When Hyperbole Trumps Rationality

I'm finally to the point where I had to put my thoughts on guns down in an organized way.  After the murders in Newtown, CT, I had to see all sorts of absurd defenses of guns and gun ownership come out of the woodwork on Twitter and Facebook.  Every one of the common logic fallacies were used to either support truly ridiculous positions or argue against positions that virtually no one has.

I could probably write 10,000 words if I wanted to cover all the nonsense.  From the contention that banning civilian versions of military weapons somehow means every gun will be confiscated to the idea that because President Obama's children get armed security, he's an elitist hypocrite.  But I'll try to keep my focus on 2 memes that seem to always crop up.

The first is that people who hold the most liberal (from a gun rights perspective) interpretation of the Constitution contend that nearly unregulated gun ownership is necessary to allow the citizenry to be a check against government from becoming tyrannical or to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  I honestly don't really know where to start on this.  I mean, at a broad, basic level, I get it. American colonists acted against a government that allowed them no input on how they were governed and no avenue to change that government.  It WAS tyrannical.  The issue today is that just because a minority (on some issues, an admittedly sizeable minority) disagrees with some government actions and laws does NOT make it tyrannical, about to become tyrannical or anything near that.  Every official that  passes a law is still elected.  A government is tyrannical when even the majority cannot tolerate what is being done.  Don't like the Affordable Care Act? Too bad.  A majority of elected officials created it.  A majority do not find the law burdensome.  Don't like the ATF?  Too bad.  The vast majority find it necessary to properly enforce existing laws (created by a majority of elected officials) on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives.  You are still free to vote for whomever you choose as Representative, Senator and President.  This is not Soviet Russia, so you can leave if you like (even without giving up your citizenship!).  

There is nothing tyrannical about a large government.  You may have noticed we live in the world's largest economy (for the time being), with some of the best standards of living (for most of us...), a system of laws that prevent us from having air you can collect with a mosquito net (looking at YOU, Beijing), the safest air travel system in the world and some of the most advanced healthcare in the world.  You don't get that by chance and it doesn't continue by accident.  It requires a government.  It was created by...you guessed it!  A majority of elected officials.  

Let's consider, for the moment, though, if the government were tyrannical.  Let's say a couple agents from any one of the 82 federal agencies that employ at least some sworn, armed agents (note: I read that figure somewhere and while on first blush it seems high, the truth is virtually every federal agency has armed enforcement agents) show up at your door to impose their tyranny.  You fight back, killing them with a 9mm handgun.  Ok, so a bunch more agents from a bigger, badder agency shows up.  You upgrade to a more powerful rifle and kill them all, with the help of a few like-minded neighbors.  Then, more agents from specialized units of more agencies show up.  You lose a few neighbors but your fight-the-power group manages to kill them all the agents with some of the biggest guns you have.  Well, then the National Guard shows up and the messing around stops.  But, wait!  You've called in every friend, neighbor, brother-in-law, whackjob and supporter you can find and you reach a standoff.  Fine.  Another National Guard unit is called in to support the first.  At this point, just how, exactly are you going to stop an armored personnel carrier?  A military-grade RPG?  (Remember, this is an allegedly "tyrannical government"--they'll stop at nothing to get you).  The fact is, many of the people that have the same goofy attitude that the government is out to get is them belong to a group of people that fully support the largest possible military and defense budget we can get.  Doesn't this seem self-defeating?  If the government wants to get you, it's going to get you, even if you have 1000 friends and neighbors all armed with AR-15's.  Why?  Because the members of that military are trained to use the best weapons the US taxpayer can buy against similarly very well-trained members of other militaries, not beer-guzzling, brat-eating fat guys who drive a forklift.  And that's no insult to beer-guzzling, brat-eating forklift drivers because I know a lot of them.  But they aren't Army Rangers.  So it's NOT about keeping government in check.  It's paranoia, delusions of grandeur and toughguyitis.  It's ridiculous, pointless and frankly, dangerous.

Gun regulation has never been, is not and never will be about banning, confiscating or eliminating guns used for hunting, nominal self-defense against criminals or sport shooting.  I had a conversation on Facebook with someone who argued that if I knew anything about guns, I'd know that people who participate in sport shooting NEED a 30 round magazine.  My interaction in sport shooting says that's not true..but let's say it is:  That doesn't mean you can't use one at the event site and leave it with the organizers of the event.  You don't need to OWN the magazine, nor any high-powered, civilian version of a weapon originally developed specifically for military use.  And if the sport shooting you do DOES need it, then you just need to find a different event.  I watched shooting events at the Olympics and Outdoor Games and while I'm no Ted Nugent, I'm pretty sure none of them were using AR-15s.  (But I  could be wrong.  I still think the broader point is the average person who does sport shooting is out shooting skeet, which I *KNOW* doesn't use anything more than a shotgun).

The second silliness is memes similar to "If we treated drivers and cars like we do guns, everyone would be arrested and imprisoned after driving drunk" (or the like).  This isn't as preposterous as the "the government is out to get me" attitude, but it's actually far more stupid.  Every part of our interaction with automobiles is regulated.  The federal government already heavily regulates the manufacture of vehicles offered for sale in the U.S.  EVERYTHING about a car is regulated by the government--from the type and strength of window glass used, to the size, brightness and color of taillights, to the required safety equipment (and the standard to which that equipment must perform).  When you buy a car, every local jurisdiction charges a fee to register the vehicle (some charge annually based on the vehicle type, some a "property tax" on its value).  They also (in nearly all cases--I believe only 1 state--NH or VT--do not require insurance) require the vehicle be insured (so if you use the product and injure someone through your negligent use, the injured party can recover damages--imagine that!).  To be able to operate the vehicle, you have to meet basic requirements, pass a series of tests and pay a fee for the license to operate the vehicle.  Then, when you operate the vehicle, another massive set of regulations apply to how and where the vehicle is operated.  Those laws control how fast you can drive the car, your physical condition, require obeying signs and signals, on and on.  Ultimately, driving the car itself is very highly regulated.  The consequences of disobeying the regulations can be minor and inconvenient (a parking ticket or a couple hundred dollar speeding ticket) to criminal punishments as strong as any other criminal act (if you drive drunk and kill someone, a specific law exists to imprison you).

Alright, alright, we got it, Corey.  I'm sorry, but I exaggerated this and drew it out to point out that car ownership and operation is far more burdensome and regulated than owning at least some type of gun in basically every state in the country.  Despite the clamoring about "takin' away my guns!" even states thought of being very strict on guns allow fairly easy ownership of hunting and sport weapons (like basic rifles and shotguns).  And in fact, outside cities with their own laws, even strict states like NY allow reasonable access to owning handguns for those that qualify.  So the outrage is conflated to fear-mongering and paranoia.  It's unhelpful and foolish.

Last point (I know I said I'd focus on 2 memes, but this one I can't let go).  The NRA is getting a lot of attention for a web ad it released this week demanding why President Obama is ok with his daughters having armed guards while they are at school, but doesn't want "your kids" to have that security.  A meme of varying versions has popped up on Facebook over the last few weeks.  This one is probably the stupidest of the 3 I addressed today.  First, the President and his/her family are provided security by the Secret Service, as required by federal law, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER DOES NOT WANT IT!  Read that again:  The President is not special for getting Secret Service protection for his daughters.  They are protected even if they don't want to be.  Second, let's try to get our egos in check, shall we?  No one's children face the risks the children of the President faces.  No one's children have people who are targeting them SPECIFICALLY because of who their father or mother is (or who they are, themselves).  And I hate to break it you, but if there are children out there targeted specifically because of who their high-profile father is, then I can guarantee those children have private, armed security...because those fathers are certainly wealthy CEOs, celebrities or other officials.  The fact we are at the point that the NRA thinks it's perfectly acceptable invoke the security of the President's children means it has to have jumped the shark and this approach has completely devolved into demagoguery and irrationality.  

