Some of the things Macha says really bug me

[logan82]

"Flat. Everything's flat in the zone," Macha said. "Guys that he

normally gets out -- I think [Hunter] Pence was 2-for-11 off him and

[Pedro] Feliz was 1-for-11 off him -- they whacked him pretty good."

Really Ken? You started out good then you lost me at the end there. 10-11 AB are a very, very minuscule sample. It is not predictive at all. Please stop saying things like this.

 

Then there is this nugget.

"We've been working on our bunting," Macha said. "We've got more hits

than we do sacrifice bunts. So we've been putting some time in on the

bunting because eventually we're going to need to move [a runner] up."

Sorry about that Kenneth. I am really hopeful the pitchers can improve at making outs for you.

 

I almost forgot zim zam and poppycock. I hope he doesn't get flummoxed.

[derflotr]

I don't think that bunting comment is all that egregious.

[pitchleague]

I understand the contempt toward his comments about the small samples vs. hitters. However, it is extremely rare that players rack up several hundreds of at-bats against a single pitcher, due to facing each other so infrequently and the dependence on both pitcher and batter having careers that last 16+ years.

 

So Macha used some stats that showed a small sample. At least he's not just guessing in the dugout--he's using SOME sort of data analysis (even though it doesn't show much, it does show a tiny bit.)

[Ennder]

I would think a good manager lumps pitchers into categories instead of worrying about results against a single pitcher.

[DHonks]

In fairness. he uses stats as much as Ned, yet Macha hasn't gotten crucified for it. Heck, at least Ned was smart enough to consistently hit Kendall 9th.

 

Still, Macha's right in those two quots. Coffey and Villy need to do a better job than they have lately, and the entire team is awful at bunting. Gomez is horrendous. Gomez, Hart, Escobar should bunt just enough to keep defenses honest. But of the trio, only Hart can get bunts down. Since he's looking more and more like a slugger, perhaps he should bunt more when struggling, less when hot.

[fleehaw]

The biggest thing that Macha says that bugs me is, "I'm the manager of the Milwaukee Brewers." I'm really looking to the day where he must insert former in that statement.

[endaround]

Kendall hits 2nd for the Royals

[logan82]

I understand the contempt toward his comments about the small samples vs. hitters. However, it is extremely rare that players rack up several hundreds of at-bats against a single pitcher, due to facing each other so infrequently and the dependence on both pitcher and batter having careers that last 16+ years.

Right which is why those stats shouldn't be used at all except for trivia. By the time there are enough PA in a hitter vs pitcher matchup both are not the same players as they were when they first faced each other so the stats will never amount to anything more than bragging rights.

 

 

the entire team is awful at bunting. Gomez is horrendous. Gomez, Hart,

Escobar should bunt just enough to keep defenses honest. But of the

trio, only Hart can get bunts down. Since he's looking more and more

like a slugger, perhaps he should bunt more when struggling, less when

hot.

Even if they are in a slump the only time a guy should bunt is if the defense is not expecting it and they think they can get a hit. His comment though was about sac bunting. In my opinion there is almost never a time when pitchers should be sac bunting. Only if it is close and late and by that time pitchers are usually pulled anyway so you will have a pinch hitter. Gomez just needs to stop bunting.

 

Coffey and Villy need to do a better job than they have lately

I don't disagree with that at all. I just hate that he brought up pitcher vs hitter stats like it means anything.

[rluzinski]

So Macha used some stats that showed a small sample. At least he's not just guessing in the dugout--he's using SOME sort of data analysis (even though it doesn't show much, it does show a tiny bit.)

 

The problem is that the result of 10ish AB is basically random. It's almost like giving credit for a manager for flipping a coin when he writes the lineup.

[pitchleague]

oh, yeah I completely agree with you and the original poster. I'm just glad he's giving it a little bit of thought rather than doing the equivalent of picking guys out of a hat and hoping it works out.

[sheethead]

Win or lose, his post-games are just depressing. He sounds like a bored old man, unable to articulate most of his thoughts. Not like those thoughts are profound in any way, which makes his inability to articulate them even more frustrating.

[mletto157]

Reporter: What do you think about Lucroy?

Macha: He's a... he's sort of what... he's what I call an empty cup"

 

Pitcher vs. batter matchup data is practically worthless. At the very least I would lump all RH pitchers and LH pitchers together use that to judge who to play and how they fair, those stats are readily available. If you wanted to break them down further you could use like hard/soft throwing RH or LH pitchers. And even further, fastball/change pitchers, etc... But even now you're getting into pretty small samples with young-ish guys...

