't give up 0 runs in the inning and not get the save. (Well, there might be some technicalities I don't know about, but certainly you see the point.) The only thing that can really skew it is if one team has a really good defense and one team has a really bad defense, but that doesn't have that much of an effect, especially when you factor in that the best closers get 1-2 of the outs themselves every time. About the worst you could say about saves is that the save opportunities themselves are out of the closer's control. Someone on a really bad team, or really good team, just might not get as many opportunities, but you can at least compare ratios of saves/save opportunities (or blown saves). Wins isn't comparable, is largely out of the starting pitchers control in game, and is hardly indicative of anything for a season. Yes, 20-1 would almost certainly correlate with a good year for that pitcher, regardless of how good the team was. You can't say that guy automatically had a better year than someone who's 18-2. A record of 10-10, or even 7-13, tells you jack squat about the year the pitcher had. A closer with 35 saves and 3 blown had a better year than someone who got 35 saves and blew 10, or 25 saves and blew 3. Their whole job is to get that save.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 07/08/2009 12:19:13 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 12:23:23 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2154658 Old, but interesting. Carpenter won, in case anyone cares.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 07/08/2009 @ 12:31:43 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:23:23 AM http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2154658 Old, but interesting. Carpenter won, in case anyone cares. http://www.nutcan.com/blog.php?blog_id=254&subject=Brewers		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 07/08/2009 @ 12:34:48 AM
Ha, good times.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 01:14:37 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:04:06 AM A closer with 35 saves and 3 blown had a better year than someone who got 35 saves and blew 10, or 25 saves and blew 3. Not necessarily. If the first guy only entered games with 3-run leads and saved 35/38 of them, while the second guy only entered games with 1-run leads with guys on base and went 35/45, then I would probably go with the second guy. Now these are extreme examples, but the point is that without knowing what kind of saves they were, you can't tell much. Now to respond to the rest of your post..... Saves suck. Like win totals, save totals depend, in part, on your teammates. Also, just like there can be "cheap" wins, there are also "cheap" saves. Now, where wins has the edge, I think, is that at least they usually end up going to the pitcher on the winning team who had the most impact on the game. Saves, on the other hand are based solely on what inning the pitcher pitched in. A guy may come in with a 1-run lead in the 8th with the bases loaded and nobody out and face the 4-5-6 hitters and get out of it, but he gets nothing (well, he'd get a hold, but nobody cares about holds). Meanwhile, the next inning, the closer comes in, faces the 7-8-9 hitters, gets them out and collects the save. Besides all that, the save is worse because it causes managers to make stupid moves, much more that the win does. How many times over the past few years has the Twins bullpen given away a lead, or been down a run or two (or even tied) and let the other team score late in the game while Joe Nathan sits in the bullpen waiting for a save situation that may or may not come, and even if it does, may not be as "tough" of a situation as one in the 7th or 8th inning. We end up with Jesse Crain pitching in tougher situations than Joe Nathan, and then wonder why our bullpen blows the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/08/2009 1:17:01 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 10:32:27 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:14:37 AM Not necessarily. If the first guy only entered games with 3-run leads and saved 35/38 of them, while the second guy only entered games with 1-run leads with guys on base and went 35/45, then I would probably go with the second guy. Now these are extreme examples, but the point is that without knowing what kind of saves they were, you can't tell much. Well, the save spectrum isn't nearly as wide as the win spectrum. The odds that such things "even out" over the year are pretty good. You can't suck and still get a save, or be lights out and not get a save, like you can a win. Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:14:37 AM Now to respond to the rest of your post..... Saves suck. Like win totals, save totals depend, in part, on your teammates. Also, just like there can be "cheap" wins, there are also "cheap" saves. Now, where wins has the edge, I think, is that at least they usually end up going to the pitcher on the winning team who had the most impact on the game. Saves, on the other hand are based solely on what inning the pitcher pitched in. A guy may come in with a 1-run lead in the 8th with the bases loaded and nobody out and face the 4-5-6 hitters and get out of it, but he gets nothing (well, he'd get a hold, but nobody cares about holds). Meanwhile, the next inning, the closer comes in, faces the 7-8-9 hitters, gets them out and collects the save. Like I said, a save opportunity is out of your hands, but getting the save vs blowing the save, given the opportunity, is way way WAY more directly related to the pitcher, and in their control, than a win. Wins go to the pitcher who happened to be on the mound the inning before their team took the lead. There's no "impact" argument to be made. Getting the win is largely a technicality. Fewest losses is probably a better stat, because at least then you're talking about something that went down on a pitcher's watch. All in all, it would be like crediting the Middle Linebacker with a win/loss record, except dumber because at least in most cases the MLB plays the whole game, and he and the defense are likely directly involved in scoring a decent percentage of the team's points. Yeah, saves go to the guy that wraps up the game. That's what they are. You can still compare them to other closers. Your batting order argument is stupid, and doesn't need addressing, other than the afore mentioned calling it stupid. Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:14:37 AM Besides all that, the save is worse because it causes managers to make stupid moves, much more that the win does. How many times over the past few years has the Twins bullpen given away a lead, or been down a run or two (or even tied) and let the other team score late in the game while Joe Nathan sits in the bullpen waiting for a save situation that may or may not come, and even if it does, may not be as "tough" of a situation as one in the 7th or 8th inning. We end up with Jesse Crain pitching in tougher situations than Joe Nathan, and then wonder why our bullpen blows the game. Well, Nathan is the closer. Yes, Nathan will normally sit out, until a save situation develops, but is Gardy really "waiting to get Nathan a save" or waiting until the situation is hairy enough to require you slamming the door on the team with your closer, which is what the save is meant to "measure." Yes, there might be nights where we'd be better served bringing Nathan in to get us out of a 7th inning bind, but then we'd just have to send Crain out there to protect a 2 run lead in the ninth. If we bring Nathan in to get us out of a jam in the 7th, Crain and co could give up 52 runs in the 8th and 9th and Nathan would be wasted. You know you're for sure in a situation to win with a 9th inning lead, and over the aggregate, you're probably better served doing all you can to protect those leads. Besides, your premise that teams wouldn't have dedicated closers without saves can't just be assumed. You could argue letting the bullpen blow the lead in the 7th also "wastes" Nathan, but it's likely he wouldn't pitch every day anyway. It wouldn't be the same thing, since you aren't wasting his efforts, you're just giving him an off day. (And if he has lots of off days in a row, we do find other ways to work him in.