2011 Organization Rankings: #22 Milwaukee

Make no mistakes: this is a good major league team. Most projection systems suggest Milwaukee will end up with around 84-86 wins, putting them in close contention for the NL Central crown with the Cardinals and Reds. When ranking their overall organization’s health, though, the Brewers’ depleted minor league system really brings them down.

Present Talent – 77.73 (15th)

Brewers Season Preview

Future Talent – 65.00 (four way tie for last)

Brewers Top 10 Prospects

Financial Resources – 75.83 (19th)
Baseball Operations – 76.82 (21st)

Overall Rating – 75.02 (22nd)

Upon first glance, it’s easy to fall in love with the Brewers. This is a team that is built around stars: Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart, Zack Greinke, Yovani Gallardo, and Shaun Marcum form the backbone of the Brewers. Big names are easy to love, and these seven players are projected to produce 31.3 WAR next season according to the Fan Projections. These projections are optimistic as a whole, but still, that total is better than 10 teams from 2010 produced with their entire roster. Also, the Brewers’ front office has made a concerted effort over the past year to lock up this core for an extended period of time. Gallardo signed a five-year deal before the 2010 season began; Corey Hart signed a three-year contract this offseason; Rickie Weeks signed a four-year deal (with a fifth year option) in mid February; and Ryan Braun is already signed to a team-friendly long term deal that lasts through 2015. With the exception of Prince Fielder, this nucleus will be together for multiple years into the future.

The problem is, once you look outside these seven players, the Brewers are sorely lacking depth. Jonathan Lucroy and Casey McGehee contribute value at catcher and third base – and they’re young enough that they can still keep improving – but the Brewers have noticeable holes at shortstop, centerfield, and the back end of their rotation. After moving Alcides Escobar in the Greinke trade, the Brewers are plugging in Yuniesky Betancourt at shortstop; Betancourt hit for moderate power last season, but he’s still been the worst everyday shortstop in the majors over the last three seasons both offensively and defensively. Gomez provides value through his defense and speed, but he strikes out like he’s a slugger (24%) and doesn’t have good plate discipline (5% walk rate), so he’s lucky to crack a .300 wOBA. And in the rotation, Randy Wolf (4.85 FIP in 2010) and Chris Narveson (4.22 FIP) are fine as #4 and #5 starters, but they have limited upside for the future.

In a vacuum, this lack of depth on the major league roster isn’t a horrible thing. The Brewers are still one of the favorites for the NL Central, and acquiring star players is more difficult to do than acquiring average role players to complement those stars. But the dearth of depth goes deeper: after trading away three of their top five prospects this offseason, the Brewers’ minor league system is one of the worst in the majors. Their top pitching prospect is Mark Rogers, a 25-year-old starter that has had constant injuries throughout his career and suffers from control problems, and their top position prospect is Hunter Morris, a 22-year-old first baseman that should be starting the season in Advanced-A. Matt Gamel is the only exciting bat that’s anywhere near the majors, but his defensive issues don’t seem to be improving.

So once Prince Fielder leaves after this season, what then? Fielder is a huge cog in the Brewers’ offense and is a solid bet for +/- 5 WAR in any given season; the Brewers will take a significant hit in talent with his departure, but they have no ready replacement. While they’ve averaged around an $80 million payroll over the past four seasons, the Brewers already have $60 million in commitments for 2012 and $40 million for 2013 – and all that money is locked in on only seven players. That doesn’t leave them much room to fill out a roster and replace Fielder’s contributions through free agency, meaning the Brewers will almost surely see a drop in their team’s talent level in 2012. And then once Marcum and Greinke (possibly) leave through free agency after that season, what pitchers will the Brewers have to complement Gallardo? Plenty can happen between now and then, but looking at the Brewers’ system right now is not especially encouraging for the future.

And that’s where the front office comes in. While the Brewers operated as a small-market team for many years, the combination of a new-ish stadium (Miller Park, opened in 2001) and a competitive team has seen their attendance climb to near around 3 million for the last four seasons in a row. Their payroll has increased as a result, and the Brewers now look closer to a mid-market team, having payrolls near $80 million on a yearly basis. Of course, if attendance were to shrink the Brewers would likely be forced to lower their payrolls, as they’ll never have the same revenue streams as a larger market club, but that seems unlikely to happen in the short term. Their owner, Mark Attansio, seems committed to the team and wrote an open letter to the Brewers’ fan base this off season, and there have been no blatant instances of him sticking his foot into baseball operations decisions.

