MAYBE IT'S:

"BABY I'M A STAR"!!!???

OR MAYBE HE'S JUST DELIRIOUS???!!!

OR MAYBE HE JUST DECIDED TO GO CRAZY...

Wonder what Prince’s reaction to this will be?

If he's got any perspective, he'll just look at it as a sign o' the times.

Good for Ryan. Am curious about the numb3rs, and wondering if the Dbacks can use his contract in the upcoming Justin Upton negotiations.

AL says 8 years, $45m

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=412133

AL says 8 years, $45m

And that includes this year, so it buys out two years of free agency.

That sounds like a steal.

Wonder what Prince’s reaction to this will be?

If he's got any perspective, he'll just look at it as a sign o' the times.

They stand in the way of love, and he will smoke them all.

That sounds like a steal.

Considering that Albert Pujols made about that much in 2006-2007-2008 (his 6th, 7th, and 8th seasons) alone, on a contract signed more than 4 years ago, it's incedible that the Brewers will get EIGHT YEARS of Braun's production for a similar (not even adjusted for inflation) amount.

Wonder what Prince’s reaction to this will be?

Fury

Considering that Albert Pujols made about that much in 2006-2007-2008 (his 6th, 7th, and 8th seasons) alone, on a contract signed more than 4 years ago, it's incedible that the Brewers will get EIGHT YEARS of Braun's production for a similar (not even adjusted for inflation) amount.

You say that as if Braun is Pujols's equal as a player. It's a good deal, but last year after park adjustments Braun hit like Manny Ramirez in one of his mediocre years, and a lot of people thought he was playing above his true talent level. Thus far this year, he's looking like a young Pat Burrell.

You say that as if Braun is Pujols's equal as a player. It's a good deal, but last year after park adjustments Braun hit like Manny Ramirez in one of his mediocre years, and a lot of people thought he was playing above his true talent level. Thus far this year, he's looking like a young Pat Burrell.

Not to mention two of Braun's years were already free and three more were for ~60% discount on average...not only are they not the same player, the contracts aren't even remotely comparable. Dunno about this one from the Brew Crew perspective.

At first glance, this seems like a much better deal for the player than the Longoria contract. Braun guaranteed himself real money and didn't limit his upside by giving the team a bunch of option years.

Wonder what Prince’s reaction to this will be?

He probably figures there are thieves in the temple tonight.

AL says 8 years, $45m

That'll buy an awful lot of little, red corvettes.

It's possible that three of Braun's years were free, since '08 is included in the 8 years. Any significant injury in the next two seasons and any chance he may have had as a super two would be gone.

Is there a relatively simple way to estimate a player's first 6 years (I know the first 3 are set)? Aren't the Brewers now paying Braun 7.5 million the next two years instead of the 400K he would have cost pre-arb without a new contract? How does this possibly work out for the team?

Is there a relatively simple way to estimate a player's first 6 years (I know the first 3 are set)? Aren't the Brewers now paying Braun 7.5 million the next two years instead of the 400K he would have cost pre-arb without a new contract? How does this possibly work out for the team?

Savings on the back end naturally. Braun has a good chance of looking at $20M+ for his first year of FA, and nearly as much in his last year of arb.

At first glance, this seems like a much better deal for the player than the Longoria contract. Braun guaranteed himself real money and didn't limit his upside by giving the team a bunch of option years.

Longoria hasn't yet had anything nearly as good a year as Braun - obviously he had to give up more earnings potential. He could still be a bust, while that's much less likely for Braun.

Longoria hasn't yet had anything nearly as good a year as Braun - obviously he had to give up more earnings potential. He could still be a bust, while that's much less likely for Braun.

Agreed, but Longoria gave up $30 mil so as not to have to prove himself. I think that's an awful lot of money to forego.

Savings on the back end naturally. Braun has a good chance of looking at $20M+ for his first year of FA, and nearly as much in his last year of arb.

Yeah, I guess I just don't agree with that. As much as we always seem to project it, teams just aren't giving out $20m per year contracts. It's happened for 2 players, ever. I suppose you could be arguing that 4 or 5 years from now that will be more commonplace (inflation, etc.), but between 2000 and 2007 it sure didn't happen, and I don't see why a good hitting/bad fielding outfielder is a good bet to be the next one.

The Burrell/Braun comparison is pretty scant analysis. They are both from Miami, both play LF and are right handed. It ends there.

Braun is already a better defender than Burrell, Braun has speed, Burrell is a statue. Braun has much, much more power, while Burrell actually takes walks. Burrell's career slugging % is .486. Braun has already led the league in slugging, I'd bet Braun won't slug under .500 until he is age 36.

"He probably figures there are thieves in the temple tonight."

Hey, leave Cecil out of it.

Braun is already a better defender than Burrell, Braun has speed, Burrell is a statue. Braun has much, much more power, while Burrell actually takes walks. Burrell's career slugging % is .486. Braun has already led the league in slugging, I'd bet Braun won't slug under .500 until he is age 36.

If only there were stats that combined both on base ability and slugging so we could accurately compare Braun's '08 contributions to Burrell's past. And Braun may not be quite as poor defensively as Burrell, but he's solidly below average by every metric.

What I find interesting is that for a site that is populated by folks projecting performance nobody seems to really consider the constant, and I do mean constant, upward pressure on salaries for star players.

In conjunction who knows what the labor/league landscape will look like in five years? There are any number of changes/corrections that could take place between now and then.

This is not a "defense" of the deal. This is stating considerations that go into these types of long-term arrangements that I don't believe get voiced very often.

If only there were stats that combined both on base ability and slugging so we could accurately compare Braun's '08 contributions to Burrell's past.

If only they were the same metric. Too bad they are different metrics. The comp was shoddy.

Braun is six weeks into playing a new position. I am fascinated at the conclusion reached by six weeks of data as it relates to forecasting over the course of said contract.

Or am I the only one who witnessed the debate over Hanley Ramirez' defensive improvement from 2007 to 2008 via the metrics? The conclusion was that there were no conclusions.

But hey, maybe some here know better how a player will or will not advance a skill set over the next five years. I will be fascinated to see that projection system described since clearly that is the Holy Grail for this community.

If only there were stats that combined both on base ability and slugging so we could accurately compare Braun's '08 contributions to Burrell's past.

You mean like +OPS?