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 5 times, last at 07/08/2009 11:13:40 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 01:17:00 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:14:37 AM Besides all that, the save is worse because it causes managers to make stupid moves, much more that the win does. I'll agree with the "managers making stupid moves" part of this statement and extend it to GMs and the media, but that's more of a misuse of a stat than a measure of if the stat is meaningful or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this at 07/08/2009 1:18:30 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/08/2009 @ 01:38:46 PM
Plus the debate isn't over "is saves meaningful/valuable/totally awesome" it's about whether or not it has more meaning than wins, which it does.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 07/08/2009 @ 01:41:29 PM
"Starters who can't win for losing" http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&page=starting9/090708		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex messed with this at 07/08/2009 1:41:55 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/09/2009 @ 03:41:36 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:14:37 AM Not necessarily. If the first guy only entered games with 3-run leads and saved 35/38 of them, while the second guy only entered games with 1-run leads with guys on base and went 35/45, then I would probably go with the second guy. Now these are extreme examples, but the point is that without knowing what kind of saves they were, you can't tell much. Well, the save spectrum isn't nearly as wide as the win spectrum. The odds that such things "even out" over the year are pretty good. You can't suck and still get a save, or be lights out and not get a save, like you can a win. And cheap wins will even out with tough losses or no decisions as well. And you can suck and get a save. Say you have a 3-run lead, then give up 2 runs and load the bases before finally getting the third out. I would call that sucking. As for being lights out, plenty off middle relievers are lights out, but since they don't pitch the 9th, they don't get the save. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:14:37 AM Now to respond to the rest of your post..... Saves suck. Like win totals, save totals depend, in part, on your teammates. Also, just like there can be "cheap" wins, there are also "cheap" saves. Now, where wins has the edge, I think, is that at least they usually end up going to the pitcher on the winning team who had the most impact on the game. Saves, on the other hand are based solely on what inning the pitcher pitched in. A guy may come in with a 1-run lead in the 8th with the bases loaded and nobody out and face the 4-5-6 hitters and get out of it, but he gets nothing (well, he'd get a hold, but nobody cares about holds). Meanwhile, the next inning, the closer comes in, faces the 7-8-9 hitters, gets them out and collects the save. Like I said, a save opportunity is out of your hands, but getting the save vs blowing the save, given the opportunity, is way way WAY more directly related to the pitcher, and in their control, than a win. But we're not talking about save percentage or whatever, we're talking about the save. The fact that a pitcher can't control when he'll get an opportunity is one of the flaws of the stat (just like wins/runs/RBI are flawed because factors are out of the players control). You can't just separate that out. Before we go any further, let me say something I should have said previously. When I talk about wins, I'm talking about them as a stat for starting pitchers, and I do this for a few reasons: 1. That's where most of the wins go, to starters. 2. This whole thing started as a discussion about win totals by starting pitchers. 3. It is useless as a stat for relievers (that said, they still have some use for starters, and as such, are still more useful than saves). Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Wins go to the pitcher who happened to be on the mound the inning before their team took the lead. There's no "impact" argument to be made. Getting the win is largely a technicality. Wins are basically pitch 5 (or more) innings and come out with the lead. Saves are basically pitch 1 inning and come out with the lead. If one is largely a technicality, then so is the other. And there is an impact argument to be made. For the most part, the starting pitcher will have more to do with the team winning than any other pitcher on his team, and for the most part they get credited for it. With saves, however, I think it may be the case where the reliever who contributes the most won't get the credit. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Fewest losses is probably a better stat, because at least then you're talking about something that went down on a pitcher's watch. All in all, it would be like crediting the Middle Linebacker with a win/loss record, except dumber because at least in most cases the MLB plays the whole game, and he and the defense are likely directly involved in scoring a decent percentage of the team's points. Since I'm about to get to the part where you call one of my arguments stupid.... This football analogy is extremely stupid. A pitcher has more impact on a baseball game than any position does on a football game. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Yeah, saves go to the guy that wraps up the game. That's what they are. You can still compare them to other closers. Your batting order argument is stupid, and doesn't need addressing, other than the afore mentioned calling it stupid. And wins are what they are. And yes, saves can still be useful for comparing closers to closers, but that's part of the problem. If you are trying to compare all relievers, then saves are useless. However flawed wins are, at least you can still use them to compare all starters, not just the "aces" of each rotation. As for my stupid argument, I wasn't making a batting order argument as much as making an argument that a closer can get a "cheap" save while another reliever pitches a tougher situation and gets nothing. But, I guess if you think my use of the batting order in that argument was stupid, you wouldn't see a difference in this situation: 8th inning, Twins up by 1, Nathan and random Twins reliever are only two guys available. The other teams 4-5-6 hitters are due up. Would you rather have Nathan come in and pitch and save the other guy for the 9th with the 7-8-9, or would you rather save Nathan for the 9th and hope that the other reliever gets through the 8th with the lead intact? I would lean towards Nathan pitching to the better hitters, but I guess that's just me. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:14:37 AM Besides all that, the save is worse because it causes managers to make stupid moves, much more that the win does. How many times over the past few years has the Twins bullpen given away a lead, or been down a run or two (or even tied) and let the other team score late in the game while Joe Nathan sits in the bullpen waiting for a save situation that may or may not come, and even if it does, may not be as "tough" of a situation as one in the 7th or 8th inning. We end up with Jesse Crain pitching in tougher situations than Joe Nathan, and then wonder why our bullpen blows the game. Well, Nathan is the closer. Yes, Nathan will normally sit out, until a save situation develops, but is Gardy really "waiting to get Nathan a save" or waiting until the situation is hairy enough to require you slamming the door on the team with your closer, which is what the save is meant to "measure." I'm pretty sure its mostly him just waiting to get Nathan a save, otherwise we'd actually see more of Nathan in "hairy" situations in the 7th and 8th. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Yes, there might be nights where we'd be better served bringing Nathan in to get us out of a 7th inning bind, but then we'd just have to send Crain out there to protect a 2 run lead in the ninth. If we bring Nathan in to get us out of a jam in the 7th, Crain and co could give up 52 runs in the 8th and 9th and Nathan would be wasted. You know you're for sure in a situation to win with a 9th inning lead, and over the aggregate, you're probably better served doing all you can to protect those leads. You could argue letting the bullpen blow the lead in the 7th also "wastes" Nathan, but it's likely he wouldn't pitch every day anyway. It wouldn't be the same thing, since you aren't wasting his efforts, you're just giving him an off day. (And if he has lots of off days in a row, we do find other ways to work him in.) You can't know what will happen, only what is happening. I would rather have my better pitchers come in to get out of jams and try and preserve the lead/tie/small deficit when the jams happen, rather than saving them for another tight situation that may or may not happen. While I wouldn't be thrilled to have Crain pitching in the 9th to protect a 2-run lead, If we use him for the 7th inning jam and save Nathan, then there is probably less of a chance that we even make it to the 9th with a 2-run lead. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:32:27 AM Besides, your premise that teams wouldn't have dedicated closers without saves can't just be assumed. I'm not sure I ever stated that was my premise, but I don't think it's that big of a leap to assume that without the save rule (and the acceptance of it as a "major" stat), that closer/fireman/best reliever usage would be much different. It's pretty clear that managers decide to use their closers mostly based on the save rule than any other factor. More to the point just compare the careers of relievers like Hoyt Wilhelm, or Rollie Fingers to guys like Nathan, or Trevor Hoffman.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 07/09/2009 3:43:41 am

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/09/2009 @ 04:01:24 AM
Bottom line, both wins and saves are very flawed stats (and flawed in many similar ways, I might add) to use to compare who's better. But to me, I think wins is a somewhat better predictor of starting pitcher talent than saves is to closers, let alone relievers in general. Add to that some of the other factors I've mentioned and I think that wins is a less useless stat than saves. If Jeremy still wants to disagree fine, I can see how you could go with saves, but either way, I would say that its a close call (certainly not a "1000 fold" difference, in any case).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/09/2009 @ 02:01:03 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:41:36 AM 1) And cheap wins will even out with tough losses or no decisions as well. And you can suck and get a save. Say you have a 3-run lead, then give up 2 runs and load the bases before finally getting the third out. I would call that sucking. 2) As for being lights out, plenty off middle relievers are lights out, but since they don't pitch the 9th, they don't get the save. 3) But we're not talking about save percentage or whatever, we're talking about the save. The fact that a pitcher can't control when he'll get an opportunity is one of the flaws of the stat (just like wins/runs/RBI are flawed because factors are out of the players control). You can't just separate that out. 4)And wins are what they are. And yes, saves can still be useful for comparing closers to closers, but that's part of the problem. If you are trying to compare all relievers, then saves are useless. However flawed wins are, at least you can still use them to compare all starters, not just the "aces" of each rotation. 5)Wins are basically pitch 5 (or more) innings and come out with the lead. Saves are basically pitch 1 inning and come out with the lead. If one is largely a technicality, then so is the other. 6)You can't know what will happen, only what is happening. I would rather have my better pitchers come in to get out of jams and try and preserve the lead/tie/small deficit when the jams happen, rather than saving them for another tight situation that may or may not happen. While I wouldn't be thrilled to have Crain pitching in the 9th to protect a 2-run lead, If we use him for the 7th inning jam and save Nathan, then there is probably less of a chance that we even make it to the 9th with a 2-run lead. 7)Bottom line, both wins and saves are very flawed stats (and flawed in many similar ways, I might add) to use to compare who's better. But to me, I think wins is a somewhat better predictor of starting pitcher talent than saves is to closers, let alone relievers in general. 1) Well, that would be as close to sucking as a normal save situation can get. You could give up 40 runs and get a win. 2) Yeah, and comparing Joe Nathan and Joe Mauer's batting average would be meaningless too. They have different jobs. Anyone using saves to compare Joe Nathan to Jose Mijares is an idiot, other than in the loosest way, which would be that if one guy has 25 saves and another guy on the same team has 2, the one with 25 is probably better because there's a reason he's the closer. 3) I just did separate it out. As you said there are lots of stats in baseball that are some degree out of your control, but the degree varies. The save is infinitely more in your control than the win. The part that is largest out of your control is getting the save opportunity, but that can be combated by looking at how people fair in their opportunities. There's no such caveat with wins. 10 saves vs 20 saves isn't crystal clear, no, though it still is a decent indicator because it still means that closer got the job done that many times. 5 wins vs 10 wins tells you nothing. 10 saves in 22 chances vs 20 saves in 22 chances clears things up a bit. 5 wins in 12 chances vs 11 wins in 12 chances still tells you jack shit, other than the fact that there's a loose correlation between performance and wins, if you look at a long enough period of time. 4) So it's ok to draw a line between one group of pitchers and another, but we can't have a stat intended to measure just one other separate group? 5) Saves are enter with a lead, and exit with the game over. That's a big difference. It eliminates a huge huge portion of the technicalities. 6) Exactly, you can't know what will happen. (Again this whole line of comments gets away from wins vs saves, and presumes that Nathan is a 9th inning guy only because Gardy likes to see lots of saves in the box score, but just for the sake of debate...) You never know how a game will play out. Nathan could come out in the 6th or 7th, and then the bullpen would give up 20 from there on out. As a whole you're probably better off saving your closer for when the games are most closely at hand. 7) Ignoring your obsession that it has to be something that's meaningful to all relievers, which I don't see why. I guess I see where we differ. I think the more valid stat is the one that best reflects the actual circumstances it is meant to measure. You think the more valuable stat is the one that best reflects how good the pitcher is. (Ie, you don't have to do as much to pile up saves.) It's possible I'm reading too far into your use of the word "talent," but it appears we're talking about two different things here anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/09/2009 2:15:30 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/09/2009 @ 08:29:03 PM