General Manager Doug Melvin has made some questionable decisions (Randy Wolf? Brandon Looper?), but overall I’d say he’s done a good job building the Brewers into contenders and keeping them competitive over the last six seasons. He’s not perfect, but the contracts for Hart, Weeks, Gallardo, and Braun are all fairly valued, and Melvin hasn’t been afraid to trade away prospects with hovering question marks (e.g. Matt LaPorta, Alcides Escobar). He may have traded away the future in an effort to win in 2011, but he also didn’t overpay for Marcum or Greinke. If anything, their front office is boringly effective: they don’t make huge, laugh-inducing gaffs, but they also aren’t ones to find a bargain. Melvin seems to pay near market rate for contract extensions, free agents, and trades, and while that’s served him well in the past, the Brewers will need to find some free agent bargains to stay competitive in 2012 and 2013.

With all this in mind, though, a bit of perspective helps to understand the Brewers’ #22 ranking better. In our points system, the Brewers are separated from the last place organization by 9 points…and 9 points above the Brewers is the fourth best team in the rankings. There are lots of teams that are ranked close together around average, so while the numerical ranking might be low, the Brewers’ overall organization is only a few points below average, held that low primarily by their weak farm system and a low-to-mid market status. So Cardinals and Reds fans shouldn’t get too excited: despite the long-term questions hovering, the Brewers have a strong enough core that contention should never be out of the question.




Print This Post



Steve is the editor-in-chief of DRaysBay and the keeper of the FanGraphs Library. You can follow him on Twitter at @steveslow.


55 Responses to “2011 Organization Rankings: #22 Milwaukee”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. gu03alum says:

    Brewers miss Jack Z

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dustin says:

      Not really. He was never good getting strong starting pitching, and while the minor league system isn’t great, there are now a lot of good, young pitchers in their system. I think their future talent will be fine because they have so many guys locked up long term.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Hejuk says:

        Yeah, this is another place where these rankings have made their evaluation of future talent too dependent on minor league talent. Having established contributors locked up for several years – regardless of contract, since that is part of financial resources – has to be given more weight than having top prospects, with all the uncertainty that goes with them. The Braun contract alone should pull the Brewers out of last place in future talent.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • theonemephisto says:

        Present talent is already weighted twice as much as future, you don’t think that’s enough?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Hejuk says:

        Present talent is defined as players’ 2011 contributions. That’s what’s being counted double. It needs to receive less weight and future talent, better incorporating established under-contract players, needs to receive more.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ender says:

      No, they really don’t miss him that much. He basically tanked on drafting any pitchers and most of the impact bats came with warts on defense. They have just traded away and graduated a ton of prospects to create a 2-3 year window of competitiveness and when that window closes around 2014 the status of their minor league system is going to be huge.

      The Brewers only lose Fielder next year. The year after that they probably extend one of Marcum and Greinke and lose the other but they have young pitchers that should be ready by then. Then the rest of the team is under contract the following year. Losing Fielder doesn’t close this window at all.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Mark says:

    Jeff Suppan, David Riske and LaTroy Hawkins were worse signings than Looper and Wolf.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Melvin definitely seems to have a thing for veteran pitchers.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        Not surprising that two of the them are former Cardinals.

        I think GMs feel they are “hurting” a division rival by taking one of their starters and adding it to the team. Sort of a +1 for us, -1 for you = double win. There may be something to that if you take away a really good player.

        I will say, at the time of the Suppan signing, Jeff had strung together some 200 IP seasons and was very good (at least results wise) in the playoffs that year.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. JohnOrpheus says:

    “In our points system, the Brewers are separated from the last place organization by 9 points…and 9 points above the Brewers is the fourth best team in the rankings.”

    If most of the teams are that close together, this new system of ranking doesn’t seem to offer much insight.

    +8 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • zkolodin says:

      You seem to be saying that there is little meaningful difference between a D+ and a B.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        Okay but if the grading system used in schools was …

        95 = A
        94 = B
        93 = C
        92 = D

        Would their be a big difference between a B and a D+?

        What the comment stated is that the Brewers are the same distance (points) from the 30th team as they are from the 4th. Since the Brewers aren’t ranked 17th … that means that there is a lot of tight clustering … which in the end really just means what we already knew …

        … There are about 5 really bad orgs, 10 good to really good ones, and then everyone else in the middle.