Braun +145
Burrell +119


Oh, I see now. They are the same.

Braun is six weeks into playing a new position. I am fascinated at the conclusion reached by six weeks of data as it relates to forecasting over the course of said contract.

I agree Harveys.

It ruins the credibility of the work being done by those that study defense to cite defense data that covers 45 games for a player at a new position. There were also 4 different CF playing during this 45 game span. You had a new guy (Hall) playing 3rd in front of LF during this sample too. It is amazing they don't take any of this into consideration. Any junior analyst would consider all of these factors, in additon to growth with experience playing a new spot.

*Oh, I forgot to mention, the Brewers are one team that plays aggressive shifts the type that tends to cause interesting data outputs from the leading defensive metrics.

I'd bet Braun won't slug under .500 until he is age 36.

For reals?

You mean like +OPS?

Braun +145
Burrell +119

Go back up and read what you originally responded to, and then post your apology below.

I like this deal. Even if Braun is only an average leftfielder by the time his free agency would have started (although I don't see why that would be the case), that seems to be worth about $12 million per year judging from the Jose Guillen contract. Considering his record setting rookie year, I think it's safe to say he would have gotten the other $21 million during those 3 years of arby. This will only look bad for Milwaukee if Braun completely tanks or if he gets badly injured. Otherwise, it will save them at least a few million and possibly much more.

Braun is six weeks into playing a new position. I am fascinated at the conclusion reached by six weeks of data as it relates to forecasting over the course of said contract.

You could also stand to re-read that quote. I gave an approximate level of his '07 performance and an approximation of his '08 performance to date. "Braun is six weeks into playing a new position" does not negate the fact that defensive metrics say he's played it poorly thus far.

Post 32:

Actually, I was speaking to the good hitter/bad outfielder comment from another poster (20) which suggested that was Braun's "future" state as well as his current state.

Go back up and read what you originally responded to, and then post your apology below.

Pat Burrell didn't slug over .500 until his 3rd season. It is folly to compare 160 ABs of one player, to the career of another player. Utter folly.

Braun just homered again! 44 HR in his first 153 games.

Braun is already a better defender than Burrell

really?

Burrell in left = really really bad

Braun at 3rd = historical epic awful

Braun in LF = I have no idea


I have not seen Braun in LF, but I have seen Braun play, I've also seen Burrell "play" in the OF - it is entirely possible that Braun could be, or become a vastly superior fielder as compared to Burrell.

But where is he now? and where is he now compared to when he started playing LF?
and while I'm at it where is LaPorta gona play?

What I find interesting is that for a site that is populated by folks projecting performance nobody seems to really consider the constant, and I do mean constant, upward pressure on salaries for star players.

I believe this, and love Braun, but the fact is exactly three teams have been willing to give out 20m per year contracts, and it seems pretty safe to say that Texas won't be going there again for a while. That's the only thing I was disagreeing with; not that Braun doesn't look like a very valuable player.

Last year most people here were convinced that A-Rod would get floods of 20m+ per year offers, and some thought that teams like the Cubs, Angels, and Dodgers would go to 30+. But very few teams appear willing to go above the magic number of 20, based on all indications.

And I realize this is more of a distraction from the Braun conversation; it was just a small point.

Pat Burrell didn't slug over .500 until his 3rd season.

That tells me nothing, what if he was 20 in his first season and slugged .500 in his third (age 22) then he'd be ahead...

Of course Burrell was pretty much the same age as Braun in their respective first seaons- so your point holds...

What I find interesting is that for a site that is populated by folks projecting performance nobody seems to really consider the constant, and I do mean constant, upward pressure on salaries for star players.

what if Braun follows the Blalock/Burrell career stagnation path?
that is a risk, he may not be a "star" or more importantly be perceived as a "star" when his FA time comes.

What is lost in the Braun discussion is that Milwaukee is losing again, Ben Sheets got rocked because the manager can't go to his bullpen because it's already exhausted and ergo stinks, but all Brewer fans are "unreasonable" for having expectations per Ned Yost and the subservient Milwaukee sports media.

THAT'S THE ISSUE PEOPLE! YOST STINKS!!!!!!

JP:

Of course it is a risk. Every contract is a risk. That's Melvin's job, like every other GM, to assess where to place one's money and where not.

Note that the team signed the athletic slugger first as opposed to the portly first baseman. I doubt it's mere chance.

You could also stand to re-read that quote. I gave an approximate level of his '07 performance and an approximation of his '08 performance to date.

Sparkles, you have a problem articulating your points. You need to get more specific if you want people to understand what you are trying to say.

Nowhere was there anything you wrote that included anything specific to Braun's D other than your comparing him to Burrell and how it (Braun's D) was below average by every metric.

As far as your "approximation of his '08" D to date, that is precisely what I Harveys and I responded to. We both think it is too early to even analyze the data.

Pat Burrell didn't slug over .500 until his 3rd season. It is folly to compare 160 ABs of one player, to the career of another player. Utter folly.

Braun just homered again! 44 HR in his first 153 games.

You just don't synthesize ideas very well, do you?

Here, I'll do it for you:

'08 Braun: 122 OPS+, .279 EQA
Pat Burrell: 119 OPS+, .292 EQA

And to further elucidate the original post for you: We don't know how good a player Braun is yet. There were doubts that he was capable of repeating his '07 numbers, and in limited playing time he has failed to do so, and has in fact done a good Pat Burrell impression.

That tells me nothing, what if he was 20 in his first season and slugged .500 in his third (age 22) then he'd be ahead...

Of course Burrell was pretty much the same age as Braun in their respective first seaons- so your point holds...

Obvioulsy age has more to do with year 1, 2, 3 etc....Since I knew they had started at nearly the same age, I made the point. Had Burrell started at age 20, I would have never made the point. Since you can look it up, I ommited it. Point made.

Now that we have destroyed this poor Burrell/Braun comp, let's find Braun a better comp.

WHO IS IT? Sparkles thinks a mediocre Manny Rammy is a starting point. I'd take that. Manny is a 1st ballot HOF player.

Isn't Vernon Wells making 18mm this year? There's a lot of room between "$20mm per year" and what Braun will be making in the 7th and 8th years of his deal.