Is it possible that there might be some middle ground here?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/10/2009 @ 01:35:50 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:01:03 PM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:41:36 AM 1) And cheap wins will even out with tough losses or no decisions as well. And you can suck and get a save. Say you have a 3-run lead, then give up 2 runs and load the bases before finally getting the third out. I would call that sucking. 2) As for being lights out, plenty off middle relievers are lights out, but since they don't pitch the 9th, they don't get the save. 3) But we're not talking about save percentage or whatever, we're talking about the save. The fact that a pitcher can't control when he'll get an opportunity is one of the flaws of the stat (just like wins/runs/RBI are flawed because factors are out of the players control). You can't just separate that out. 4)And wins are what they are. And yes, saves can still be useful for comparing closers to closers, but that's part of the problem. If you are trying to compare all relievers, then saves are useless. However flawed wins are, at least you can still use them to compare all starters, not just the "aces" of each rotation. 5)Wins are basically pitch 5 (or more) innings and come out with the lead. Saves are basically pitch 1 inning and come out with the lead. If one is largely a technicality, then so is the other. 6)You can't know what will happen, only what is happening. I would rather have my better pitchers come in to get out of jams and try and preserve the lead/tie/small deficit when the jams happen, rather than saving them for another tight situation that may or may not happen. While I wouldn't be thrilled to have Crain pitching in the 9th to protect a 2-run lead, If we use him for the 7th inning jam and save Nathan, then there is probably less of a chance that we even make it to the 9th with a 2-run lead. 7)Bottom line, both wins and saves are very flawed stats (and flawed in many similar ways, I might add) to use to compare who's better. But to me, I think wins is a somewhat better predictor of starting pitcher talent than saves is to closers, let alone relievers in general. 1) Well, that would be as close to sucking as a normal save situation can get. You could give up 40 runs and get a win. 2) Yeah, and comparing Joe Nathan and Joe Mauer's batting average would be meaningless too. They have different jobs. Anyone using saves to compare Joe Nathan to Jose Mijares is an idiot, other than in the loosest way, which would be that if one guy has 25 saves and another guy on the same team has 2, the one with 25 is probably better because there's a reason he's the closer. 3) I just did separate it out. As you said there are lots of stats in baseball that are some degree out of your control, but the degree varies. The save is infinitely more in your control than the win. The part that is largest out of your control is getting the save opportunity, but that can be combated by looking at how people fair in their opportunities. There's no such caveat with wins. 10 saves vs 20 saves isn't crystal clear, no, though it still is a decent indicator because it still means that closer got the job done that many times. 5 wins vs 10 wins tells you nothing. 10 saves in 22 chances vs 20 saves in 22 chances clears things up a bit. 5 wins in 12 chances vs 11 wins in 12 chances still tells you jack shit, other than the fact that there's a loose correlation between performance and wins, if you look at a long enough period of time. 4) So it's ok to draw a line between one group of pitchers and another, but we can't have a stat intended to measure just one other separate group? 5) Saves are enter with a lead, and exit with the game over. That's a big difference. It eliminates a huge huge portion of the technicalities. 6) Exactly, you can't know what will happen. (Again this whole line of comments gets away from wins vs saves, and presumes that Nathan is a 9th inning guy only because Gardy likes to see lots of saves in the box score, but just for the sake of debate...) You never know how a game will play out. Nathan could come out in the 6th or 7th, and then the bullpen would give up 20 from there on out. As a whole you're probably better off saving your closer for when the games are most closely at hand. 7) Ignoring your obsession that it has to be something that's meaningful to all relievers, which I don't see why. I guess I see where we differ. I think the more valid stat is the one that best reflects the actual circumstances it is meant to measure. You think the more valuable stat is the one that best reflects how good the pitcher is. (Ie, you don't have to do as much to pile up saves.) It's possible I'm reading too far into your use of the word "talent," but it appears we're talking about two different things here anyway. 1. You could get a win that way, and I might also get hit by lightning tomorrow, twice. Also, a closer could easily give up a run per inning and still convert a majority of his saves. That equates to a 9.00 ERA and is sucking in my book. Even if he gives up a run every 2 innings (4.50 ERA) or even every 3 innings (3.00 ERA) he's not being a very effective reliever, but would still most likely post high save numbers. So the potential cheapness of saves and wins isn't as different as you say it is. 2. That's not even close to being a good analogy, unless you actually think that the difference between a closer and a 7th/8th inning guy is the same as between a pitcher and a position player. A better analogy would be comparing Mauer's (3 hitter) batting average to Punto's (9 hitter), which is far from meaningless. 3. Again, I get your point, but if we are talking about the value of a specific stat, I don't consider any derivative stats to have any bearing on the discussion. If I can only compare players by their hit total, the fact that i can use the number of hits to compute a batting average (which would provide better clues about there ability) doesn't help me. 4. Again, the difference in jobs between a closer and a set-up man is probably quite small when compared to the difference between relievers and starters. 5. Fine, the save rule is more "precise" in what it measures. That doesn't mean that what is measures is of any real use. 6. Depending on what you mean by "close at hand", isn't this basically what I said? Either way, lets go with another analogy. Mauer is on the bench with a day off, and we're playing the Brewers in Milwaukee. Top of the 6th and the bases are loaded with 2 outs, and the pitcher is due up. Do you PH Mauer there, or do you send up Buscher instead so you can have Mauer available in case a PH opportunity comes along in the 9th? I would go with Mauer. 7. I wouldn't call it an obsession, just that, like I was getting at in #5, precise but narrow doesn't automatically beat less precise but also less narrow. Yes, we probably are talking about different things, which is why I think these will be my last thoughts on the topic. But since this whole thing got started by arguing about win totals and who was a better pitcher, I'm declaring my viewpoint the correct one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 10:36:38 AM