        The Brewers present talent is 15th, and they’re either 1-2 in predicting the vision champ. See how that can be confusing, if we just using an isolated view?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        About the 20th time in the last few days I’ve used “their” instead of “there”. Horrific.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Terminator X says:

        “Okay but if the grading system used in schools was …

        95 = A
        94 = B
        93 = C
        92 = D

        Would their be a big difference between a B and a D+?”

        No, but uhh… how is that remotely relevant? The Astros received a 66.68 overall score, Milwaukee a 75.02, and presumably the 4th best team would be somewhere around 84.x… what does your hypothetical school with a messed up grading system have to do with anything?

        “The Brewers present talent is 15th, and they’re either 1-2 in predicting the vision champ. See how that can be confusing, if we just using an isolated view?”
        Yes it can be very confusing – case in point: I have no idea at all what “either 1-2 in predicting the vision champ” means (even assuming you meant “division”), nor do I have any idea what “isolated view” you’re talking about. Confusing indeed!

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • adohaj says:

      The insight is that the majority of teams are average. Which is true

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Bronnt says:

    Okay, issues. This is a team good enough that people think they could reach the World Series this season-at least, Jonah Keri does. And they may indeed lose Prince Fielder after this year without a clear in-house replacement, and a depleted farm system…but they won’t be BAD after he leaves. They might fall off to become a fairly average team for a few years. Again, perhaps the issue here is the poorly defined goal of “organizational success.” Maybe being World Series contenders one year and then having a stretch of average or mediocre seasons isn’t the ultimate goal. But honestly, for a smaller market team, sometimes selling out for one great season is a good idea as long as it works, especially if you’re not trotting out years of 60-win teams to do it.

    Here’s the barometer for this year’s method. If most of the Fangraphs writers who created the inputs find that they disagree about the same parts of the resulting list, then it’s a poor methodology. I’d really like to hear someone attempt to justify having the Brewers lower than the Orioles. I don’t think that should even be close, much less with Milwaukee on the shorter end.

    The problem here is an attempt to objectify without a disciplined method. I’d have preferred if writers just looked at it more holistically and made judgment calls. There’s too much being overlooked in this more scientific approach. You’ve resulted in…well, buckets that are too big, so it’s hard to get a resulting output that’s specific enough, and things end up overlooked. For example: teams with quality future talent that don’t have great farm systems. They have good players locked up long term, but can’t boast that they have Mike Moustakas. There also seems to be an issue with the “financial resources” assessment if the Brewers can be 19th while the Dodgers are 20th.

    Hopefully this is something that can be improved for next season.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • bill says:

      It’s something that has been brought up for the last 2-3 years here, basically that without an “objective” (e.g. “Win the World Series in 2011″, “Make the Playoffs in 2012″, “Improve attendance in 2013″) it’s difficult to judge team-by-team.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Hejuk says:

        Why don’t they just use some amalgamation of regular season wins and playoff results over the next five years as their standard? Is it too hard to come up with a consensus on what that sort of measure should look like?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CircleChange11 says:

      I’d really like to hear someone attempt to justify having the Brewers lower than the Orioles.

      Yeah, that’s a pretty good point.

      To look at it differently … “How would the typical FG author respond to another website ranking Milwaukee behind Baltimore in terms of ‘Organizational Ranking’?”

      I do a lot of stuff with “making systems” either for tracking/ranking students, school discipline, etc … and I’m generally a “let the data sort em out” and “live with your results” type.

      However, if I am making a system that ranks, as you say, BAL ahead of MIL, then I have to re-examine my system because that would not be a result I could live with, and feel that my system was valid. … or …

      … I might not know as much as I think. In that case, your request for an explanation could inform the both as us as to some of the things that would lead to that ranking. We may find that information when Baltimore’s report is presented.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bronnt says:

        I agree. And you know, if it’s one outlier, or at least eyebrow-raising data point, that seems like something you accept. Either the system is good but not perfect, which is livable, or else you’ve discovered something insightful, in that perhaps you’re overrating one team despite not having any basis for it.