My time series of a reasonable estimation of his salaries over the next 8 years absent this contract is:

2008 0.5mm Pre-Arb
2009 0.8mm Pre-Arb
2010 7.0mm Super-Two
2011 8.0mm Arb-Eligible
2012 9.0mm Arb-Eligible
2013 10.0mm Arb-Eligible
2014 15.0mm Free Agent
2015 15.0mm Free Agent

That would result in payments of around $65mm over the period, and assumes that Braun would be willing to sign a two-year, $30mm contract in the 2013 offseason. I think this is a reasonable estimate (neither overly aggressive nor too conservative) and would give the Brewers a savings of around $20mm over the life of the deal.

Here's a very conservative look at how Braun's salaries could have turned out without this contract:

2008: 400K
2009: 400K
2010: 400K
2011: 5.0M
2012: 7.0M
2013: 9.0M
2014: 11.4M
2015: 11.4M
Total: $45M

But he could make a lot more than that. Miguel Cabrera got $7.4M in his first year of arb and $11.3 M in his second year. Ryan Howard got $10M in his first year. Teixeira got $6.4M, $9M, and $12.5M in his 3 arb years. Braun's not as good as Cabrera, and he probably won't have an MVP like Howard, but he's currently sporting the 5th highest SLG of any player in history with 600+ AB.

The Brewers should be getting a discount, though, since they're giving Braun far more security than they need to.

Kyle/44 said:

That would result in payments of around $65mm over the period

I said

I get: 8/64 (with the service time knowledge).

Looks like the standard discount that non-millionaire ballplayers give (Tulo, Utley, et al).

Danny, that salary path is only possible if Braun doesn't qualify as a super two. Unless he starts spending time in the minors, I think that is unlikely.

That would result in payments of around $65mm over the period, and assumes that Braun would be willing to sign a two-year, $30mm contract in the 2013 offseason. I think this is a reasonable estimate (neither overly aggressive nor too conservative) and would give the Brewers a savings of around $20mm over the life of the deal.

If Braun's a Super 2, the deal increases to $51 million.

I don't think it's at all likely that he'll make that little, but that's what it would look like if he were to make $45M.

As for the Super 2, from the J-S:

Ryan Braun's agent, Nez Balelo, just told us that Braun's $45 million guaranteed deal with the Brewers could go to $51 million if the leftfielder qualifies for salary arbitration after the 2009 season as a "Super 2" player.

Braun had only 129 days of service time prior to this year, which could have made him wait another three years to be eligible for salary arbitration. But, each year, the top 17% of players with between two years and three years of service qualify for arbitration as "Super 2" players.

Should Braun qualify after the 2009 season and not 2010, Balelo said an escalator was in place to boost Braun's total pay to $51 million. No player has qualified for "Super 2" status with less than 130 days of first-year service since 1991.

We don't know how good a player Braun is yet. There were doubts that he was capable of repeating his '07 numbers, and in limited playing time he has failed to do so, and has in fact done a good Pat Burrell impression.

Braun since April 21st 2008 (limited playing time, but more than 1/2 of 2008 season)

PA 102 .335/.372/.692

12 doubles, 1 triple, 7 HR.
--------------------------------
Braun in 2007
.324/.370/.634
--------------------------------
The Burrell comp was woeful.

Wow, I didn't realize that, Danny. I guess that's why they waited so long to bring him up last year. Given the counting stats he accumulated last year, it sure seemed like he had plenty of playing time :)

Now that we have destroyed this poor Burrell/Braun comp, let's find Braun a better comp.

Using PI: age 24 and under, 400-1000 PAs, OPS+ over 135, ISO over .180, 3B/1B/LF/RF/DH:

Cnt Player OPS+ PA ISO From To Ages G
+----+-----------------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+----+
1 Rico Carty 160 507 .223 1963 1964 23-24 135
2 Bill Skowron 151 551 .219 1954 1955 23-24 195
3 Chuck Klein 151 954 .277 1928 1929 23-24 213
4 Fred McGriff 146 984 .264 1986 1988 22-24 264
5 Ryan Braun 145 665 .297 2007 2008 23-24 152
6 Ryan Klesko 143 692 .289 1992 1995 21-24 234
7 Richie Zisk 139 417 .193 1971 1973 22-24 127
8 David Justice 137 560 .238 1989 1990 23-24 143
9 Wally Berger 137 625 .304 1930 1930 24-24 151

I'd bet Braun won't slug under .500 until he is age 36.

For reals?

Yes. For reals. Only special hitters can do that, Braun is special. You have to start watching him.

Braun takes all types of pitchers deep from pole to pole. His batting average is going to be at or near .300 for awhile too. Yes, I am aware of the strikeouts, you are going to be at a loss in finding real comps for Braun. But that is not unusual, not many players are like Vlad, not many players are like R Henderson, Braun is going to be someone that defies a lot of what we consider to be the norm from hitters. There will be few, if any, good comps for Braun.

He consistently hits balls on the screws and he can hit any pitch in any location. He isn't going to be a flash in the pan. Baseball has been around for a long time, he beat out every player in history with highest slugging percentage as a rookie. Enough with the Burrell/Blalock comps, give me a break. Open your eyes and watch this guy and you will see a historically talented hitter that should no longer be insulted by comparing him to rather ordinary hitters.

Braun is the type of hitter people talk about, he is the type of hitter people pay to see. If you watch.

Using PI: age 24 and under, 400-1000 PAs, OPS+ over 135, ISO over .180, 3B/1B/LF/RF/DH:

Thanks for the list.

OPS includes two, very different measures. Sure, +OPS is quick and easy, but it is still two very different measures. Can we separate? Especially for a hitter here, Braun, that is already historically prodigious in the Slugging category? We won't find his best comp if we lump Slug with OBP.

Can you run a top 10 with an adjusted Slug measure, say (>.550) and OBP (>.350). You have to somehow acknowledge the fact that Braun is a premier slugger and with just ordinary on-base skills. That above list is simply a blending of the two skill sets.

I love this deal for Braun and the Brewers. I think Braun is doing fine as an outfielder, and don't see any reason to think he will be a liability there. His problems at 3B don't really transfer to being problems in the outfield. I've read that you really need two seasons of defensive stats, and we only have 1/4 of one season, but Braun is currently 9th among LF in MLB in ZR.