2. No, that wouldn't be a better analogy at all. 3. Where did this "only" come from. Plus hit total, and save total, are meaningful, in that at least that player is doing something to get them. Sure, one guy might get 5 times the opportunities as another, but there's probably a good reason he's getting 5 times the opportunities. Win total is meaningless no matter how you look at it. It would be akin to having a "Home runs hit while you were on base" stat. There would be a correlation between that stat and the better players, because the better players would be on base more, but the thing that actually EARNS them the stat is 99% out of their control, and would be useless as a comparison tool, or a real indicator of talent level, unless, like wins, it hit some "extreme" number, but even then it would likely only mean that the person's OBP was sky high, and OBP would be a better indicator of how they did anyway. 6. Ignoring the possibility that Mauer's having to catch might factor in, I'd say go for it. Runs are runs. What I'm talking about is making a case for the idea that protecting the games you almost have won, and fighting through a tough middle inning once in a while, is probably a decent way to look at the season as a total. There are going to be games lost in the 6th, 7th, and 8th. But they could also give up 4 runs in the 6th, and the Twins could score 5 runs in the 7th. Protecting 9th inning (and to a lesser extent 8th inning) leads probably works out in the end. (In other words, teams would probably have a "closer" with or without saves.) 7. I don't get why something being "narrow" is a knock on it at all. What does that even mean? It measures what it measures. Also, we started out because Alex called wins a horrible stat. The only case you have is at the extreme end. A guy who goes 22-0 almost assuredly had an awesome year, and is also probably a pretty good pitcher. Any "normal" win loss record is hardly an indicator of what the pitcher did at all. It's not like you have to scour baseballreference.com for a handful of examples where record doesn't correlate to how the pitcher's season went. Every year there's a long list of pitchers whose win column is a crime against them. Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 07/10/2009 10:45:04 am

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 07/10/2009 @ 01:32:30 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Joel-Hanrahan-proves-everyone-s-a-winner-after-l?urn=mlb,175870		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 07/10/2009 @ 03:43:07 PM
This has something for Brewers and Twins fans. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14435844&ch=4226713&src=news Instead of video, here's the actual article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20090710/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_haunted_hotel		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 07/10/2009 4:14:27 pm

	Micah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way! 07/10/2009 @ 07:24:40 PM
Joe Mauer is officially participating in the HR derby. The NL representation is killer: Howard, Fielder, Gonzalez and Pujols		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 07:37:32 PM
Should be interesting, maybe he'll surprise everyone and be the champ. He just doesn't know how to lose. John Danks does. 4 runs in the 1st inning, luv it!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 08:16:37 PM
Booo! Gonzalez needs some rest.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/10/2009 @ 08:47:15 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:36:38 AM Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it. You could at least try and be a little bit honest with your arguments. For the most part, for a starter to rack up wins, he still has to pitch well. There is certainly a relationship between what a pitcher does and wins. And it is far from meaningless for comparison, since better pitchers will tend to have more wins than those who don't. At the very least it's as good of a tool to compare starters as saves is to compare closers. I mean for crying out loud, Joe Borowski lead the AL in saves in 2007 with a 5.07 ERA. That would be like a starter leading the league in wins with something like a 7.00 ERA.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 09:32:27 PM
Huh? Wouldn't that be like a starter leading the league in wins with a 5.07 ERA? What's with the adding 2 runs? Plus starters generally all get the same number of starts, and closers don't get the same number of chances. Which is why it's pointless to look at save totals. Comparing save totals is probably dumber than comparing win totals, but each individual save is more meaningful than a win. To get a save, you have to come in with a lead and win the game. Although if it's a multi-inning game your offense could potentially score more runs, which makes multi-inning saves lame. But overall, getting a save once you have been given the opportunity is much more up to the pitcher (obviously the defense can still factor in) than getting a win is, since the offense has to score some runs to get a win. And if a pitcher can give up 2 runs and still finish off the win, he did his job. I guess it's a more niche stat and quite frankly I'd be all for getting rid of saves and wins. It does seem like the 2 of you have been looking at different angles. I'd say that neither saves or wins are at all a good measure of a pitcher's "goodness". I'm not sure if they really is a good stat. WHIP is helpful, but some pitchers can get in a jam and strike out the next 2 guys anyway. But ERA is tainted in my mind because a reliever can come in in that same situation and let 3 guys score and they get counted against the other pitcher. Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:37:32 PM John Danks does. 4 runs in the 1st inning, luv it! Hey! Don't be knocking my fantasy players. Especially when they dominate the next 5 innings and counting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 09:44:06 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 09:32:27 PM Huh? Wouldn't that be like a starter leading the league in wins with a 5.07 ERA? What's with the adding 2 runs? That was my unscientific adjustment, due to the fact that a good closers ERA will usually be lower than a good starters. A 5.07 ERA for a starting pitcher is bad, but a closer with a 5.07 ERA is extremely bad.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/10/2009 @ 09:55:24 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 09:32:27 PM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:37:32 PM John Danks does. 4 runs in the 1st inning, luv it! Hey! Don't be knocking my fantasy players. Especially when they dominate the next 5 innings and counting. It could've been a worse 1st inning, if only Cuddyer knew how NOT to get out while standing by first. Anywho, my fantasy player got the win in this game. Ha ha.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 07/10/2009 @ 09:58:28 PM