Reasonable people must be able to talk about this issue and find a point that reasonably controls guns and their sale.  This is about whether we're a "gun country" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people".  The facts are:  Lots of people are killed by people using guns--not knives, baseball bats or any other weapon.  Guns are easily obtained by those that DON'T intend to hunt, shoot skeet or kill an intruder.  No one is trying to take guns from law-abiding, mentally healthy people who want to own guns for those purposes.  Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.  If you try to dispute them, you are not rational.  It's time for rationality, not hyperbole.

Right-to-Work Doesn't Create Rights

Much has been written over the last couple days about Michigan implementing a "Right to Work" law. Believe it or not, push comes to shove, I'd prefer working in a non-union job than a union job and prefer choice--for the employee, the employer and the union itself rule the day.

In my mind, unions today do not do what unions repeatedly say they deserve credit for what most workers take for granted today:  a 40 hour work week, paid vacation and holidays, some form of health insurance coverage and dramatically improved working conditions.  We can argue they don't deserve credit for the 40 hour week or working conditions because the law codifies that--but in reality, those laws were created and passed because of unions working to have them passed.  So they deserve credit for setting the standards today.  And, in unionized workforces, those employees do have, on balance, higher average wages and better benefits.  The presence of those unions also do tend to create a support for "good" wages in the same industry.  Auto assembly workers in non-unionized plants of foreign manufacturers are still paid reasonably good wages and provided good benefits.  In fact, after GM and Chrysler's bankruptcies, their newly negotiated union contracts (and in turn, Ford's contract as well) created a 2-tier wage system where newly hired union workers are paid a lower, graduated wage; those wages are on par, more or less with what non-union assembly workers are paid.

So ultimately, that's an argument for unions to be unnecessary.  Given the standards most workers are accustomed to in most industries, unions going away wouldn't do anything really to paid vacation or holidays, paid sick time, 401(k)'s or other benefits.

My biggest opposition to unions is that they are territorial, bureaucratic, insular and in fact, exclusionary, not inclusive.  Using again the auto assembly plant as an example, every worker is given a defined role and that is ALL THEY CAN DO.  Someone else, in a different assignment, cannot fix something they see is broken and cannot help another person who needs a hand.  For me, specifically, the part I most dislike is that there is no incentive in a union to work hard, to be better than someone else, to be smarter.  In my job, at the end of the year, we are all assigned a rating and that rating influences our merit increase and our bonus.  The distribution is a bell curve with a heavy right skew.  Meaning, the vast majority of employees are "meets expectations".  It's actually difficult to achieve "exceeds expectations" and only a small number get a top rating.  But meeting expectations still gives you a very fair raise and an on-target bonus.  Yes, imagine that, a bonus!  Last year, my raise was approximately 2% and my bonus was 5% of my annual salary (which turns out to be a pretty nice number).  I get a 401(k) match up to 5% of contributions, contributions to a cash-balance pension plan that is fully funded by my employer, VERY reasonable health insurance cost, a salary that is actually top-of-the-range in our peer group (there are a lot of call centers in Green Bay), 28 paid days off (which includes holidays that are usually 6 days a year) and 4 days of paid sick time off per year.  There's nothing a union can do for me.  I drive a desk, so I don't need a union to protect me from black lung, a block of steel from crushing me or 120 degree heat.

I think everyone deserves to be paid individually on what they contribute.  You work harder, you come up with better ideas, you get more done, you get paid more and you get promoted more easily.  That's it.  Unions do NOTHING to make people do the best they can.

At this point, I'm sure you're thinking "Woah, woah, WOAH.  You just went on a massive Twitter rant on Wednesday afternoon about the RTW law in Michigan and here you are, eviscerating unions.  Plus, don't you complain about Scott Walker?"  So here's my opposition to these laws and to the politicians behind them.  In Michigan, my biggest complaint is with the Governor, Rick Snyder.  He promoted this law as good for workers--as improving workers' rights, creating more jobs and moving companies to Michigan.  None of this is true.  Union opponents say unions are bad because it takes away workers' choice.  Well, just wait a second:  Don't workers have the choice to simply not accept a job that requires union membership?  Can't workers find the job that meets their needs?  And wouldn't, theoretically, the exercise of that choice mean non-union shops would gain ground?  And isn't that actually true, considering union membership is at or near an all-time low?  So why was the law needed anyway, then?  It's not, really.  What it does do is force unions to earn their keep.  But the problem is, if a union is elected in a workplace, the contracts it negotiates apply to everyone.  Prior to "right-to-work", unions were able to implement agreements in their contracts requiring everyone pay dues--to ostensibly cover the costs of running the union itself, etc because even if a worker wasn't a union member per se, they still benefited from the negotiated wage scale and benefits.  Right-to-work bars those agreements (in a basic sense).  So why would ANYONE "join the union"?  They can get a free ride--higher than market wages, better benefits and not have to pay dues.  Ultimately, if the union doesn't market their efforts well, enough people drop out of the union and it breaks.  If THAT happens, the employer benefits.  Period.

This law does NOT give any rights to workers.  It frees employers from the costs of dealing with a unionized workforce.  So my problem isn't "unions are going away and that sucks" (because as I noted, I'm generally opposed to them anyway), but rather the disingenuous, false and manipulative nature of Snyder's approach on this.  Right-to-work states have on balance, lower average wages, more uninsured people (to be largely corrected with PPACA), more people on Medicaid and more people on food stamps.  Right-to-work reduces union influence--there are fewer union members in right-to-work states and those employer put labor cost savings to profit, NOT to randomly hire more people.  Companies employ the number of people they need for the size of business they have.  Period.  If I ran a business that needed 20 people and my labor costs suddenly went down 20%, why in world would I EVER just hire 4 more people??  It's nonsensical.  And the argument of "Well, no.  See, the business would then expand because their labor costs are lower and that expansion would require hiring more employees."  Again, nope.  Because a business will only expand if they CAN--can they take market share from a competitor?  Staffing or not, do they have the capacity to meet the new demand?  If not, can they spend to expand or afford to borrow to expand?  If yes to all those questions, then a business will expand regardless--the increased revenue from the additional sales resulting from the expansion funds the additional labor costs.  Or, the business expands and through productivity improvements, greater efficiency or greater demands of their current staff, they produce more with the same staffing.  Why hire more people unless you have to?  Right-to-work does NOT CREATE JOBS.

Unions don't do what they say they do for members today.  They're outdated and largely unnecessary.  But even if required to join a union if they accept a particular job, that person still has free will and choice.  They can find another job.  As @simplekindoffan on Twitter always likes to tell me, he believes in worker choice and if they don't like something their employer does, they can get another job.  So if one job requires union membership, they have the choice to go elsewhere.  If I was a roofer, but I don't like heat, shouldn't there be a law requiring an employer can't make me work if it's over 95F?  I mean after all, how can I be forced to do something that could hurt me?  Obviously, that's a pretty dumb statement.  I have the choice to not work for a roofer and find a different job that's less physically demanding and safer.    Politicians should truly represent their constituents and let democracy work.  Passing a bill into law in a week to avoid debate that proponents of the law KNEW would delay its passage and then lying about what it will do is just not good for anyone.  Hopefully, those who voted for this law in Michigan will find that out the best possible way--by having the choice of a new line of work.

I'm Done Caring What Finley Says

We've all heard it all about Jermichael Finley.  He's a special talent--a body type that isn't true wide receiver or tight end, an ability to block, great speed.  He drops the ball too much.  He's mouthy with really 1 good season to back it up.

If you follow me, you probably know that I get emotional about my favorite sports teams.  I admit to not having a good analytical football mind--I follow probably a dozen non-writer people on Twitter who "know" football better than I do.  And I follow probably a handful of non-professional, "non-writer" people on baseball that I trust and appreciate on baseball--from a pure analytics standpoint.  When it comes to sports, I don't fall for liking the players too much (sure, I like Ryan Braun and enjoying feeling as though he's a Brewer for life and I like Aaron Rodgers as a person) because at the end of the day, I'm going to be a fan a lot longer than any of these guys are going to be playing (at least, I hope so).  So there's no sense getting "attached" to someone and letting that blind me to the only important thing:  performance.