The future of the Brewers could go a lot of different ways. One possible way that could happen as early as next year is an OF with LaPorta in LF, Hart in CF, and Braun in RF. I've heard that LaPorta doesn't have the arm for RF, and Braun's should work there.

what if Braun follows the Blalock/Burrell career stagnation path?
that is a risk, he may not be a "star" or more importantly be perceived as a "star" when his FA time comes.

Of the new generation of phenoms signing long term deals, I'm wondering who will be the new Angel Berroa.

an OF with LaPorta in LF, Hart in CF, and Braun in RF. I've heard that LaPorta doesn't have the arm for RF, and Braun's should work there.

I would wager this will occur. LaPorta is going to be a monster. Maybe they drafted him at first as an asset, to trade, etc...but now that LaPorta has dominated in the minors, you owe it to yourself to try him first in the majors before you sell him short and deal him away.

His bat would be an upgrade over Cameron. He could be special.

Don't forget about Mat Gamel. If he continues to only impersonate a third baseman, he's in the corner outfield mix as well.

As much I enjoy many of the current Brewers the team needs some left hand balance to the lineup.

And a manager. A real one.

Gamel's a lefty. So is Michael Brantley. There's also Russell Branyan and Brad Nelson at AAA. I'd like to see Gwynn sent to Nashville and Branyan called up; the team doesn't need two backup center fielders (Kapler is the other). In addition to sharing backup corner OF duties, the Muscle can platoon with Bill Hall at third.

Horry:

Playing Branyan part-time has been tried. He just doesn't do that very well. Big swingers need to play a bit so the team can enjoy the hot streaks between the 3-35 stretches with 17 strikeouts.

Better to try Gamel in that approach.

Braun since April 21st 2008 (limited playing time, but more than 1/2 of 2008 season)

PA 102 .335/.372/.692

12 doubles, 1 triple, 7 HR.

What happened in the games before April 21st?

HW, I dunno if you're just being precise or not, but I'm battlekow.

I can't keep track of all the various monikers. Sure I could click and sift through. But I like to focus on the discussion.

But noted.

Gotta admit I am losing patience with Rickie.

What is lost in the Braun discussion is that Milwaukee is losing again, Ben Sheets got rocked because the manager can't go to his bullpen because it's already exhausted and ergo stinks, but all Brewer fans are "unreasonable" for having expectations per Ned Yost and the subservient Milwaukee sports media.

THAT'S THE ISSUE PEOPLE! YOST STINKS!!!!!!

Harvey, how about some new material? You pulled the hat trick here, a Yost complaint that contradicts itself and an all-caps line.

Sheets, the staff ace, pitched 89 pitches today. He gave up the last 5 runs in less than 10 pitches, after coming into the inning with a shutout being the ace of the staff. Plus, a road trip is coming up, stasrting with the defending champs, and a relief pitcher just went on the DL. Good day to pull your best starter early, eh?

Oh, I forgot. Yost both over and under uses his bullpen. Except that he doesn't. Tops in games for the season are Shouse and Torres, all of tied for 14th in the league. Torres' 26 innings are a little high, but the same as Marmol's, managed by the genius Piniella. Staff innings for relievers are right in the middle of the pack, and below the Cubs. Try again...

Post 65:

If needed we can examine the individual context of not just this season but during the prior seasons to demonstrate that Yost struggles in this area.

The aggregate totals are not always reflective of the usage issues.

Over the course of more games the cumulative impact will be more readily apparent as it was in 2006 and 2007. Just as I have stated with respect Yost's overall history where folks should consider his FIVE plus years of work so to should the onlooker consider all the available history.

Also, I have acknowledged that Yost has been somewhat hamstrung by the young starters issues going deeper into games couple with Ben's setback a bit ago.

But these are challenges common to the role of manager.

Yost's skill set is no longer aligned with the needs of the team.

Post 65:

I would also point that among the legion of Brewer fans that populate this region you will find few posters as tolerant as NTN and battlekow. Neither are of the belief that Ned should remain in his current role.

Interview posters of other NL Central teams. Cubs, Cards, 'Stros, Pirates and Reds followers openly mock Yost. Cards fans relish in a LaRussa/Yost matchup purely for the entertainment value of seeing TLR be 11 steps ahead of Ned during a game.

Go elsewhere. Even AL posters who only observe his handiwork during interleague have remarked in Game Chatters as to his penchant for the foolish if not bizarre.

And if you attribute that to my influence you both give me far too much credit and insult many intelligent posters.

Are you Mrs. Yost perchance?

I will also point out three players struggling had different run-ins with Yost in 2007: Weeks, Hall, Hardy.

Weeks was sent down (and rightfully so) to the minors but felt the situation wasn't handled appropriately. Hall was benched late in the season due to his offensive woes but he had returned early from injury and thought that merited some consideration. Hardy was the target of the Yost criticism that led to the dugout fracas between Yost and Estrada.

Meanwhile, Fielder pokes along and Prince is known to be very close to Weeks.

Could be and is likely coincidence.

But three of these four guys are 25 or younger. A manager increasingly described in the local press as cranky, stubborn and other less flattering portrayals may not be "connecting" with his employees.

Sure, +OPS is quick and easy, but it is still two very different measures. Can we separate? Especially for a hitter here, Braun, that is already historically prodigious in the Slugging category?

I used OPS+ because it is era and park adjusted
I gave a floor for ISO to get sluggers

not perfect by any means

What happened in the games before April 21st?

That's easy.

BEFORE April 21st 2008

2007 Season PA's 487
.324/.370/.634

Opening Day 2008 - April 20th PA's 75
.222/.240/.375

April 21st - May 15th PA's 103
.335/.372/.692

You could, I guess, believe the "real" Ryan Braun was those 75 ABs to start 2008. But you would have to be drinking a lot to see it that way.

It's also around the time Braun began to demonstrate a bit of restraint at the plate. He came out of the box swinging going 44 PAs without a BB.

Still not at a good level. But better.

I've given young Mr. Braun some guff at times, so I'll pay him his dues.

His K-rate this year is a nice 1 per 5 AB. His on-contact numbers (through yesterday) were 359/687. Those are certainly numbers which can be realistically sustained, maybe improved on a bit. That added up to 287/318/549 overall. Of course, that was the Burrell-like 122 OPS+. He does need to learn to walk some.

A Vlad comparison may not be too bad -- his on-contact numbers are 368/656. The main difference is that Vlad K's about 1 per 8 AB so it seems unlikely Braun will ever match Vlad's numbers. (One assumes that Braun's walk totals, especially IBB, will rise as he continues to show this kind of power.)