A closer could give up 6 runs in an outing, then not give up a run in his next 10 and still have a 4.91 ERA even though he went 10-1 in save opportunities. If a starter pitches 11 innings with 6 runs coming in one outing that probably means one loss and one who the hell knows with the same ERA. Anyway, quality starts I think would be a much better indicator than wins if they changed it to 5 or 6 innings with 2 runs or less, 7 or 8 innings with 3 runs or less, or 9 innings with 4 runs or less (bonus for giving the bullpen a rest).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 07/10/2009 @ 09:59:35 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:55:24 PM Alex Wrote - Today @ 09:32:27 PM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:37:32 PM John Danks does. 4 runs in the 1st inning, luv it! Hey! Don't be knocking my fantasy players. Especially when they dominate the next 5 innings and counting. It could've been a worse 1st inning, if only Cuddyer knew how NOT to get out while standing by first. Anywho, my fantasy player got the win in this game. Ha ha. Yahoo scoreboard says it's still the bottom of the 7th, I'm still hoping for an alternate ending.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 07/10/2009 @ 10:12:45 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 08:47:15 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:36:38 AM Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it. You could at least try and be a little bit honest with your arguments. For the most part, for a starter to rack up wins, he still has to pitch well. There is certainly a relationship between what a pitcher does and wins. And it is far from meaningless for comparison, since better pitchers will tend to have more wins than those who don't. At the very least it's as good of a tool to compare starters as saves is to compare closers. I mean for crying out loud, Joe Borowski lead the AL in saves in 2007 with a 5.07 ERA. That would be like a starter leading the league in wins with something like a 7.00 ERA. Yes, to rack up wins the likelihood you pitched well increases. Not getting a win in a start doesn't indicate anything. There's your problem.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/10/2009 10:30:29 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 07/10/2009 @ 10:33:28 PM
Yes, sometimes bad pitchers end up with high win totals, and sometimes good pitchers end up with low ones. The same is true with saves. On average, though, the better pitchers tend to be towards the top of both, but for reasons I've given previously I feel that wins is a little more useful.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this 2 times, last at 07/10/2009 10:35:15 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/10/2009 @ 11:25:55 PM
On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.'		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Matt perfected this at 07/10/2009 11:27:55 pm

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 01:53:38 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:55 PM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.' I don't get it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 05:23:37 AM
You know, when matt first posed the question to me, (completely off this site without even hinting which way he felt), which is the worse stat, or more meaningless stat, or whatever, I actually thought for about a minute and came to the conclusion I couldn't decide. "I'd say about equal maybe. I'm not sure," might be a paraphrase of something I said. And the discussion on here afterward hasn't really swayed me one way or the other. But with this quote, Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:36:38 AM Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it. I am left with only one course of action. First, to ask, "am I reading that correctly?" Because the way I read it now, leads me to believe that Jeremy believes wins are completely meaningless in ANY way, shape, or form. The only thing that tempers the sentiment at all is that the quote starts with, "Compared to saves...," though I'm not sure that extends beyond the first comma. But even with that caveat extending to the whole thing, I'm still questioning it's meaning. Because, to me, it seems that the argument is still being made that not only are saves superior as a stat, but that wins aren't even in the same universe of meaning. And basically that a quantity of wins carries no greater meaning than the quantity of vowels in a pitcher's first name (at least in comparison to saves and their meaning, or value). And so if that is the argument being made, then I would like to put forward a motion that this whole thing be declared a complete mistrial. I was under the impression, as I'm guessing others were, that all parties were at least working from a framework where each stat has SOME value. If not, then I feel we could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth if these types of views were made clear up front. Though to be fair, I guess this was close Jeremy Wrote - 07/08/2009 @ 12:04:06 AM Saves [are] 1000 fold more meaningful than wins. But I chalked that up to hyperbole at the time. Maybe it wasn't. But even still, it would imply wins had SOME value. All this to say, I feel like there's been a week-long debate about which food is better, soybeans or beef, and one side just declared they've been a vegan from birth.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 2 times, last at 07/11/2009 5:29:54 am

	Jon - 3375 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 06:17:25 AM
Micah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:24:40 PM Joe Mauer is officially participating in the HR derby. The NL representation is killer: Howard, Fielder, Gonzalez and Pujols Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:37:32 PM Should be interesting, maybe he'll surprise everyone and be the champ. He just doesn't know how to lose. John Danks does. 4 runs in the 1st inning, luv it! Sarah, your confidence in Mauer is pathetic. Take a cue from Glen Perkins and take a real stand! "There is no question in my mind he'll win," Twins starting pitcher Glen Perkins said of Mauer. "I'll put my paycheck on it." source		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 07/11/2009 6:46:44 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 08:13:34 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 06:23:37 AM You know, when matt first posed the question to me, (completely off this site without even hinting which way he felt), which is the worse stat, or more meaningless stat, or whatever, I actually thought for about a minute and came to the conclusion I couldn't decide. "I'd say about equal maybe. I'm not sure," might be a paraphrase of something I said. And the discussion on here afterward hasn't really swayed me one way or the other. But with this quote, Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:36:38 AM Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it. I am left with only one course of action. First, to ask, "am I reading that correctly?" Because the way I read it now, leads me to believe that Jeremy believes wins are completely meaningless in ANY way, shape, or form. The only thing that tempers the sentiment at all is that the quote starts with, "Compared to saves...," though I'm not sure that extends beyond the first comma. But even with that caveat extending to the whole thing, I'm still questioning it's meaning. Because, to me, it seems that the argument is still being made that not only are saves superior as a stat, but that wins aren't even in the same universe of meaning. And basically that a quantity of wins carries no greater meaning than the quantity of vowels in a pitcher's first name (at least in comparison to saves and their meaning, or value). And so if that is the argument being made, then I would like to put forward a motion that this whole thing be declared a complete mistrial. I was under the impression, as I'm guessing others were, that all parties were at least working from a framework where each stat has SOME value. If not, then I feel we could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth if these types of views were made clear up front. Though to be fair, I guess this was close Jeremy Wrote - 07/08/2009 @ 01:04:06 AM Saves [are] 1000 fold more meaningful than wins. But I chalked that up to hyperbole at the time. Maybe it wasn't. But even still, it would imply wins had SOME value. All this to say, I feel like there's been a week-long debate about which food is better, soybeans or beef, and one side just declared they've been a vegan from birth. Finally the voice of reason in a seemingly unreasonable world.