That's it.  As long as you're not a child molester, an ax murderer (side note: I hate that:  isn't an "ax murderer" one that murders axes?  Not really, since murder only applies to humans.  Right?  ANYWAYS...), or a con man stealing from grandmas, I couldn't really care less if you're an asshole.  Hell, I'm an asshole.  So there's that.

The things I DON'T tolerate are stupidity and lack of effort.  Personally, for much of the season, Finley's only had himself to blame for minimal involvement in the Packers offense.  His juvenile "me and 12 just need to have better chemistry" whinefest falls on deaf ears.  You are a professional.  If you don't like how you're being targeted or used, you can do this thing that grown-ups do:  TALK ABOUT IT.  Not with me or the media--with your coach and your quarterback.  If you don't like the answer, then that's tough shit.  I don't really want to hear about it.  Why?  Because it's not my problem.  I only want my favorite team to win and I don't care it's done.  This isn't t-ball.  They keep score and only ONE team gets a trophy at the end.  Your feelings are irrelevant.  

If he's weak enough where this chemistry or his feelings are affecting his play, well then, he'll just stop being part of the offense.  He catches the ball, he'll be thrown the ball more.  That's it.  Look at Sunday's game.  The numbers, in total, weren't eye-popping, but his catches were critical.  I suppose if that helps his confidence, then good for him.  But realistically, Sunday was the Packers 5th win in a row and somehow they managed 4 of those wins with minimal Finley involvement.  It's apparent to most fans (I hope) the Packers have greater problems (and NO, one of them isn't Mason Crosby) that present the roadblocks to success in the playoffs.  While I am enjoying the run for the playoffs and hopefully another Super Bowl win, I WON'T be worrying, stressing and ranting over Finley's attention-deficit antics.

It's Time to End the Corporate Income Tax

Reading this, I am sure you are thinking: "Am I in the right place?  Who is writing this?" or "This is the stupidest thing I've ever read."  Bear with me on this. 

In my view, the corporate income tax has become a weight around the neck of the President, the Congress, the businesses to which it applies, on and on.  That isn't to say the personal income tax or payroll taxes aren't a weight on the people that pay them.  The problem is the corporate income tax isn't worth its weight.

In fiscal 2010, the corporate income tax made up only 9% of total federal revenues.  Think about that:  $2.2 trillion in total revenue and only 9% of it came from the tax that, depending on who you talk to, is either way too high compared to the rest of the world, far too complex, a job-killing disaster or not doing ENOUGH to make corporations pay their fair share.  Well, despite Mitt Romney assertions to the contrary, corporations are NOT people.  (And he's not my friend, either).  People pay taxes...and ultimately, they pay the corporate income tax.

The corporate income tax makes businesses do stupid, inefficient or unnecessary things.  In economic speak, businesses stop being rational actors with respect to taxes.  Just complying with the tax costs businesses billions.  In my view, the corporate income tax actually ROBS the treasury of revenue.  Companies put significant effort into accomplishing one thing when it comes to taxes:  Minimizing the actual taxable income.  The result is money is blocked from flowing through the economy in a clean way and it's the only viable monetary reason for keeping dividend tax rates lower than earned income--because dividend income is double taxed.

It's time to end the corporate income tax.  Corporations (and all EMPLOYERS) will still pay significant amounts of tax--through their share of FICA, federal excise taxes and fees and their share of costs for unemployment and worker's compensation (although the last 2 are not technically taxes).  That shuts down transactions whose only purpose is to shelter or minimize income.  It reduces the need for business's accounting and finance departments to comply with the tax.  It means more income will flow directly to investors through dividends.

In exchange, (oh, conservatives, you didn't think it was going to be as easy as "Poof! Eliminate a tax that's been around forever", did you?) all income receives equal treatment.  Dividend and capital gains are taxed like ordinary income.  There are valid and fair arguments to be made for why that income should be "incentivized", but I have never (EVER) heard a business owner or stock investor say "I only do this because the taxes are lower than working in a coal mine."  Nonsense.  Business owners start businesses to control their lives, to build something.  Yes, that involves taking a risk.  But they are taking that risk because the true incentive is it could turn into something huge and they can achieve financial freedom.  Taxing some hedge fund's investments isn't going to stop hedge funds from investing.  And realistically, nearly all true small business owner aren't paying the corporate income tax now and they are NOT paying today dividend or capital gain taxes on income related to their business, either.  So taxing all income equally does next to nothing to the beloved "small business owner". 

I know I'll get the arguments:  "But their profits are HUGE.  They should pay!"  Yeah, ok.  But the point is, they aren't paying NOW to begin with.  Very large multinationals structure their income so it's earned internationally and then, they just never repatriate the income, leaving (essentially) untaxed anyway.  Ending the corporate income tax allows a company to simply do what is best for the business.  And profit?  Profit in and of itself is meaningless to a large corporation.  It doesn't let the corporation go on vacation with its kids or buy a vacation home in Vail.  It's just a number.  Ultimately, a corporation can really only do 3 things with its profit (essentially free cash):  1) nothing--it just sits around in a bank and that's just dumb.  Look at Apple--eventually, the investors revolted and forced them to declare a dividend or to do SOMETHING with the cash; 2) return it to investors--whether it's a share buyback or a dividend, that money is forced back into the economy and into the hands of people--to either reinvest it if they sell the shares or do something with the dividend income--and that money will be taxed and paid by PEOPLE; or 3) invest it themselves:  the company can expand, upgrade equipment, raise wages to improve retention...whatever.  But at the end of the day, that money gets forced through the system as well.  Right now, the issue isn't really the money that's taken out of the system via corporate income tax--it's the money that never SEES the system because it's saved, kept overseas or "spent" inefficiently through systemic costs.

Taxes are not bad.  I like taxes.  I like a progressive income tax.  But taxing the same dollar twice (or more) is just wrong.  It's inefficient and it's a disincentive.  It's time to end the corporate income tax.

Focus for Brewers Must Remain on Pitching

The Brewers 2012 season started with a lot of optimism and I think, not unreasonably.  They spent a fairly reasonable amount to put a solid offensive....blah blah blah everything every other much better written Brewers blog has written...well, you know what?  Screw this.  You all know what happened.

The bottom line is in 2013, the offense is NOT a problem.  Sure, Aramis isn't likely to repeat a slash line of .300/.360/.540, lead the league with 50 doubles or drive in 105.  Then again, virtually no one expected him to do in 2012 to begin with.  Ok, fine, Corey but Braun isn't going to repeat .319/.391/.595 with 41 HR or a 159 OPS+!  Says who?  Maybe he'll hit 38 HR instead or bats .303.  BFD.  He's Ryan Braun.  We're moving on. 

The big and sort of confounding problem is the pitching.  There's a need for at least 1 very good starting pitcher than can be depended on to give 180-200 innings and hopefully something like a 110 ERA+.  Doug Melvin can't be afraid to spend $12 million a year here if necessary.  A nice thing to have would be a back of rotation guy that can give Roenicke the ability to pick the best 2 of the remaining guys they used in 2012.  I like to think Wily Peralta and Marco Estrada go here.  Chris Narveson is just a question mark coming off his injury and if he can contribute, great.  But for the moment, it's better to try to plan as if he's not there.

Then, on top of that, there's a need for probably at least 3 bullpen guys.  I see no problem going into the season with Axford put down as "closer" (I know a closer is not a thing, but it'll have to do for now).  Jim Henderson was a nice surprise and if the market doesn't allow for obtaining a defined "set-up guy" (hey, another thing!), penciling Henderson here is fine.  The Brewers still have Mark Rogers, Tyler Thornburg, Mike Fiers (who I think is the best bet for the 3rd pitcher in the rotation if only 1 starter can be signed in free agency), Brandon Kintzler and Manny Parra to fit in or replace.  I'm not as down on Parra as others might be--I admit there's not a whole lot of positives in looking at his 2012 stats, but he was the victim of a over-burdened bullpen.  Ryan Topp (@ryantopp) made a good observation on this generally when we were talking about Kameron Loe--that the rotation's early struggles put pressure on the pen and made Roenicke do things he probably wouldn't have otherwise done.