The Manny comp is interesting but there is one "problem" with that -- I believe Manny is #2 all-time in on-contact BA (401), at least among players with a substantial number of PA. Obviously if Manny can do it, others can ... but we have to assume it's unlikely any given young player is going to challenge for best all-time on-contact BA. Manny also carries a robust 758 on-contact SLG. Manny may not be the greatest RH hitter of all time, but I'm pretty sure he's the greatest RH on-contact hitter of all time by a pretty good margin.

From that earlier list, McGriff seems a not-bad comp (362/684 on-contact, similar K-rate, better walks, not fat although not speedy). Klesko's not a good comp because he was mainly a platoon player early in his career. Zisk and Justice are kind of in the ballpark but probably represent a low-end (not necessarily the "downside") of a Braun projection. The others are from an older era when players just didn't strike out much -- even Klein K'd just 1 per 12 ABs.

That's not meant to be conclusive. And I'm giving so little credence to Braun's performance last year that I'm probably being unfair. There won't be many good comps for Braun -- it's hard to find them because of the very different strikeout era we're in. But Manny seems like the absolute upside (i.e. not the "high-end projection"), McGriff with fewer walks seems a reasonable "middle" and absolute downside ...??? hard to say, depends where the "true" K-rate and BB-rate end up being. Let's say somewhere between Bill Hall and Alfonso Soriano.

Oh yeah ... Burrell is 362/678 on-contact. Burrell's got a better walk-rate, Braun (so far) the better K-rate. As hitters, I think that's a closer comp than is being given credit for.

His K-rate this year is a nice 1 per 5 AB. His on-contact numbers (through yesterday) were 359/687.

So can we clarify a bit here. Is this on-contact data for just 2008 or Braun's entire career? If it is just 2008, I wasted 3 minutes of my time reading, and then writing this post.

Since when did primates make little to no distinction between OBP and SLUG?

Braun and Burrell have approaches at the plate that are polar opposites and produce much different results. While both strike out a lot, (nothing special about that these days)

One guy is good at walking to first a lot, one guy is great at hitting the ball off of and over the wall a lot. I feel like those that can't make this simple distinction fell asleep when the stats world debated the meaning of OBP and SLUGG.

Now we are lumping them together during a comparison between hitters, which is almost the same as ignoring the differences between them.

Are you Mrs. Yost perchance?

Heh. Reminds me of a concert some friends and I went to recently. The second of two opening acts was just awful--boring, charisma-free, and seemingly endless. One of the guys with me was at the bar getting a drink, and leaned over to the woman seated nearby, because, well, she happened to be nearby. He said--"So--do they have a stage hook for this guy, or what?" This seemed safe enough to say, as the crowd seemed uniformly bored with this particular artist. However, the woman turned bright red, bared her teeth, and growled "That's my brother, a$$hole!" We all busted up. Couldn't help it.

OK--back to your regularly scheduled thread.

For the record (haven't done the entry yet), I have Braun projected to hit 290/330/557 the rest of the season, to end up at 289/327/554. If that comes to pass, my 5 best comps for Braun would be:

George Bell
Jim Rice
Jack Clark
Orlando Cepeda
Matt Holliday

From that earlier list, McGriff seems a not-bad comp (362/684 on-contact, similar K-rate, better walks, not fat although not speedy)

Braun's actually a pretty fast runner, though he looks like all his limbs are going to fly off when he's at full speed.

You could, I guess, believe the "real" Ryan Braun was those 75 ABs to start 2008. But you would have to be drinking a lot to see it that way.

No one says those 75 ABs are the "real" Ryan Braun. But you are acting like they don't matter.

His career line is .314/.356/.611. Which is great. But you don't need to cherry-pick and make him look better than he actually is.

Szymborski, good list. You capture the ability to slug at a very high rate, but not ever translate that into a very high OBP. Good athleticisim too. I agree with 4 of those. My rank of your 5 comps, just using my eyeball. Nothing fancy.

Rice (overall career)
Cepeda (really nailed early success)
Bell (his 3-4 very best years fit)
Holiday (interesting with slower growth and evolution, now takes his walks at age 28)

I don't see J Clark.

It is amazing that despite thousands of players to play the game, you can still watch a player reinvent ways to succeed at this game. You can't always find a perfect comp for everyone.

No one says those 75 ABs are the "real" Ryan Braun. But you are acting like they don't matter.

His career line is .314/.356/.611. Which is great. But you don't need to cherry-pick and make him look better than he actually is.

I have basically said the exact same thing to 2-3 people, that you just wrote.

If you read my posts between #21 and #70. I am hardly acting like those 75 AB "don't matter". But I am not giving 50% weight to them either. You have people in this thread taking Brauns 2008 +122 OPS as of May 14th and using that data in making him out to be more of the player he is rather than his career +145 OPS. The only way you could possibily compare Braun to Burrell or even H Blalock would be to take that +122 and run with it.

So basically you missed all of the points I made in this thread.

So can we clarify a bit here. Is this on-contact data for just 2008 or Braun's entire career? If it is just 2008, I wasted 3 minutes of my time reading, and then writing this post.

Yes. Braun's on-contact numbers last year were 431/844. Those numbers are not sustainable. They are so far off the chart that I give them essentially no credence whatsoever other than showing that "yes, we expect him to have really good on-contact numbers".

Braun's on-contact numbers this year qualify as "really good". He has some room for improvement there, maybe get them up to 360/720 or even 380/760.

But unless he's the greatest of all-time (Ruth at a little better than 400/800; Jim Thome in that neighborhood; or Manny at 400/760) -- and he could be -- I don't think those numbers last year have much predictive value at all.

It is perfectly fair to point out those 2007 numbers shouldn't be ignored. Dan doesn't ignore them ... and projects him to hit essentially exactly what he's hitting right now which, I'll bet, works out to on-contact numbers almost right where I've pegged them.

Since when did primates make little to no distinction between OBP and SLUG?

Braun and Burrell have approaches at the plate that are polar opposites and produce much different results. While both strike out a lot, (nothing special about that these days)

One guy is good at walking to first a lot, one guy is great at hitting the ball off of and over the wall a lot. I feel like those that can't make this simple distinction fell asleep when the stats world debated the meaning of OBP and SLUGG.