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 08:35:16 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:55 PM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.' Are you making fun of me?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 07/11/2009 @ 09:15:43 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 05:23:37 AM You know, when matt first posed the question to me, (completely off this site without even hinting which way he felt), which is the worse stat, or more meaningless stat, or whatever, I actually thought for about a minute and came to the conclusion I couldn't decide. "I'd say about equal maybe. I'm not sure," might be a paraphrase of something I said. And the discussion on here afterward hasn't really swayed me one way or the other. But with this quote, Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:36:38 AM Compared to saves it's not as quantifiable, it's barely related to anything the pitcher does, and it's completely meaningless as ANY type of comparison, alone or as a percentage of starts, quality starts, etc, with another player's record. It fails on every front, no matter how you look at it. I am left with only one course of action. First, to ask, "am I reading that correctly?" Because the way I read it now, leads me to believe that Jeremy believes wins are completely meaningless in ANY way, shape, or form. The only thing that tempers the sentiment at all is that the quote starts with, "Compared to saves...," though I'm not sure that extends beyond the first comma. But even with that caveat extending to the whole thing, I'm still questioning it's meaning. Because, to me, it seems that the argument is still being made that not only are saves superior as a stat, but that wins aren't even in the same universe of meaning. And basically that a quantity of wins carries no greater meaning than the quantity of vowels in a pitcher's first name (at least in comparison to saves and their meaning, or value). And so if that is the argument being made, then I would like to put forward a motion that this whole thing be declared a complete mistrial. I was under the impression, as I'm guessing others were, that all parties were at least working from a framework where each stat has SOME value. If not, then I feel we could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth if these types of views were made clear up front. Though to be fair, I guess this was close Jeremy Wrote - 07/08/2009 @ 12:04:06 AM Saves [are] 1000 fold more meaningful than wins. But I chalked that up to hyperbole at the time. Maybe it wasn't. But even still, it would imply wins had SOME value. All this to say, I feel like there's been a week-long debate about which food is better, soybeans or beef, and one side just declared they've been a vegan from birth. I think you're reading way too far into that one line, especially seeing as I made statements directly refuting your wild accusations. The point is if you look at it from Matt's angle then they are, at worst, fairly equal, and if you look at it from the other angle saves has the edge in every facet. (Saves measures a more precise unit of events, is much much much more related to what that pitcher actually does, and makes a better comparison tool for guys on different teams, because it can be paired with an opposite that all those attributes apply to. Wins can't really be compared with anything to make it more meaningful. Wins/Starts might bridge the gap between comparing someone with 5 starts to someone with 15 but it would still be hard to compare those in any meaningful sense, since one guy might just be on a worse team, [wins/quality starts] is nonsense, wins/losses is just comparing a stat with lots of flaws to another. No matter what type of comparison you try to make, it's still pretty meaningless. If you wanted to compare two starters, there are umpteen more meaningful ways to do it. Wins doesn't tell much of the story at all.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 07/11/2009 9:21:17 am

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 07/11/2009 @ 02:29:43 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:53:38 AM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:55 PM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.' I don't get it. Sarah Wrote - Today @ 08:35:16 AM Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:55 PM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.' Are you making fun of me? What is wrong with you guys? It's a story about a haunted hotel in Milwaukee, and Carlos Gomez being freaked out by it. It's hilarious. What's not to get? How am I making fun of Sarah?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 07/11/2009 @ 02:31:26 PM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:43:07 PM This has something for Brewers and Twins fans. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14435844&ch=4226713&src=news Instead of video, here's the actual article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20090710/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_haunted_hotel Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:55 PM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.'		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/11/2009 @ 02:34:53 PM
Huh, I didn't even see that. I guess that's why you should add the headline in the link, and a teaser.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 07/12/2009 @ 09:22:31 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:31:26 PM Sarah Wrote - 07/10/2009 @ 04:43:07 PM This has something for Brewers and Twins fans. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14435844&ch=4226713&src=news Instead of video, here's the actual article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20090710/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_haunted_hotel Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:25:55 AM On the lighter side, here's something for both Twins and Brewers fans. ‘Haunted’ Milwaukee hotel scares MLB teams The opening paragraph: "First Carlos Gomez heard voices. Then he watched his iPod go haywire after he got out of the shower, sending him scrambling for the lobby without stopping to put on his pants and shoes.' Someone should tell Carlos Gomez that if your iPod goes haywire after getting out of the shower, it's not haunted, it's just shorting out.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 07/12/2009 9:23:14 am

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/12/2009 @ 06:14:12 PM
What I was talking about yesterday.... see dreams do come true! http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090712&content_id=5837908&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/12/2009 @ 06:29:29 PM
Twins news: Twins call up Casilla Casilla up, Tolbert down.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 07/12/2009 @ 06:33:25 PM
Seriously, though, how can you be happy for this when it probably means less playing time for your boy Nick Punto? While I'm sure Gardy will still try and get Punto in the lineup more than he should, I gotta believe that he will be the odd man out here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 07/12/2009 6:34:53 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/12/2009 @ 09:03:46 PM