Alright, so what do we have to work with here?  Here are the top candidates for starters:

Edwin Jackson:  4.03 ERA, 189.2 IP, 1.218 WHIP, 8 K/9 and 98 ERA+ 

Ryan Dempster:  3.38 ERA, 173.0 IP, 1.197 WHIP, 8 K/9 and 124 ERA+ (although he was decidedly less effective for Texas despite a 7-3 record for them).  A 3 year/$36-39 million deal for Dempster in the market wouldn't surprise me.  But given his age, I'd prefer the Brewers look at 2 year/$24-25 million type deal with an option for a 3rd year based on say, 170 IP in 2014.

I think the Brewers should also consider Dallas Braden, who appears to fully healed coming off shoulder surgery and would be a good candidate for an incentive-driven deal or Brandon McCarthy.  In fact, according the San Francisco Chronicle's A's blog, he was just recently cleared to resume full baseball activities and he said this is about the time he would start training in the off-season anyway.  His injury is not really a pitching concern like Braden's and the Brewers should be able to offer him a pretty competitive deal.  His H/9 of 9.3 is not as alarming as it really looks, considering the size of O.co Coliseum.  Other options might include Dan Haren or Anibal Sanchez, but he seems to have set a contact demand that the Brewers not only can't meet but probably just chucks any reasonable chance of negotiating.  Finally, I suppose there's still the pie-in-the-sky idea of trying to go after Zack Greinke...and $23-25 million a year on him is a far better deal than the same money on Josh Hamilton would ever be.http://

What about relievers?  Like every other off-season, picking these guys is a complete crapshoot and frankly, I don't trust my own judgment in picking the best options here.  The best option, talent-wise, is probably Mike Adams, but a) he'll likely command a deal not worth doing (something Affeldt-like perhaps?) and b) there's the bad separation when Adams had his stint previously in Milwaukee.  

Personally, the guys I'd like to look at is Jason Grilli or Jon Rauch (his WHIP was damned good .988), his ERA was pretty good (3.59) and his HR/9 was just fine, but his K/9 is so-so (I'd like it higher than 6.6 for a reliever, but that's just me).  Rauch should be fairly affordable (perhaps $4-4.5M) as long as we can keep it under 3 years.  I absolutely HATE these 3 year deals to relievers.  Other suggestions or am I just wrong?  Hit me up on Twitter.

The Fallacy of Tax Cuts Creating Jobs

This topic is one that's been bothering me for quite a while.  It never made much sense to me--why would a business owner make strategic decisions on whether to grow or maintain status quo based solely on tax cuts?

Let's say Joe owns a small business selling fabricated machine parts.  He's beat out badly by large, national corporations, but he makes a good living with his regional customers.  Joe has a competitor similar to his business nearby.  He knows they are struggling and he has a great opportunity to take market share.  He can proceed with a small expansion without taking on debt and would need to hire a handful of employees.  His business is structured as an S-Corp and in 2011, the business had a net income of $300,000, which flowed directly to him as personal income.  His and his wife's taxable income was $250,000.  Joe expects that his expansion would increase his business's net income to  $400,000 and estimates his taxable income would be about $340,000.

If the Bush-era tax cuts were to "expire", Joe and his wife would move from the 33% tax bracket to the 36% bracket.  Oh ok, so he'll pay about 3% more overall or $10,200 a year...that's a lot, but not so bad since he's making another $90,000.  Except that's wrong.  Federal income tax rates are marginal, so Joe would only experience a 3% increase on the amount over the threshold for the next lowest bracket.  Using projected 2013 brackets, this means Joe only pays 3% more on the amount over $241,900.  So his tax liability would increase by about $3000.

So you need to wonder:  Would a business owner say "Nah, not gonna do it...don't want an extra $87,000 in net income" to avoid $3000 in taxes?  That's nonsensical.  And frankly, I don't believe it for a second.  A business owner who's as successful as Joe isn't stupid.  He runs his business well and wants to make money.  Period.  No one would turn down a 35% increase in income just to avoid a marginal increase in taxes.

Businesses that don't expand aren't expanding because they aren't run well, have to take on debt to expand and can't afford it or can't access the capital or any number of other market-related reasons.  And any business owner who specifically chooses not to expand because of taxes is terrible at their job.

Stop Stressing Over the Electoral College

There has obviously been a lot of dramatics and hysterics over the Electoral College this election season, and not just in the last couple days.  The complaints range from the typical (and understandable) position that "I live in [heavily Republican or heavily Democrat state] and my vote doesn't matter" to "the candidates only pay attention to 9 (or 8 or 10, depending on your view) states!  They don't care about the rest of the country."

Well, the truth is, it doesn't matter whether we use the Electoral College or a straight popular vote.  Yes, I can sense your reactions--probably ranging to a lot of the reactions I get on Twitter: "Your fucking ignorant" (most) to "This is why I love following you" (a few).  Certainly, my argument is probably nothing terribly insightful or new, but here it is.

Currently, neither party does much campaigning on the West Coast, the Deep South (except FL), the Northeast, or the Plains because there are few persuadable voters there.  The majority in those regions are fairly locked-in and aren't changing from their established positions.  People in the remaining 8-10 states have more undecided and persuadable voters (or going Nate Silver on you, they are more elastic).  Campaigning there only makes sense.

People will say, "Sure, but if it was a popular vote, candidates would go to more places, trying to get every vote they can".  No, they wouldn't and here's why:  The Republican is going to get the VAST majority of voters in AK, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX, TN, KY, ND, SD, NE, KS, ID, WY and UT and large, but not mind-blowing margins in GA, MT and AZ.  Why would the Republican candidate candidate EVER go to ID or UT or WY?  For one thing, not enough people live there anyway and secondly, how many more votes can they really get there?  The same is true in Democrat strongholds.  It's all about diminishing returns--you can spend money and time trying to get another 50,000 votes in WY or you can just focus on FL to maximize the 4 million votes there.  (Without paying as much attention as they do now, a candidate might only get 3.4 or 3.5 million votes).  You can't invest time or money in 51 places.  You can't fly to AK to campaign if you're Mitt Romney to get even 30,000 of the 91,000 votes that went to Obama.

The final point is that despite the Constitutional headaches that can occur in an Electoral College tie, etc, the truth is greater headaches could occur in a very close election if the popular vote is used.  This year, thus far, there are 118,500,000 votes for President.  Where do you set the trigger for an automatic recount?  If you set it at 0.1%, that's still 118,500 votes.  How do you recount every state?  That doesn't make any sense.  So if the total is within 0.1%, do you then have a recount in any state that is within 0.5%?  The same legal fights that already occur in states like FL or OH are exactly where they would occur in a popular vote election.  It's time to focus on more important, broader issues.

With Braun, Argument is Moot

At this point, just about everyone has expressed or published their own viewpoint on the (somewhat) surprising outcome of Ryan Braun's positive drug test result.  A 16 year old blogger found the sample collector's name.  Lots of people have summarily dismissed Braun's win in the appeal has having been on a "technicality".  Some of the best work on this by Will Carroll (@injuryexpert) doesn't seem to be really getting a lot of traction, even though it provided a lot of information about the case Braun's team presented  that we previously didn't really know.

My own take on this entire topic is one that I expressed right away when the result was leaked.  Basically, I was suspect of this result for a number of reasons (based entirely on my own feelings, of course).  In my estimation, players that who either had truly positive tests, leaked positive results or a public conclusion of guilt had real or obvious reasons to use PED's (even if there's no evidence it really helps).  These players are either trying to keep themselves in MLB a little longer, were trying just to get a toe into the league or were pushing for a record.  None of those factors are true for Braun.  He had signed a contract extension through 2019, he was having a career year in many metrics and his team was playoff bound.  He'd had nagging or minor injuries, but had never been catastrophically injured.  He was in the physical prime of his career.  Most importantly, in my own mind, Braun has an absolutely massive ego with respect to his physical skills.  He had (or has) no compelling reason to use ANY PED.  It makes no logical sense.  But, I also understand that people often do inexplicable things for unknown reasons.

Moving beyond whether it really makes sense to do it, let's look at the process.  Braun's result is said to have been a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 20:1 and had an amount of testosterone 3 times higher than even the highest level ever recorded in the history of the program (which was 40,000 tests).  Even if one argues Braun could have some bizarre reason to use, does that make sense?  He knows he's tested and often.  Clearly, he's a smart person anyway and has resources to have sophisticated assistance if he wanted to use.  Wouldn't he take only as much needed to see improvement not so much as to blow up the test?  Sure, the test IS very sensitive and ultimately, any excess amount is bound to found, but why risk taking 5 times the amount that would still be normal?  That just does not stand to reason.

Last big point: The collection/storage/delivery process.  This is the part that people have dismissed as the "technicality".  But is NOT a technicality.  It cannot be.  The process has rules that control the manner in which the sample is collected, sealed, sent for testing and tested.  If violating any of those rules or protocols is merely a technicality, then there's no reason for that particular protocol to even exist.  It'd be as if the police could collect a DNA sample from a suspect and then a CSI technician could just toss it in their fridge.  Hey, it matched the DNA collected from the crime scene, it must be cool, right?  That's ends justifying the means. 

Beyond that though, to argue that it simply wasn't FedEx'd right away was a silly technicality is to ASSUME the sample really was in the collector's fridge all weekend and it was handled very carefully. Why do we believe this?  Only 1 person (well, maybe 2, since the collector's son was the chaperone during the collection process), really knows what happened to that sample.  Did no one at all enter the collector's home that entire time?  Was it really in the fridge?  Braun's team did not argue tampering and based on what I know about the way it is sealed, etc it doesn't seem likely, but again, it is impossible to know it was not tampered.  

In a base level, the entire argument both for and against Braun's innocence is moot.  It's an argument over something that should never be argued.  None of us should have ever known of the positive result and thus, never known of the appeal, the result of the appeal or the fact that some dude can't even figure out whether there's a FedEx open on a Saturday at 6pm.  If only that ONE THING hadn't occurred, there is no technicality, there is no forever lingering doubt over Braun being clean.  For that reason alone, I will always consider him clean.  Baseball, not just Brewers, fans should do the same.

This one's for you, Bud

Below is the entirety (absent my address) of my letter to Bud Selig regarding the decision not allow the Mets to wear first responder caps on September 11th.

The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner

245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor

New York, NY 10167

Dear Mr. Selig,

I consider myself to be a tremendous fan of baseball.  I love the history, the records, the intelligence of the game.  It is my favorite sport.  But, I was sorely disappointed to learn of the decision made to prohibit the New York Mets from wearing caps honoring the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department and the Port Authority Police Department during the game on Sunday, September 11, 2011, the 10th anniversary of the worst terror attacks on American soil.  I was further disappointed to learn of your own reaction to your decision being publicly disseminated.

The Mets intended to continue wearing these caps after the pre-game ceremony, but Major League Baseball adamantly prohibited this and according to a Mets player, physically confiscated the caps.  This decision is unbelievably hard-hearted and oblivious and it speaks to tone-deaf corporatism.  Joe Torre, Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, released a statement that essentially attributed the decision to a desire to maintain consistency amongst teams and minimize the need to choose sides.

I lost no family or friend in the 9/11 attacks, nor do I even know someone who lost someone.  But I do know I am an American and every American lost something that day.  A decision based on the idea that allowing the Mets to wear these caps would be “choosing sides” is offensive.  And frankly, MLB’s desire for consistency is hypocritical.  On April 13, 2009, the Pittsburgh Pirates replaced the normal team caps with those displaying “Pittsburgh Police” to honor 3 police officers killed in the line of duty shortly prior to the game.  And that was the home opener!  They wore them the entire game.  The Mets wore first responder caps when baseball resumed approximately one week after the 9/11 attacks. 

Then, today, I learned that you called the Mets and personally rebuked the Mets for “leaking” the decision.  Mr. Selig, I have to say, that is utterly preposterous.  Frankly, you are in charge of running a very public sports league.  Every decision you make is subject to public scrutiny.  To not have wanted this decision to be released means you wanted no one to know it was made.  If you take anything away from this, it should be that if you make a decision and don’t want anyone to know of it, it’s most certainly the wrong decision.

And that’s the final point here.  You may claim Mr. Torre made the decision.  You may claim it was made by several people after careful consideration.  But, you are the Commissioner.  Every decision made in MLB is ultimately your own.  You could have easily overturned this decision.  You did not.  I hold you and only you responsible for this crass and impossibly silly decision.  I’ve lost a great deal of respect I’ve always held for you in the past.  You can regain this respect by apologizing.  No “We’re sorry for any offense some may have had” apology.  A real “I was completely and utterly wrong. Period.” apology.

A decision to wear the caps would have cost MLB nothing in terms of money or brand equity.  It absolutely would set no precedent.  (Who would ask for permission to wear “Save the Whales” caps based on a precedent of “You did it on 9/11!”?  No one).  I urge you to consider the effect your decisions have on people more carefully and recognize that MLB lost a great opportunity to cement its place--one in which people saw baseball as such an important part of recovery after 9/11.

I welcome any contact you may want to make to discuss my concerns or your position.  I can be reached by phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx by email at corey.a.heim@hotmail.com or on Twitter at @brewfangrb.

Sincerely yours,

Corey Heim

What was MLB thinking? Were they?

Tonight's game at Citi Field between the Mets and Cubs featured a very well done pre-game ceremony honoring the members of the FDNY, NYPD, PAPD and NYC's EMS.  It also included many of Tuesday's Children (children of victims of 9/11), who entered the field with Mets players.

During the pre-game ceremony, the players and coaches wore FDNY, NYPD and PAPD caps...and planned to wear them during the game.  MLB entered the picture and forbade them from doing so, under threat of a "very heavy fine" to the team.  Now, clearly MLB threatened the team with a fine, because if they threatened to or actually did fine a player for wearing the highly offensive cap, the MLBPA would have wiped the floor with MLB.

Then, we received word of the utterly preposterous statement from Joe Torre, in which he claimed he made the decision to not allow the caps, under the pretense of not wanting to "pick sides" (uhh, there's a big competition between NYPD and LAPD at a Mets home game? What did I miss here?) and a desire for things to be "consistent".  Uhh, what about in the first game after play resumed after 9/11, in which this EXACT thing happened?  As Keith Olbermann indicated in a tweet, the Mets had to fight for that, but MLB ultimately allowed it.

I still fully intend to write a letter to MLB condemning such a foolish stance and if I do, I'll share it here.  I'm not so enraged over this decision over mere jingoism or "you do this, the terrorists win" silliness.  I am anti-stupidity.  There was no reason, at all, for this decision.  It was an utterly stupid decision to make in the first place and a stupid situation where none of the adults at MLB reversed it.

If Joe Torre really did make this decision all on his own, he should be removed from his position and put out to pasture.  If you really can't take a situation like "Oh, 10th anniversary of 9/11, you want to wear caps honoring the firefighters and police?" and come up with anything other than "OK", then you can't be trusted to make truly important decisions like expanding replay and evaluating other truly meaningful on-field issues.  If this was a group decision and Torre was the patsy, I'm not sure that's better--so more than 1 person all agreed this was right?

What a pitiful way to draw attention from a day/night where there should have only been ONE THING in focus.  I'll always remember the sacrifices made 10 years ago...and trust me, Joe Torre and Bud Selig, I'll never forget the decision you made today.  No check that--you're not worth the use of that heartfelt phrase--to never forget.  Instead, I think I'd rather just forget men like you are in charge of the game I love.

Wow, what a day!

Today's game featured some of the most remarkable defensive play I've seen generally and easily the best defensive performance of the season for the Brewers.  Much of that good defense was certainly assisted by somewhat bizarre (and in some cases, downright inept) baserunning by the Dodgers.  But great teams take advantage of mistakes by opponents and importantly, don't let them recover.  The triple play really was something to behold--it wasn't one of those that you say "Hey, it might be...it could be..." because at least on TV, you didn't see Kemp trying to score until Prince threw home.  He really, really struggled with that throw in the first few months of season, but has done much better in his last 3 or 4 attempts.