Well, I was trying to compare them (roughly) in terms of overall production. And it was a throwaway line at the end, I didn't use Burrell as part of Braun's "career path." Still, this year, Braun has been not much better at _hitting_ the ball off/over the wall than Burrell's career (on-contact numbers very similar), Braun has been better at making contact. That will lead to a higher BA and SLG. Burrell has been better at walking which will lead to a higher OBP. Those two things will roughly balance out. And of course if Braun's "true" OPS is simlar to Burrell's (and this year it is 867 for Braun vs. 855 career for Burrell), then you want the guy with the higher OBP (all else equal which given Braun's speed advantage they aren't). If Braun's "true" on-contact talent is significantly better than Burrell's and/or Braun reduces his K-rate even further and/or Braun starts walking at a pretty good rate, then obviously he'd easily outperform Burrell.

In essence, you are arguing to break production down into OBP and SLG. I am breaking it down into BA on-contact, SLG on-contact, K-rate (or contact-rate ... per AB which is lazy), and walk-rate ... which is a finer distinction than the one you're worked up about, not cruder. (Dan and other projection systems break it down more finely than that of course.) But since it is difficult if not impossible to find "perfect" comps for players on all 4, especially good/odd players, I looked for guys (off the top of my head) who seemed reasonably similar on some of those. McGriff is a pretty good match on 3 of the 4; Vlad on 3 of the 4 but the 1 mismatch is pretty large. Then sum those up into overall production.

I agree that Braun and Burrell aren't great comps -- I don't know if I'd have thought of Burrell had he not been raised earlier. But Braun and Vlad aren't good comps because Vlad's K-rate is MUCH better. Braun and Manny aren't great comps because Manny is (probably) the greatest RH on-contact hitter of all-time. Braun and McGriff are preety good but not great comps because of McGriff's better walk-rate (and handedness obviously). Wily Mo Pena (387/691 on-contact) wouldn't be a great comp because of his much worse K-rate. Dan's comps are hard (for me) to assess since they're all from earlier eras, Coors and/or have lower K-rates. Holliday is interesting -- I hadn't realized his Ks or on-contact numbers (392/682) were that high but I'm wary of my ability to adjust for Coors by eyeball.

And if Braun's "true" on-contact numbers are anywhere near 431/844, then there are no decent comps.

Another fair criticism is that I am oddly obsessed with on-contact numbers. I assume this is well-known by now.

Braun's actually a pretty fast runner, though he looks like all his limbs are going to fly off when he's at full speed.

Sorry, I meant that as "neither is fat but Braun is speedy while McGriff is not."

Yes. Braun's on-contact numbers last year were 431/844. Those numbers are not sustainable. They are so far off the chart that I give them essentially no credence whatsoever other than showing that "yes, we expect him to have really good on-contact numbers".

Are you cherry picking? Barry's Lazy Boy will have words with you.

Still, this year, Braun has been not much better at _hitting_ the ball off/over the wall than Burrell's career (on-contact numbers very similar),

See, this is where we disagree.

I see a plate appearance as an opportunity to hit the ball over the wall (it is). In some cases it is not, as the pitcher simply can't throw a strike or a hittable pitch. But the fact is, when you take a walk, you likely see a few pitches to hit, even swing and miss at one or two. This is an opportunity.

Braun is simply much better at converting these opportunities into HRs and doubles than Burrell. While Burrell is much better at converting a PA opportunity into a BB than Braun. Your "on-contact" data is interesting, but to think that if Burrell "only" or merely swung the bat more or took fewer walks, his "on-contact" data would not change, is a mistaken assumption.

Maybe Burrell can only hit the ball over the fence or off the wall when he is in a favorable hitting count, while Braun can do it well in any count. It is indeed interesting to know "on-contact" data for each player, but I wouldn't make the mistake in using that data as the primary means of comparing a player.

To put Braun's on-contact numbers THIS SEASON into context, in an attempt to show I'm not exactly insulting him:

McGwire: 354/793 (OK, he competes with Manny)
Bonds: 353/719
T Williams: 379/698
Foxx: 388/726
Pujols: 374/697

Give Braun a K-rate of 1 per 5 (I was also giving him this benefit of the doubt by the way) and Foxx's on-contact numbers and that translates to overall BA and SLG of 310/581. That's a smidgen worse than his current career numbers. Pujols: 299/558; Bonds: 282/575. If his true K-rate is closer to 1 per 4.5 (averaged across the two seasons) and those numbers would all be a bit worse.

We are clearly in a new era of course -- add in Thome, Manny, Pena, Howard and a few others and you have a lot of the best on-contact hitters of all-time along with historically high K-rates. But it hasn't yet been established that anyone can consistently top 400/800 and it is hard for me to think that a significant number of today's players are capable of hitting the ball harder than McGwire or as well as Manny. Braun could be one but I will take a lot of convincing.

We are clearly in a new era of course -- add in Thome, Manny, Pena, Howard and a few others and you have a lot of the best on-contact hitters of all-time along with historically high K-rates.

Consider me unimpressed by the ability of the "on-contact" metric to tell us much about a hitter. "on-contact" leaves out K's and BB and HBP. It is no secret that K's and BB are up in recent history.

It stands to reason that players that take more pitches, take more walks are making contact less often than in prior eras, which would make the "on-contact" hitting numbers look better because players are both swinging harder and seeing 3 ball counts more often by virtue of being deeper into the count. Also, when a hitter is faced with a 2 strike count, swinging harder and missing, is of no conseqence when measured by "on-contact".

In prior eras, a hitter might be more apt to shorten up and put the ball into play with 2 strikes and that even was sure to result in an out "on-contact" more often than when you swing with more force.

Are you cherry picking? Barry's Lazy Boy will have words with you.

Yeah you definitely weren't cherry picking when you picked a (not so) random start date and said look how Braun did after this date, this means he's as good as he was last year.

Yeah you definitely weren't cherry picking when you picked a (not so) random start date and said look how Braun did after this date, this means he's as good as he was last year.

Well considering people admitted to tossing out Braun's 2007 altogether and focusing in on just 2008 data to project his career, that is progress. I successfully made my point and we have dropped this notion that Pat Burrell, yes the player that has below average power for a corner OF, is a comp for Braun.

Next..