I think they'll put him back at SS and Harris will be the odd man out. He had a good day on Sunday, but he's not as good as Punto defensively, and he's had a bit o' a slump. Whatever gets the team to win is the important thing. And, if Casilla has gotten his batting stats up since being in AAA, (how'd he get to Rochester anyway? Someone give him a bus ticket after the game? What a bum) it'll be exciting to see the 1-2 punch of Span and him. Plus oh yea, Gomez was on a tear this weekend too.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 07/12/2009 @ 11:15:31 PM
That would be stupid, but I wouldn't put it past Gardy. Harris has been a much better player than Punto this year, even when you factor in defense. That can always change, but right now, our middle infield should be Harris and whoever is currently playing better between Punto and Casilla.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/12/2009 @ 11:37:33 PM
I don't understand the move myself. They were just talking in today's game how they were soon going to need a position player to move down to bring up a pitcher. Then they bring up another position player. This must mean Morales is the likely odd man out, since we don't need 3 catchers, and barely use him, but it's a shame, because he's doing so well in the few chances he gets. Would we ever try Kubel in the outfield and let Morales be DH? (Not in any permanent basis, obviously.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 07/12/2009 11:46:37 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 07/12/2009 @ 11:51:12 PM
Maybe, but most likely that would mean Gomez would sit and Span would be in center, Kubel in left, and Cuddyer in right. I'm not sure that Morales is a good enough hitter to overcome the big hit on defense that would entail.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 07/13/2009 @ 12:16:04 AM
Well, we use that set up all the time. Gomez usually sits. It would be a Young for Kubel trade off in almost all cases, and I would think that would indeed be worth it as a from time to time thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 07/13/2009 @ 06:30:33 AM
Unless his new approach at the plate keeps working (I'm not holding my breath), pretty much anybody on the roster is a better option than Young. If you're going to sit Young though, then the best configuration is still probably Span, Gomez, Cuddyer, with Kubel as the DH. If your just talking about days when Span, Gomez, or Cuddyer need a day off, though, then yeah, Kubel/Morales is probably better than Young/Kubel (ignoring the fact that they probably want Morales to go back to AAA so he can get more regular playing time behind the plate). I'm not sure, though, how much Gardy is going to even use the Young, Span, Cuddyer lineup from now on anyway. With Span being on the DL for a while, and us playing in NL parks, it's hard to make out any "trends", but if you look at their lineups it seems that Young has definitely moved firmly to 4th outfielder status (5th outfielder on days when Mauer DHs, as Kubel plays left and Span moves to center). Since we left St. Louis, Young has only started in 3 of 12 games, which seems to be about how often Gardy likes to get his bench players a start anyway. Now, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with an argument that Young starting 3 of 12 games is still too many, but even if you take one or two of those and do the Kubel/Morales thing, its probably not enough to justify keeping him up when he could be catching full time in AAA and getting better for next year when he will probably be the backup catcher for Mauer.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this at 07/13/2009 6:42:11 am

	jthompto - 209 Posts 07/13/2009 @ 07:55:25 AM
I don't like the move at all. Tolbert is completly worthless at the plate, but he plays hard good defense, which is something Casilla was lacking. Casilla has been crushing the ball in Rochester but I believe he was in the .100s in MLB. I really wish the Twins would go after someone like Freddy Sanchez and the 2B problem and the #2 hole would be solved. They could package Casilla and Swarzak maybe. I like having Morales in the majors, but they must be worried about his catching, because he is never used on Mauers off days. He always seems to come up big in the pinch hit role, so I think keeping him in the majors is worth it. Unless he really goes down the toliet, Harris should be the SS and #2 hitter with Punto and Casilla at 2b.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 07/13/2009 @ 10:05:16 PM
Prince Fielder wins the Home Run Derby in convincing fashion. Most homers in every round, and the run away leader in times the audio guy had to hit the dump button.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land. 07/14/2009 @ 08:37:10 AM
Once when I wasn't paying close attention I thought there was something wrong with my speakers it was cutting out so much. Congrats to Fielder and the Brewers fans here. That's Twins-Brewers HR champs for 2 years now, although if anyone outside of WI/MN didn't say Josh Hamilton won last year I would be amazed.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/14/2009 @ 05:47:33 PM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 08:37:10 AM Once when I wasn't paying close attention I thought there was something wrong with my speakers it was cutting out so much. The controversial Clue in the Clock, so many swears!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/14/2009 @ 08:03:58 PM
Mauer sure knocked the cover off of that one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/14/2009 @ 08:30:13 PM
Fielder is the star of the all-star festivities so far.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 07/15/2009 @ 08:26:23 AM
Overall, the Brewers represented themselves pretty well at the all-star game. Fielder was the talk of the town after the HR derby, then he followed that up with a pinch-hit RBI double in the game. Hoffman pitched a short, scoreless inning. And Ryan Braun saved two drowning kids from certain death. Overall, that's a good couple of days. I made this up, Braun didn't do anything other than make a catch as a right fielder and watch Mauer's double rattle around in the left field corner.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 07/15/2009 @ 10:28:19 AM
BTW, any trash talk I use against one Joe Mauer is clearly just jealous trash talk. Clearly he is a stud, and I need to jump on anything resembling a failure in order to not be so jealous that he isn't on my team. Just wanted to clear the air there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/15/2009 @ 05:14:12 PM
http://www.kemps.com/promo/PromoForm.aspx?ekfrm=3233 If only we were kids in MN, then we could learn to throw with the best of them.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/15/2009 @ 09:12:33 PM
Why do they only let kids do those things? I have dreams too, you know!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 07/15/2009 @ 10:29:52 PM
As an adult, I would appreciate it way more than some punk kid.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 07/15/2009 @ 10:30:58 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:12:33 PM Why do they only let kids do those things? I have dreams too, you know! Sarah Wrote - Today @ 10:29:52 PM As an adult, I would appreciate it way more than some punk kid. Same here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/16/2009 @ 07:28:07 AM
My brother got to play hockey between periods of a North Stars game once when he was about 6. Again, that would be so much cooler and he'd remember it so much better if he was allowed to do it at 26.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.