And Pittsburgh has a very old population with few babies, so the Cardinals suffered a 6-2 loss.  That gives the Brewers a 6 game lead over St Louis and they are 20 games over .500.  Their magic # is 35!  Much of the good things about the Brewers have been beat to death, so looking at St Louis for the moment, they still must be viewed as dangerous.  40 games is still a lot and as injuries the team's already suffered have shown, anything bad could happen between now and the end of the season.  First, I hope that doesn't happen to begin with, but it occurs to me that the team is so deep, it can make it through anything short of complete catastrophe.  (I won't say it "aloud" even though I'm not superstitious and just let you define "complete catastrophe).  I find myself rushing to the mailbox everyday to see if my invoice for playoff tickets has arrived.  (Then, I just gotta hope I can make the money work--I'll be utterly crushed if I can't).

Signing off with a note of relief that both Taylor Jungmann and Jed Bradley for what I believe to be perfectly reasonable money.  (Forget the slot #'s, they're utter nonsense without a rule requiring they be followed).  It'd be nice to see Jungmann in September next year for his cup of coffee and bullpen help.  It does make me dream of signing Greinke to an extension and these guys coming up to support him in the starting rotation.

Last note:  Am I the only one who keeps forgetting Greinke is only 28??  Wow...

Who would have thought?

The Brewers' performance of late is some of the best proof you could ask for that PITCHING MATTERS.  In the last 2 games, the offense scored 3 runs, but won both games.  The defense today again let the pitching down and against any other effective offense, the Brewers easily would have lost today.  But, Saito did a great job (again) and Axford was Ax.  Bigger to me, though:  Marcum with a very trying and difficult 1st inning that required 22 (?) pitches...but he pitched like a man, got through 7 innings (check that: 7.2!) with no other runs.  That's just---well, I can't even really describe it.  How about this:  The Brewers have the best ERA in the NL since the All-Star Break.

I think what I am taking away over the last 2 weeks is cliche, but still true:  They do just what they need do to win and that players that CARE make a difference.  You can get a summary anywhere, so I'll keep that out here...but I have a question:   In the 8th inning, can anyone really explain why Hairston pinch ran for Lucroy anyway?  I mean, Kottaras did come in at catcher in the top of the 9th, but he didn't have to--Lucroy could have caught and George could have still pinch hit when Wilson's spot came up in the 10th.  I must be missing something here because there's no way Hairston is THAT much faster that Lucroy.  In the succinct words of @mykenk: #whatever.

And the 10th is just another chapter in the Nyjer Morgan goofy saga.  Personally, I think the best part was the Al-like stare down of a routine fly ball.  (Nevermind that it drove in the game-winning run).

Let me just wrap with Counsell.  He really has no place on the team.  He actually is probably the best defensive infielder not on the DL, but honestly, every starting pitcher is probably a better hitter than he is at this point.  The Brewers are either just that good that it doesn't matter or they've been lucky that their best play of the year has come with Weeks out and Counsell's ineffectiveness is hidden.  Either way, it's obvious he's not going anywhere--especially with roster expansion only 2 weeks away, it makes little difference.  But, RRR MUST, MUST, MUST stop starting him.  It's going to come back and bite the team in the ass eventually.  I'll stop here--but I've got high praise for Yuni in a later post.  Hopefully with the playoff push coming, I'll be able to post a little more often.  I promise: Unless it's huge or breaking, nothing Packers until at least the day after the first regular season game (and even then, just probably a commentary on the game).

Is it Possible?

We can all talk about how the last six games are games the Brewers "should have won anyway", like they are unimportant or don't matter.  But even the worst team DOES win games occasionally and wins are wins when it comes down to the final record.  So this streak is very important.

The pitching--starters, middle relief, end of game--have been truly remarkable.  It's provided a quality start (pretty meaningless stat, but it does show the consistency over time) in nearly every game for 2 weeks.  This isn't totally unexpected or fluky.

The real question is, with the trading deadline having passed with the Brewers acquiring ok depth for the infield, but no difference makers, can the Brewers survive with Casey McGehee playing regularly at 3B and Yuni at SS?

The answer, like most answers tend be, is "it depends".  IF (a big IF) Yuni can remain reasonably productive offensively with the occasional "What you are DOING??" moment defensively, I'm now actually ok with him there.  Even a month ago, Casey was the bigger concern and honestly, that remains true today.  He's hit SOMEWHAT better over the last month, but is still short of what is needed and he's woefully inadequate defensively.  The real issue is a player could turn it around offensively far more easily than they can become good defensive players.  (Especially with Casey because he's slow and has limited range).

With the pickup of Hairston and Lopez, Roenicke MUST start giving consistent playing time to Hairston (putting him and Lopez at whatever position they perform best--they are both versatile to play either 2B/3B consistently and while not ideal, either can play SS).  The defense must be put out there to help the pitching, but NEVER again this season should that desire for defense trump utter offensive ineptitude like that of Craig Counsell.

That means Counsell has to be released.  It will be painful and a slap to his pride and the "hometown guy".  But if there are players that provide the defense RR wants and provide better offense, then Counsell is not useful as either a defensive replacement or a late-inning pinch hitter.

The Brewers are in control of the division and their playoff future.  I hope every decision (of both action and inaction) the team makes is one that helps keep that control.

Does Prince need to sit?

Nah, I'm not saying for days and days or anything...but just a day or 2.

To my eye, he's pressing.  His at-bat in the 9th inning exemplified that more than any other at-bat I've seen from ANY batter this year.  Of course, I'm not saying he's hit the wall or is terrible.  With Yuni, incessant pop ups and weak grounders are expected.  But in that 9th inning, Prince just waved at 3 straight pitches that were close-ish, but easily off the plate and not particularly nasty.

He's lost much of the plate discipline and patience we saw earlier this year and much of last year that basically forced the pitcher to walk him because he just wasn't going to switch at a pitch he couldn't hit.  Additionally, with Rickie behind Prince for the last 6 games (right, 6?), the pitcher at least has had to pause and just not just give Prince the unintentional, intentional walk.

I know Prince wants to play everyday and I absolutely HATE taking a legitimate bat out of the lineup, but I think it's for the greater good to just give him a day or 2.

I've been absent for a bit, so I want to do a quick hit, but hopefully, I can put together a more complete post on options for the left side of the infield.  (Hint: See the title of the blog).

What does the trade for K-Rod do for the Brewers?

The news of the trade of 2 players to be named later for Francisco Rodriguez broke minutes after the All-Star Game ended last night.  The very first tweet I got on the issue was from Jon Heyman and I was literally typing a reply to him along the lines of "Huh?  Is this a butt tweet?  A tweet intended to be a direct message?  A tweet sent before it was finished?"  But more and more news came out on it and I realized it was real.

My first reaction was "meh", "uggh" and "But wait, we still have huge problems at SS and 3B?"  As debate went on over whether the move was smart, whether it helped the Brewers, what it cost them, etc I came around to realize that it PROBABLY helps the team.

The players on the list from which the 2 TBNL will be chosen are likely to mid-level (at least relative to the players in the organization) but nothing major or game-changing.  This is a pure salary dump by the Mets and even then, not really a salary "dump", but rather a desperation move to avoid the vesting of the option on K-Rod's contract for 2012.  (It requires 100 games finished in 2010-2011 AND 55 games finished in 2011).  He had 46 games finished in 2010 and has 34 already this year.  20 would get him to the 100, but he needs 21 to get to the 55.  Much like most of the internet realized, there is no way he finishes 21 games this year.  Even if John Axford is catastrophically injured or implodes, a) there aren't likely to be a HUGE number of save opportunities anyway and b) K-Rod could still finish 20 games and avoid the vesting option...and the Brewers can use other options to fill the need (Saito/Hawkins/Loe).  It's a non-issue.

If he can keep his focus and not make an issue of not being "the closer", K-Rod definitely gives the Brewers a much more stable option in the 8th.  His WHIP is a little sketchy (certainly not truly dominant like he was in years past), but his K/9 is still nice at 9.7 and can put movement on a fastball in the low 90's.  I believe the real benefit is this lets RRR truly go on matchups rather than roles.  I think for a long time, he was locked into Loe as 8th inning guy because Saito was injured, and maybe he didn't trust Hawkins.  But with K-Rod easily being able to go 2 or 3 days in a row, Loe can be used against RHB where he has a huge advantage and K-Rod can still be used occasionally to spell Axford to close.  (That makes the Brewers bullpen very dangerous if RRR can push Ax 3 games in a row and not have to really worry about the next day knowing he can use K-Rod to close there if he has to).

Taking on financial costs in this trade, rather than giving up much in the way of talent still leaves Melvin with a few (a very few) pieces to try to execute a trade for SS help.  But, honestly, I am still very committed to the idea now that they might as well stick with Yuni and IF McGehee just continues to struggle, they must call up Taylor Green at least to TRY to see if he can succeed in the majors at 3B.  I do not want Furcal--who is an improvement, but too much of an injury risk---and the rest of the possible trade options just don't offer enough improvement over Yuni (how sad is THAT?).

1st Half Review

I'm going to skip the 1st half grade thing (others do it better).  I'm not going to rant.  (How can you rant with the team in first place)?

I'm just going to sum up the good, bad and ugly.

The Good


Prince, Braun and Axford are really the VERY good.  There's really nothing to say here, because we all know what's what with these 3.  Nyjer Morgan is part of the good.  He brings extraordinary energy to the game.  But more importantly, he's filled another potential black hole on offense.  Consider all the game-changing, lead-taking plays where he's scored the tying or game-winning run, got the game-winning hit or was an important part of a late-game win.  And while he does give up something on defense, he's still a plus defender in CF.

Rickie falls into the pretty good to very good category.  He leads MLB 2B in HR and R and has a very good SLG.  He also leads MLB 2B in E (yes, I know...I'm trying to cut down this already ridiculously long post) and has a middling OBP and BA.

The Bad


Greinke.  He has amazing peripherals with 12.0 K/9 and 1.9 BB/9 and a decent WHIP at 1.251.  But they aren't correlating to results.  This is largely because of his HRs (and especially HR with runners on).  Sure, he has a great record, but that's largely a function of run support and W-L is just the worst possible way to evaluate a pitcher anyway.  I ONLY put him in the bad because of the expectations.  A very good season from Randy Wolf, a fairly stable season from Chris Narveson and the W-L on Greinke's starts has covered much of the real worries we'd be having.  I still strongly suspect there's a mechanical blip or glitch that is out there that can be fixed and BAM! he's back to rock solid.  (Take a look at his last start where RRR went out to the mound and basically forced him to pitch from the windup with runners on).  Without fixing the flaw, 2 things could happen and both aren't good:  1) He keeps the peripherals but still gives up the runs.  The bad of this is the luck of getting run support for his starts could easily go away.  2) The results finally start matching the peripherals.  But this seems very unlikely because it's the flaw itself that's keeping them from matching.

The Ugly


Yuni.  Forget it.  You know it, I know it, Ray Charles knows it.  There are no minor league options here at all and trading for an improvement is the only option, which is probably very limited.  (The Brewers probably don't have the pieces to get a very good replacement, the replacement that could easily be had isn't likely to be a significant improvement or the middle replacement options are going to require taking on salary and injury risk).

Casey.  I believe he at least has the ability or opportunity to get better.  Maybe pitchers have adjusted.  Maybe he's just regressed.  But he has the history of actually DOING it.  Yuni has no history at all.  But, the leash on McGehee MUST be short.  As I tweeted earlier today, if this season is really "all-in", then every option has to be considered.  A failure to do so is abandoning all the other moves that were made this year in either misguided belief he'll "just get better" or effort to be nice to Casey.  Casey's a big boy. His feelings are unimportant.  Hit or get out of the way.  Fixing this problem is probably even harder than the Yuni problem, mainly because there are even fewer trade options for a 3B than a SS.  However, there is well-performing option at AAA right now.

My next point leads a little to my next "ugly", but this recently disclosed plan to have Gamel split time at 3B and 1B is truly idiotic.  Gamel had, up to now, played nearly exclusively at 1B in Nashville.  (Likely in an effort to have him be a strong competitor for the 1B job next season to replace Prince).  Plus, he's shown no real ability to defend 3B.  (And some even question his ability to hit).  So someone really has to explain to me why taking time from the full-time 3B (who is doing very well there) and taking the full-time 1B away from THAT position is going to help either one of them.  It's stupid and as many will tell you, I refuse to abide stupidity.  Don't want to promote Green to spell McGehee?  Fine, whatever.  But this plan, if implemented is a strong competitor to my next "ugly" for dumb, dumb, dumb.

RRR's bullpen mismangement


Setting aside the last week or so, make no mistake:  RR has failed, to any observer's eye, to properly manage the bullpen.  Certainly, there have been injuries that forced some into "roles" that they probably never were going to be used in.  And, ineffectiveness from those that are actually in their "roles" can frustrate anyone.  But the biggest issue is RRR's stubborn attitude.  Locking guys into set roles like Loe as "8th inning guy" is just...mind-boggling.  Every stat has shown he's far less effective vs LHB than RHB.  So if you know well ahead of time the 8th inning will feature 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 LHB, then it's folly to run a guy out there that has a worse split when there's a guy just sitting out there that is very good vs LHB and is good enough overall to not be a LOOGY.

The rest of the team ranges from "that's nice" (Lucroy) to "meh" (Hart).  Most of the rest of the starting rotation and bullpen fall into "that's good" category.  (I don't count crash and burns like Herrera or injuries here).

The team is nicely poised to win the NL Central.  Given Philadelphia and Atlanta's performance, it's seems very, very likely 1 of them will win the NL East and the other the Wild Card.  That puts the Brewers in the spot of having to win the division.  The real problem is only that there are a lot of competitors.  Houston and Chicago are done, forget it.  Cincinatti could be losing its grip if it can't stabilize its rotation or if Cordero goes into full-on meltdown, but they are still a strong competitor that can't be dismissed.  Pittsburgh's a wild card---they are young and unproven--can they hold on when it gets ugly in September?  St Louis is probably the best team of the 3 right now, but their offense is going to have to overcome their bullpen and the back end of their rotation.  If RRR sticks with a pen management plan that is match-up based rather than role-based, that will be a huge help.  I'm also going to assume that at some point, one of the following 3 things happen:  a trade for SS improvement, management loses patience with Casey and brings up Green (or Gamel--uggh), or McGehee just turns it around.  If those things come true, that may be enough to put the Brewers in it to win it at the end.  To me, the question mark is Greinke.  If he can fix whatever it is that is going on, that gives yet another solid starting pitcher.  If that happens, too, then the Brewers could easily pull away with a comfortable lead by mid-September.  Either way, it means a lot of fun and interesting baseball in the next 2 1/2 months.

This is what the rest of the season is...

The last couple games have restored my (and probably most fans') faith that this team IS talented enough to win and probably, without a catastrophe, talented enough to win enough games to either win the division or be very close at the very end.

The thing I (and most fans) are going to have to come to terms with is that much of the way the team has played the last couple weeks is likely the way much of the rest of the season may very well go.  None of the other competitors for the division have teams that are obviously dominant or well-rounded enough to take control.  The Reds starting rotation is muddled right now and frankly, just not that good.  And their offense just doesn't have enough complementary pieces to help Votto, Bruce and Phillips.  The Cardinals haven't completely solved their bullpen problem and unless they complete a trade for Heath Bell, they might not do so.  The Pirates?  Oh come on, now, I babble enough here that it's not even worth wasting time with them.  (Ok, fine:  McCutcheon is a very good and exciting player.  Their starting rotation is just good enough to make people pay attention and their closer is as good as it gets--right now.  I'd be very happy for the Pirates if they finally finish over .500).

But much like the Reds and Cards have flaws, so do the Brewers.  That's much of the reason why the 3 teams have gone through courses of very good and Good Lord! turrrible.  Thing is, in my opinion, the Brewers are better equipped to either simply succeed despite their flaws or fix them.  The Brewers have a by far better starting rotation overall and right now, their "worst" starter is a guy is the most likely to get better and return to his career norms than he is to just get worse.  If Greinke can finally get his results (runs, essentially) to match his peripheral stats (K/9, K:BB, BB) he could become fairly dominant.  I believe with much of what Nick with @BerniesCrew was saying last Sunday on the live blog that perhaps a minor mechanical correction, especially when in the stretch could be all this takes.  His strand rate is also at a low level that can't really be expected to continue.  (It's so low in large part because he's not stranding many because many baserunners are being cleared with home runs).

RRR has seemed to lock into the platoon of Morgan/Gomez and that's really done a lot in eliminating one black hole in the lineup.  Corey seems to be perhaps improving at the plate, so that will help.  That really just leaves the worst player in baseball and the Most Unimproved Player in baseball.  Yuni has shown no real ability to be better, so we shouldn't expect him to just get good.  But McGehee has proven he CAN hit, CAN drive the ball.  More patience with him is just as likely to pay off as a replacement is to be great.  A replacement for Yuni has to be found. 

Lastly, the bullpen "problems" are just not nearly as bad as casual fans might think.  Kameron Loe is not terrible nor does he need to be burned at the stake.  But he can't be used in situations where lefties are going to hit (or be likely to hit).  But, he is an important asset against most RHB.  Braddock MUST be used more efficiently.  He's NOT a LOOGY and RRR would do well to start to understand this.  Whether he's actually getting better or is just trying to give Loe a breather, RRR's bullpen management has been better in the past couple games.  (But I agree with @BrewersBar that Braddock would have been better to use in the 8th than Hawkins tonight). 

Essentially, largely only having to better use what this team has instead of having to go out and get actual replacements is what I think puts the Brewers in a better position than the Cardinals.  And the Reds need improvements out of a lot more of their rotation than the other competitors.

Is my frustration with Roenicke misplaced?

I attended today's game and my dad had to calm me down a couple times.  I wasn't booing Kameron Loe (I don't boo Brewers unless they blatantly show a lack of effort or are just outright terrible).  My frustration was with Ron Roenicke.  To my eye, he deserved hard questioning of his decision-making.  Why was Loe brought in AGAIN when Arizona had a slew of left-handed hitters due up?

Roenicke claims initially it was because Arizona had a bunch of right-handed bats on the bench.  Really?  They were going to pinch-hit for 3 or 4 hitters to "force" Roenicke to bring Loe in?  Ridiculous.  In the post-game press conference, we find that Braddock "has been dragging a bit" due to his recent workload.  Well, if he's just "dragging a little bit" that doesn't sound like "unavailable" to me.  He's a professional baseball player and I'm sorry, but even a little tired, Braddock is most certainly a better option vs LHB than Loe.  (Braddock for the year has an oppBA of .167 vs LHB...and Loe has an oppBA of .267 vs LHB).  And on the "he's dragging" point, Loe has been worked a lot harder than Braddock anyway, so if one of them is going to blow up vs the LHB, it's more likely to be Loe regardless.  Shockingly, this is exactly what happened.

What about Saito?  Speaking only in a generality, he was signed to be the set-up guy before his injury anyway, but Roenicke wanted to ease him back and use him in the 6th or 7th inning.  WHAT??  He's been pitching in the minors for 2 weeks and on Saturday night, he pitched in the 8th!  Sure, it was 7-4 at that time, but he faced 3 batters and only threw 10 pitches, 9 for strikes.  Absolutely no reason at all for him to not pitch today in the 8th if Braddock really wasn't available.

Roenicke is supposed to use advanced analysis when researching an opponent.  (It's how they how set up all defensive shifts).  So why doesn't he have a plan for match-ups like this?  How does he not know who is and isn't really, really available?  I refuse to outright blame Loe for today's performance in the 8th.  He's overworked and not well matched to LHB.  He was set up to fail.  His manager needs to know better and he needs to improve HIS performance.

Dreaming of player moves...

So it appears inevitable that Saito is coming back tomorrow (or Saturday?).  RRR has told us a position player is going down in response.  This has prompted the requisite speculation of who that someone is going to be.

Most knowledgeable folks in the Twitterverse (God, I hate that term!) my group of Brewer follows says it should be Kotsay.  I agree.  There is drunken hope it could be McGehee (maybe many hope it's McGehee and the drunken part is just me), but it's not going to happen, even though I just learned today that he apparently does have an option left.  (I still don't get why the Cubs got rid of him then--if he had the option.  Now we know, I guess).  Regardless, it's not to be him because it would force the Brewers to bring up Taylor Green and basically, play him every day.  Not until there's no hope will that happen.

It can't be Counsell, either, really because although I think at this point Jaime Moyer could blow his "fastball" by Counsell's bat, getting rid of him leaves the Brewers with no versatility in the infield.  It could be Wilson, but when he plays, he has hit a little and strangely has shown some power.

Kotsay is the odd man out.  Forget the stats (which all on their own have shown he can't be relied on for a PH or even bench role)....just WATCHING him can show he doesn't have any power.  His only real benefit is he can play first, but short of complete catastrophe, Prince plays every day anyway.  And if something catastrophic did happen, Gamel would just be called up.  So Kotsay's useless.  (In case you missed this, so far).

Then, after the Minnesota series, they need to option Gamel back to Nashville and bring up Brandon Boggs.  This is not a slight on Gamel--but he is not a veteran that can succeed with infrequent or late-game play.  Plus it wastes time--I'd rather him get 9 innings everyday at first base and be ready to be the guy to beat for the job there with the Brewers in 2012.

Let's hope that since I have to wake up and deal with a 100 degree heat index later today that at least there's good news to read.

Why I hate the losing on the road

Believe it or not, it's not the losing.  It's the why.  I'm analytical, but also emotional.  To not allow myself to be bothered by the actual losing, I just have to remember that even the best baseball team will lose a lot.  Even Philadelphia, with the best record in baseball, is still going to lose 60 games.  That's still a lot of evenings sitting glumly with your beer (or vodka/Dew).

But what really bothers me is I just can't figure out WHY the Brewers are losing on the road so much and so badly.  You might say it's because they've played against good teams so far on the road.  That doesn't really doesn't work because they won 2 of 3 from Philadelphia and lost 4 in a row against the Nationals.  Besides that, the Brewers swept division-leading St Louis at home and lost 2 of 3 to the Mets.  The quality of the opponent isn't correlated to the home/road records.

What about the park?  Sure, this year, Miller Park is leaning more heavily batter-friendly, but historically, it's pretty close to neutral.  And if the Brewers are a power-hitting team, park effect can explain the poorer showing against San Diego and the Dodgers, but doesn't explain their performance against the Yankees.  (Sure, the Yankees are just overall a good team, but Wednesday night was the Brewers best opportunity to beat up a bit of a struggler in New York's rotation.  That didn't happen).

I'm not even going to look at RISP.  That's just such a stupid stat, that I can't even stand discussing it.  It's just absurd to think that hitters somehow will try harder just because runners on base.  They're trying hard to get on regardless--no hitter wants to strike out or GIDP.

I'd like suggestions if you got them, because we're halfway into the season--park factors can't explain it (the Brewers have visited enough different parks to equalize them), imbalance in road opponents (saying that the Brewers road opponents have been predominately good) doesn't exist and much as Shawn Marcum would like to explain it away with Yostian thinking, it's not all just bad luck.

The home record simply isn't sustainable.  Hell, if it DOES keep going like this, it won't matter what the road record is, but it statistically isn't viable.  The road record doesn't even really need to be good (or even "ok"), it just can't be terrible.  But without understanding what's causing the road issues, I'm not sure how it can be fixed.  And I hate not knowing.