Are you Mrs. Yost perchance?

No, but I play her on TV...

Harvey, managers in baseball just don't matter all that much. Look at Milwaukee history - the two winning managers were Fred Haney and Harvey Kuenn. Haney did things that were 10 times more questionable than anything Yost has ever done, believe me. Look at his history. He still won a World Series. That team could have won more, but they won their championship anyway, and that's all that matters.

Kuenn "let them play", and happened to have the players to do so. Kuenn wasn't a guy that was equipped to do any adjusting, which lasted him about 'til Fingers got hurt. But they won, because of the players. Even under Buck Rodgers, who the players all seemed to hate, they still won more than they lost. Bamberger was the best, since he was one of the best pitching coaches of all time and could help a number of pitchers, but they didn't win since the competition was too tough.

Harvey, if you're making the case in court against Yost, from your prior posts I'm guessing some of your expert witnesses are Podsednik, Estrada, and Turnbow. If I'm Yost's defense attorney I'm not exactly quaking in my boots. Those guys are bums and they're bums under Yost or Kremblas or whoever the golden child manager is. I don't want them on a good team.

Harvey, give me facts. There are a number of players who've played well and developed under the Yost regime. Who gets the credit for Braun and Fielder and Hart and resurrecting Cordero and Kendall? Or Hall's 2006? Hall was not considered a huge prospect; maybe he had a career year and is reverting back to form now. I have no idea. Weeks is what he is, and he'll probably be that with or without Yost. Maybe the next manager will see him emerge as a better player, maybe not.

Or Shouse, who's another guy who seems to be fine under Yost. The problem with the Brewers' bullpen last year is they only had four relievers of any value, since by the time Linebrink came along Wise was toast for something Yost had nothing to do with. That's one or two fewer than you need. Two of them being extreme head cases didn't help either. It just wasn't a good bullpen, and wasn't going to be regardless of who was managing the team.

The Brewers fortunes depend on Braun and Fielder and Gallardo and LaPorta and others being better than average and filling in with a supporting cast. Player maintenance and development is always much more important for any manager than making strategy moves. You always have new talent coming up.

Post 89:

Your post is representative of why BBTF can be taxing. Because I have repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, in prior threads over the years(!) given Yost credit for creating an atmosphere conducive to young players getting their sea legs. THAT was why he got the job. And before you call me a liar do a search of the archives. Or ask folks here. Otherwise you are going to look incredibly foolish because even Beano who often regards me as a doddering old fool will state this to be fact.

But Yost's positive is no longer the primary need of the organization. Hence my statement around the misalignment.

I have a morning ride planned so will return later to.explain how Yost counters the now discredited groupthink that a manager "just doesn"t matter".

Who doesn't love a good cliffhanger?

Post 89:

I am first going to review Ned Yost's managerial record from a total/aggregate perspective. One of the games the local media (and Ned) plays is to always frame the discussion in terms of "right now". Well, I disagree with that as a frame of reference because five (5) years plus is a long time for ANYONE in a management position.

As of yesterday Yost's total team record as manager is 394-456, a winning percentage of .463.

The Brewers highest win total with Yost as manager is 83 wins.

The Brewers lowest win total with Yost as manager is 67 wins.

The Brewers have not had consecutive winning seasons with Yost as manager.

The Brewers total winning percentage in the first half of Yost-managed seasons is.487, 237-249.

The Brewers total winning percentage in the second half of Yost-managed seasons is .431, 157-207.

The Brewers total winning percentage at home for Yost-managed seasons is .525, 223-202.

The Brewers total winning percentage on the road for Yost-managed seasons is .402, 171-254.

The Brewers total winning percentage against the Cardinals for Yost-managed seasons is .393, 35-54.

The Brewers total winning percentage against the Cubs for Yost-managed seasons is .465, 40-46.

The Brewers total winning percentage against the Astros for Yost-managed seasons is .425, 37-50.

The Brewers total winning percentage against the Pirates for Yost-managed seasons is .506, 42-41.

The Brewers total winning percentage against the Reds for Yost-managed seasons is .522, 48-44.

Before I continue I want to insure that you agree that these are facts. I also want to let you know that we will narrow the window to more recent times to reflect that change in talent base.

But are these facts?

Wonder what Prince’s reaction to this will be?

"Braun. Ain't that a b*tch?"

(Sorry, late to this game.)

Harvey, the Rockies won the NL last year with a manager, Hurdle, who's been there longer than Yost has been in his job. Prior to last year they had losing records from 2002-2006. Yost has done better than that. Did Hurdle become a genius all of a sudden? Or do managers not matter all that much?

The current template for anyone but the big money teams is to not fire managers so much, since it tends to cause more disruption than cures. Yost has had plenty of time, and I'm indifferent to more years, but I don't want to go through another Lopes/Royster experience, which is a risk.

Yost has had plenty of time, and I'm indifferent to more years, but I don't want to go through another Lopes/Royster experience, which is a risk.

Phil Garner's still looking for work...

Post 94:

Please confirm with me that the information above are facts. If you have an alternative definition please explain it to me.

You requested that I "present my case". I have begun the process. But I want to make sure you are comfortable with each step of the process.

Regards,

Harvey

I don't know why I bother talking to pigs.

Post 92:

I'm not disputing any of those stats. Again I will point out Clint Hurdle, who in his first five years managing the Rockies won 67, 74, 68, 67, and 76 wins before 90 last year and the pennant. So Hurdle, by that measure alone, was less successful than Yost, correct? And the team improved greatly in year 6. Now they're struggling again... was Hurdle just smart in 2007? Or was it more likely that the Rockies happened to have a number of players improving?

To be honest, at this point the Brewers' 81-81 mark in 2005 doesn't mean a whole lot since the personnel's changed a lot. If you're going to credit or debit Yost, things like "he bunts too much" or "he doesn't bunt enough" or "he doesn't bunt with the right players" or something like that are more analyzable. At least that can be compared to other managers. If Yost doesn't bunt because the Brewers have a bunch of poor bunters, you can fire him for that. Then the next manager can not bunt too, or try to bunt and fail because the players still are poor bunters. Now if you expect Yost to teach the players to bunt better, firing may make sense. But then teaching players to bunt may be harder than we think it is... all just an example.