        In this case, it’s several. The Pirates could trade places with the Indians. The Marlins should be up ahead of where the Nationals are. I don’t even know where the Orioles are, but I could easily put them at 27th or 28th (but I’ll save that for when they come up). And the Brewers definitely seem underrated-should be closer to middling I’d say. So basically I’ve got four problems with nine teams already. It’s possible I’m being overly critical, taking a staunch anti-establishment stance, but if I am, it’s not deliberate. I think my objections have all been fair.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Terminator X says:

        I think you’re making much ado about nothing regarding your objections about Pitt/Cleveland/Nationals/Marlins –

        “The Pirates could trade places with the Indians”
        The Pirates received an overall score of 72.87, which Cleveland scored 73.60. Not a huge difference at all. Likewise, the Marlins clock in at 72.88, and the Nationals at 74.39. A bigger difference there, but not huge by any means, and when you account for Zimmerman(x2), Werth, Strasburg and Harper and a much larger payroll than Florida boasts I’m not sure the argument for Florida being definitely better (as implied by “The Marlins should be up ahead of… the Nationals”) than the Nationals is terribly obvious, if it’s even there at all.

        Clearly there are going to be minor quibbles on any list like this. Brewers and O’s are likely to be more than a minor quibble, but if you’re going to take issue with a team being placed 27th when you think they should be placed 28th insteadthen I think that yes, you’re being hypercritical.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bronnt says:

        TX-

        I suppose you’re right about the scores, perhaps I need to be paying attention more to those. However, it’s hard to identify with a number when it’s not attached to defined value, and you have idea what the scaling is. Should I BE looking at it like a grading system, and the Astros are clearly failing while the Brewers are a C+? What exactly is the range-the worst possible score and the best possible score? That hasn’t really been explained. It’s much easier to identify with where a team stands in the rank order than a mysterious scale. I suppose I could I avoid commenting until every ranking comes out, but then, it’s a pain in the ass to go back and comment on every team at the end-harder to hold a discussion that way.

        As for my comments, I’m well aware that the Pirates/Indians placement is a quibble. I wouldn’t have mentioned it at all except to be thorough on my issues with to date.

        Regarding the Marlins though, I’m surprised there’s much argument there. The 2011 team is clearly superior-BP has them THIRTEEN wins better, Fans 11 wins, and CAIRO a still-distinct four wins. And I don’t see that changing much in the next 2-3 years. Bryce Harper isn’t going make an impact before 2013 at the earliest, and 2 of the core Nationals’ players you mentioned are young pitchers who already have had serious arm issues. The Marlins are coming off of three years of 84, 87, and 80 wins, and I would expect the next three to look fairly similar based on what’s on the roster. I’ll take that over a team that MIGHT win 85 sometime in that span.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. bflaff says:

    Normally I think ‘depth’ gets tossed around here pretty casually, overlooking the fact that the backups on any team are going to play like (duh) backups, but this does a pretty good job of elaborating on why you could ding the Brewers on depth. So thanks for that.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Bronnt says:

    What’s more controversial than the Brewers being this low is that the Orioles haven’t heard their name called yet

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. gu03alum says:

    Two Divisions have yet to have a team in the rankings, AL West and AL East. All of the other divisions have multiple teams.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • CircleChange11 says:

      Good point.

      I think we could all name an ALE and ALW team that we feel is “bottom 10″.

      But, I think we can also wait and see how it plays out and read the explanations.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bronnt says:

        One of the advantages of the ALW is that there are only 4 teams. Having 25% less competition (40% less than the NL Central) in any given season seems to provide them with an advantage for as long as the playoff format remains as it’s constructed-you need much fewer things to go right, fewer things to go wrong for your competition-in order to reach the playoffs. Clearly that’s not one of the categories that authors are evaluating, but surely “chances of making the playoffs” is one of their criteria by which they are judging.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Xeifrank says:

        It can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on how good the teams are in your division. Teams like the Twins can beat up on both the Indians and Royals, then compete with two others (Tigers, White Sox) for the division. 50% of the Twins inner division games are against very weak teams. The AL West has one walkover team (Mariners), so a team like the Rangers plays 33% of their inner division games against weak teams. Of course, this is a simplified analysis of it. Point being that it depends on the distribution of good and bad teams, as to how big or less of a disadvantage it is.
        vr, Xei

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. pogotheostrich says:

    I have no problem with this ranking. Here’s a team that has around a 30% chance to make the playoffs this year and then lose Fielder, Greinke and Marcum. It doesn’t look pretty after this year.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dustin says:

      Ummm Marcum and Greikne are both under team control for more years. 30% chance of making the playoffs? Really? After the Waino injury I give the Brewers at least 30% chance of winning the division alone, probably closer to 40%. The Brewers can replace Fielder pretty easily. Gamel can move to first and then they have 12 mil to spend on a competency’s SS of CF. Should come out about even.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bronnt says:

        You make some points, and then lose a ton of them by claiming it’s easy to replace a 5 WAR first baseman. Mat Gamel is 25 years old and seems a stretch to ever produce 5 WAR if he’s playing first base.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • brewcrew says:

      Prince is gone after this year. Greinke and Marcum are under control for 2 seasons.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Dustin says:

        Prince being gone is a big loss, but it’s not like they are just going to sit on the money he is earning. They could very easily get 2 WAR from Gamel and another 2 WAR from the extra money they have from Prince leaving. They likely won’t be as good without Prince, but they can still be competitive.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Damien says:

    I think many are quick to assume that Fielder is all but gone next season. There is a very plausible scenario where he returns to the Brew Crew on a 1yr arbitration deal. Without the NYY, BOS, PHI to add leverage, the bidding war may very well not reach the $100M heights that Prince seeks.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • todmod says:

      Wait… what? That’s a crazy thought. NYY/BOS/PHI still wouldn’t be in the market for a 1B the next year, and Prince could pull an Adam Dunn type deal even in a doomsday scenario that would still beat a 1 year arb play.

      Zero chance that happens.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Dustin says:

        The Brewers would resign him if he was willing to sign for Dunn money, so you are proving Damien’s point. Though if it got that low I could see the BSox getting involved as well as every other team besides the Yanks, Phils, and Pujols’s. I do disagree that he would even get into that territory on money. In a very bad scenario I still see 5/80 at worst. Still something the Brewers would definitely consider. Remember that they have offered him 5/100 already and he turned it down.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Dustin says:

        By the way that last post on Dunn money for Fielder is a different Dustin than the first poster.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. Jordan M says:

    In addition to some of the other objections raised, I’d question the assertion that: “If anything, their front office is boringly effective: they don’t make huge, laugh-inducing gaffs, but they also aren’t ones to find a bargain.” This really is the opposite impression that many Brewers fans have.
    Melvin has made some very bad deals, mainly for old pitchers: Jeff Suppan (4 yrs, $42 million), David Riske (3 yrs, $12 million), Latroy Hawkins (2 yrs, $8 million), the Wolf deal is still up for debate, and another bad one was a huge deal for Bill Hall, who was released before it was up. On the other side, he’s managed to find some remarkable value from really cheap pickups like Casey McGehee, Jim Edmonds, Gabe Kapler, Chris Narveson, John Axford, Derrick Turnbow, and the like throughout the years. His record in trades is pretty even, and he’s shown a willingness to go for it when necessary (CC Sabathia deal).
    I’ve defended the Brewers for their actions this offseason, mainly because I think the goal is to win a World Series, and they’ve set themselves up to possibly do that in 2011 or 2012. They didn’t sign their first round draft pick last year so they have 2 in this June’s draft, so it’s possible the system is restocked a bit when some big-time players leave after 2012.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dustin says:

      I agree with most of it, but Melvin has made some really good trades, far from being close to even. Scotty Po for Carlos Lee when he used to mash, Richie Sexson for a lot of players who helped the team, ect.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. grandbranyan says:

    Giants at 23 last year, Brewers at 22 this year. I like the look of it.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Xeifrank says:

    When you guys post these team rankings, is it possible to post the previous teams covered in the list, so we can see how the list stacks up so far. Kind of like what Dave S does for Zips over at BTF.

    ie.

    23. Los Angeles Dodgers
    24. Washington Nationals
    .
    .
    .
    29. Seattle Mariners
    30. Pity Pirates

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Ivdown says:

    Seriously? Weeks, hart, and marcum are stars? What does that make fielder, Braun, and Greinke, hall of famers?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ender says:

      Weeks was the 13th highest WAR position player last year and over the past 4 years he has been the 3rd best 2B in baseball in WAR per PA. Calling him a star isn’t a big deal, albeit a star who has been hurt a good bit.

      Marcum has the 22nd best ERA of any starter over the past 4 seasons as well and that is in the AL East, you can make a strong case of him being a star but again with an injury asterisk.

      Calling Hart a star is probably stretching things though~.