[Thurston Fluff]

Really Ken? You started out good then you lost me at the end there. 10-11 AB are a very, very minuscule sample. It is not predictive at all. Please stop saying things like this.

 

If he actually used it as predictive I would agree it was stupid. I suspect Macha would agree as well. Seems to me he used it as explaining something that happened not something that is going to happen.

The way Macha actually used those samples was to figure out why he didn't have success that day. He was saying - I've seen him handle those guys in the past and the difference is...

Sample size has no relevance in that type of analysis. Using the information at hand to explain and correct what happened is a completely normal and valuable analysis. Especially when the alternative is to wait until he has a large enough sample size against those guys before he works with Coffey on making some changes. That would be absolutely insane for any manager to do.

 

Sorry about that Kenneth. I am really hopeful the pitchers can improve at making outs for you.

 

once again you misrepresented what he was saying. He said they have to get better at moving guys over when I ask them to sac bunt. I agree they have been terrible at doing so even while I think they are very good hitting pitchers. It isn't because they haven't been giving up outs that has Macha concerned it's because they have been making outs without getting the benefit that out was supposed to produce when asked. How good the pitchers hit has no relevance on sacrifice situations because their hitting prowess isn't useful in those situations. If Macha didn't try to improve on that because his pitchers are good hitting pitchers I'd have a problem. As it is I think he's being proactive in trying to maximize his pitcher's contributions to the offense. Which is exactly what he's supposed to be doing.

[logan82]

If he actually used it as predictive I would agree it was stupid. I

suspect Macha would agree as well. Seems to me he used it as explaining

something that happened not something that is going to happen.

 

I don't think he would. He has used pitcher vs hitter matchups in making decisions in the past.

 

The way Macha actually used those samples was to figure out why he

didn't have success that day. He was saying - I've seen him handle

those guys in the past and the difference is...

 

Just because he handled a guy in the past and he didn't this time means nothing. His pitches looking flat was much more important.

 

Using the information at hand to explain and correct what happened is a

completely normal and valuable analysis. Especially when the

alternative is to wait until he has a large enough sample size against

those guys before he works with Coffey on making some changes. That

would be absolutely insane for any manager to do.

 

Like I said earlier in this thread, you can't wait till hitter vs pitcher matchups have a large enough sample size to be relevant. They never will because by the time they are large enough, both the hitter and pitcher may have changed talent level several times. Hitter vs pitcher matchups are bits of trivia and bragging rights and should be otherwise ignored.

 

If Macha didn't try to improve on that because his pitchers are good

hitting pitchers I'd have a problem. As it is I think he's being

proactive in trying to maximize his pitcher's contributions to the

offense. Which is exactly what he's supposed to be doing.

 

If he wanted to be proactive he would be much better off by never having his pitcher sac bunt. The only time pitchers should sac bunt is if they are brought in as a pinch hitter late in a close game. He would be better served by just letting them hit.

[Thurston Fluff]

If he wanted to be proactive he would be much better off by never having his pitcher sac bunt. The only time pitchers should sac bunt is if they are brought in as a pinch hitter late in a close game. He would be better served by just letting them hit.

 

The Brewers pitchers are good hitting Pitchers not good hitters overall. I'm not sure if for example Narveson and his .281 OBP and .572 OPS scores more runs with a runner on first than Rickie Weeks .354/.776 does with one out and a man on second. If that is the case then there are a whole lot of stupid managers out there. Pretty much all of them in fact. If he's stupid then pretty much every manager is. If your opinion is it's stupid fine but that's pretty much saying you know more about the chances of scoring than every manager in the game. If you feel that way all the more power to you. For myself I'm pretty much willing to admit I don't know and will defer to the 30 managers in the game today.

 

Just because he handled a guy in the past and he didn't this time means nothing. His pitches looking flat was much more important.

 

Of course his flat looking pitches was the more important part of the comment. Doesn't mean the other part was somehow indicative of how he is going to use those stats as a predictive tool. I think his use of the stats was more a way to put his assessment into some sort of context not as the sole tool of evaluation. Certainly not as a predictive tool as you claimed in the original post.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you for feeling the way you do. There are plenty of reasons not to like Macha. I am not as fond of him as I was of Yost, though his unflappable attitude and consistency of his approach to his players is growing on me. I just don't think you need to imagine things that aren't there to justify your feelings.

 

I don't think he would. He has used pitcher vs hitter matchups in making decisions in the past.

 

I do not think he uses it as the sole rationale unless there is nothing else to go on. In those rare instances I don't see how using limited information to base a move on is worse than using no information at all.

 

Hitter vs pitcher matchups are bits of trivia and bragging rights and should be otherwise ignored.

 

For the most part I agree with you. In the absence of other information it is better than none. It should only be used as a predictive tool in instances where there is no other credible information to go on and then only in conjunction with things like a player being hot and having good BP in recent days type of stuff. a rational person bases his decisions on the information he has at hand. I think you would agree ignoring marginal/trivial information in favor of none at all is silly.

looking beyond the extremely limited use of small samples as a predictive tool I think using it as an evaluative tool has some use. knowing a guy always handled a hitter well and see him get smoked by those guys should raise questions. It may very well have been pure luck but to just write it off as such without further evaluation is not wise. If you look back on it and find a flaw then you can fix it. Hard to fix flaws if you write it all off to luck.

[logan82]

If that is the case then there are a whole lot of stupid managers out there. Pretty much all of them in fact. If he's stupid then pretty much every manager is.

 

Never said they were stupid. I said they would be better off letting their pitchers hit. Just because every manager does something absolutely does not mean it is the best way to do things. Bottom line is that you only get 27 outs and giving one up to move a runner over doesn't gain you much even in hte best case scenario.

 

I do not think he uses it as the sole rationale unless there is nothing else to go on. In those rare instances I don't see how using limited information to base a move on is worse than using no information at all.

 

The first problem is that the stats can be misleading if they are a limited sample size. The second and more common problem is the use of a small sample(hitter vs pitcher) instead of a much larger and more reliable sample(hitter stats for the past 2-3 previous years). If a pitcher has a bad arm slot or his pitches something looks off, fine that is what managers and coaches are there to notice. Leave the 1 for 10 comments out of it.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't see how using limited information to base a move on is worse than using no information at all.

 

Hitter vs pitcher matchups are bits of trivia and bragging rights and should be otherwise ignored.

 

For the most part I agree with you. In the absence of other information it is better than none.

But what information are we lacking? If we have hitter vs pitcher stats, we have ALL the stats. We have scouting reports. We know what the guy has done vs lefties, we know what he has done vs righties. If the guy has been playing long enough to have a significant statistical database vs any one pitcher, we have MORE than enough data on his overall stats that are going to be much more useful.

 

You're right that having SOME information is better than none, but I don't see what we're lacking that WOULD justify using pitcher/hitter splits to set matchups.

[Thurston Fluff]

Never said they were stupid. I said they would be better off letting their pitchers hit.

 

I'll say it. If they all chose a path that leads to less runs they are all stupid. Normally the stat heads will tell you it is a way to less runs and I would agree. Since pitchers are not normal hitters normal stats do not apply. I think it's a mistake to use normal evaluations in abnormal situations which appears to me you are doing. If you have some information about pitcher related run production that shows me I'm wrong by all means do. I love learning new things.

 

 

You're right that having SOME information is better than none, but I don't see what we're lacking that WOULD justify using pitcher/hitter splits to set matchups.

 

The absence of other information thought was a way to say the only time I felt using those limited stats as a predictive tool was ok. Never meant to indicate the incident you were talking about was such an instance. When tackling two things in one post I sometimes muddle my thoughts together too much. Sorry.

 

So clarify one thought was small sample stats are only useful when there is a total lack of better information. Even then probably not very useful. I think for the most part we agree on that. I'll add those instances very well may never occur in reality but in theory small samples are better than none at all.

 

The second thought was related directly to the assertion Macha misused those stats as a predictive tool. I disagree with that statement because he didn't use them that way. Macha used it as a way to describe what happened in the past not predict what will happen in the future. All he said was Coffey had flat pitches which resulted in the stats he stated. That makes it a descriptive stat not predictive one. There is nothing wrong with using a descriptive stat the way he used it IMO.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I would certainly agree that in the context of the quote, he wasn't using bvp splits as a predictive tool. I read it as "he's got these guys out in the past, and today he didn't". and nothing more than that. So in that aspect, I agree.

[logan82]

I don't want to go into everything on pitchers sac bunting but read The Book. They have several pages just on pitchers sac bunting. I most cases pitchers shouldn't be bunting except for the very worst hitting pitchers. Whether the defense is playing for the bunt is very important. The base out states are also very important when deciding. With a runner on first and no outs for example, only below average pitchers should bunt most of the time, average hitting pitchers should bunt about half the time and good hitting pitcher should almost never bunt. The biggest reason is that if the defense is playing for a sac bunt that leaves them out of position and gives the hitter a better chance to get a hit. If there is one out all but the very worst hitting pitchers should rarely bunt no matter the base out state.