Yost got a lot of blame for the bullpen last year. But to blame him there has to be an alternative path that he could have taken. Villanueva pitched a lot of innings while he was in the pen; I'll agree with that. Turnbow had a normal load for his role. But suppose you cut Villanueva's innings, and Turnbow's innings. Who pitches those innings? The starters' record after 75 pitches last year was the worst in baseball, so it doesn't seem they were capable of doing more. So what reliever should have pitched more - Spurling? Aquino? Was there an alternative choice here?

Or do managers not matter all that much?

The current template for anyone but the big money teams is to not fire managers so much, since it tends to cause more disruption than cures. Yost has had plenty of time, and I'm indifferent to more years, but I don't want to go through another Lopes/Royster experience, which is a risk.

The A's are not a big money team. Beane fired Ken Macha after Macha got the team to the ALCS.

Braun is simply much better at converting these opportunities into HRs and doubles than Burrell. While Burrell is much better at converting a PA opportunity into a BB than Braun. Your "on-contact" data is interesting, but to think that if Burrell "only" or merely swung the bat more or took fewer walks, his "on-contact" data would not change, is a mistaken assumption.

No such assumption is made. There is no reason to imagine the counter-factual of a different Burrell.

Consider me unimpressed by the ability of the "on-contact" metric to tell us much about a hitter.

Of course it does. On-contact numbers are, essentially, just shorthand for BABIP and HR-rate combined. Throw in K-rate (or contact-rate) and you've got BA and SLG, the two most important components of any hitters production. It helps you do exactly what you claim you want to do -- find hitters who are similar to one another in how they generate their production, although obviously finer breakdowns (BABIP and HR-rate or BABIP-GB, BABIP-FB, HR/FB, LD%) allow for even finer comparisons.

Fact is, in baseball history, nobody has ever outhit Ruth on-contact. Further, I doubt there is a single player who has hit, say, 360/720 on-contact while K'ing around 1 per 4.5 AB and having a lousy unintentional walk rate. OK, that's a bit unfair. There's Vlad who is pretty much unique -- he roughly does it while King only 1 per 8 which is presumably harder than doing it while King 1 per 4.5.

Basically, you have these choices:

1. Braun is the greatest on-contact hitter of all-time (except maybe Howard) -- despite a reasonably high K rate and low walk rate. No existing comps at any point in baseball history that I am aware of.

2. Braun is an excellent on-contact hitter and will retain his K and walk rates, similar to Vlad (lower overall production for Braun due to his higher K-rate). No really good comps of recent vintage that I am aware of though I haven't looked all that hard; Dan has provided some comps adjusted for era, etc. This is the McGriff with fewer walks outcome.

3. Braun is an excellent on-contact hitter but pitchers will find the pitches he has trouble with and exploit his impatience, leading to more Ks and/or reduced on-contact numbers. (this is the Zisk but not really realistic low-end, with the possible Hall-Soriano "disaster" ... though again those aren't really good comps.)

4. Braun is an excellent on-contact hitter and will increase his walk rate as he learns to lay off the pitches he has trouble with, improving his overall production primarily through better OBP. (this would be McGriff with the walk-rate outcome with a shot at Manny)

The one I am really confident will not come to pass is #1.

It is no secret that K's and BB are up in recent history.

Ks are up, walks are not substantially.

2007 NL: 10.4 AB per BB
2002: 9.8
1997: 10.0
1992: 11.0
1987: 10.1
1982: 11.1
1977: 10.3
1972: 10.5
1967: 11.8
1957: 11.1

So generally, it's bounced around between 10 and 11 AB per BB. This year it is at a pretty staggering 9.4 in the NL -- apparently everybody is emphasizing walks this year.

On-contact numbers are up historically of course. Hitters today take a different approach, trading Ks for power, which is generally a good trade. This makes it difficult to compare across eras -- not impossible and Dan's model seems to do a pretty good job of that, but I certainly wouldn't trust my or anyone else's ability to do that by eyeball.

And his model projects Braun to hit right about where he was hitting when I cited his numbers. His comps (dropping Clark who you didn't agree with and Holliday because he's not old enough yet) ended up with OPS+ through age 30 of 119 (Bell which is where Burrell is), 136 (Rice) and 138 (Cepeda), all a good bit below Braun's current 145 career. I put Fred McGriff (134 career, 153 through age 30) with fewer walks as my guess for Braun's mid-point -- sorry to have been so far off from Dan's era-adjusted, handedness-adjusted, better batter-type-adjusted forecast! I may have just gotten lucky but ZiPS and I often seem to think alike. And Dan recently talked about needing to add nonlinearity to the BIP part of his projections precisely because batters seem to hit a wall (he was speaking in the context of high-K hitters but I gather he added the nonlinearity for everyone) ... something I've been basically saying (using on-contact numbers) for probably 3-4 years now.

Nevertheless, nobody has been able to sustain on-contact numbers superior to Ruth. Howard might be the first. Only a few have even outperformed Foxx. When a lot of guys start doing it, then clearly I'll have to adjust my outlook. Until then, I heavily discount such an outlying performance, especially if it's in a few hundred PA.

The entire history of baseball says that Braun won't surpass 400/800 on-contact. If anything, this is _especially_ true of hitters who don't walk much. Do you really think Braun can hit the ball as hard or harder (when he hits it) than McGwire or Foxx while being less selective about the pitches he hits?*

*Granted, I don't know if he's being less selective about the pitches he swings at. That would be interesting. From 88-01, McGwire saw 55% "strikes," 26% looking, 21% swinging, 24% fouled, and 29% in-play. So he swung at 74% of "strikes." Braun has seen 66% "strikes", 23% looking, 19% swinging, 29% fouled, and 30% in-play. He has swung at 77% of "strikes" with the main difference (in outcome rates) being for foul balls. The big difference is the 11% more "strikes" ... and I assume any pitch swung at is a "strike" and I am taking that as evidence that he is less selective (also that pitchers aren't pitching around him as much yet).

Let me close by emphasizing that I have no problem with someone saying "Walt, I don't agree with you completely discounting Braun's 2007." I would agree that almost all the time, that's a bad idea. However, I heavily discount extreme performances ... especially extreme historical performances but also extreme personal performances for players with an established track record. I think that works. I'm not saying I can prove it, I'm not calling anyone wrong for disagreeing. I do think someone is wrong if they think Braun is going to maintain on-contact production above 400/800 ... though never say never.