      There are something like 80 ALL-STARS a year so the definition of star is pretty loose.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Rob says:

      Weeks was by far the best Brewer last year.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. CircleChange11 says:

    Bronnt … The exercise by it’s nature places teams in a “list” format. Reality is that teams are in “groups” or clusters.

    I would imagine that even the guys conducting the activity would acknowledge that.

    They’d probably also state that they are not overlords assigning a team their fate.

    Giving teams an A, B, C, etc type grade would lead to similar things, as one could argue the A- versus B+ teams.

    To me, the attempt and the discussion is more worthwhile, than the actual positioning of the teams.

    Due to divisional placement, the 20th rated team could actually be more “successful” than the 14th rated team, and that wouldn’t necessarily make the system bunk.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Bronnt says:

      “To me, the attempt and the discussion is more worthwhile, than the actual positioning of the teams.”

      Precisely how I feel, actually. Which is why I think they shouldn’t try to objectify this thing at all. Keep it subjective, let each writer use his own criteria so they get a more holistic take on it, and then toss it out there as more a discussion piece than some objectified system that’s producing quality results.

      All they really needed to do to improve the series is 1) do a better job of explaining the purpose (so we know what “organizational success” means), and 2) eliminate a possible familiarity bias. The second part seems taken care of by keeping writers from voting on their favorite/most familiar teams. The first is still vague, and their attempt to quantify the various aspects of an undefined objective is problematic.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. CircleChange11 says:

    TX … The only relevance is exactly what you pointed out … That the score is more important than the ranking slot.

    Using your numbers, MIL is closer to the #4 team than they are to the #30 team, even though their ranking is not.

    The highest ranking NLC team may have a score of 79, but only an 8 ranking. So, if MIL wins the division, it might be inappropriate to ridicule their ranking since their score would not be much lower than a team ranked “way ahead of them”.

    Same thing with player rankings. The 5th best 2B may be a lot closer to the best 2B than the 5th ranked 3B is to the best 3B in terms of performance/talent.

    The ranking tells us less than the score. I’m not saying this as if I’m educating you, because I think you already know, as evident by your comments. The analogy I used could have been better. Grades are usually consistent because of the equal cutoffs, these rankings do not use the same setup.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Terminator X says:

      The whole “grades” topic is a silly little tangent anyways. Perhaps the FG authors would be better served to do put more emphasis on the scores than the ranks. Of course the ranks will still be there, but instead of titling the post “#22 Milwaukie” you could call it “75.02 Milwaukie”, and list those numbers on the sidebar to the right instead of the ranking as well. You’re definitely right, it is much better information than the pure rankings.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. William says:

    I think the brewers baseball ops deserves to be much higher, and as a result bringing the team into the top 20

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. Lion of the Senate says:

    Pretty weak analysis. This site has gone downhill. Borinly effective? Are you serious? This is the team that made arguably two of the 5 biggest trades of the past 4 seasons, in the CC trade, nobody expected Milwaukee to win that derby….which was wildly successful for the Brewers. And the Grienkie deal, nobody even had the Brewers as a dark horse. Hardly boring.

    $44 million for Suppan was terrible….and there is evidence the owner ordered that particular move.

    Trading away Nelson Cruz was a mistake.

    Melvin has found several closers from nowhere….Kolb, Turnbow, got a very good year from Hoffman when it was assumed he was done and now Axford. Other value deals were McGhee, a starting 3b with power from the waiver wire and Scott Podsednik, who was traded for Carlos Lee.

    I also agree that the organization rankings need to weight MLB talent under control much more. After 4 years out, there should be zero weight. Most of the Brewer stars are going to be around for the next 3-4 years.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Ender says:

    “Trading away Nelson Cruz was a mistake”

    Only in hindsight. It took him another few years to stick in the majors after the trade and he still hasn’t proven he can hit outside of Texas.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Kevin says:

      Apparently Texas and the rest of MLB made the same mistake because Cruz was DFA’d by Texas in the spring of 2008.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Onbekend says:

    I tend to agree with Hejuk’s and bill’s suggestion that the ratings be applied to e.g. wins next season and an average of wins over the next 5 (throw in div, league, world championships if desired). After all isn’t that what most of general the stats are all about e.g. WAR etc? Let each writer come up with a figure and then take an average. Let each writer work out his own methodology, have the poster defend his position, and perhaps the others can chime in.

    Aside from that – really enjoying the discussions.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *