Ron Roenicke Hired as Manager

[JohnBriggs12]

I also hate Sciosciaball. They stole like crazy last year, but were only successful 66.6%. That's horrendous and gives away way too many outs. I don't get why so many people are down on the Brewers hitting home runs. They were fourth in the NL in runs scored this year and third in 2009. Why are they trying to change the approach?

I can't speak for everyone but I was down on the Brewers hitting HRs because we became very hit or miss. It was either a 10 run outburst including multiple HRs per game or we'd score 1 or 2 runs with none or one HR. Maybe my memory is failing but it never seemed to be where they consistently put up 4 or 5 runs per game. The thought being there is more than one way for a team to average 5 runs per game. The Brewers were the team that scored 9 runs one game and 1 run the next. I for one would rather score 4 runs one game and 6 runs the next. Both teams average 5 runs per game, but the second scenario will win you more games.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Brewers have a lot of team speed. It wasn't so much the lack of stolen bases though this team should have at least 3 guys with 20 or more (they had none in 2010), as Macha's reluctance to use the hit and run to move runners and stay out of double plays. Part of running more involves constructing the lineup in a way where you don't have a speed guys batting in front of the pitcher. I also can't remember a single suicide squeeze in the two seasons Macha was at the helm.

 

Yes they need starting pitching help though not all of that has to come from external sources. The guys they have are capable of better and they have less dead weight than they had going into last season. It was clear Peterson's methods were starting to have an effect late in the year. But the offense has been far too dependent on HR and poor at situational hitting. You won't beat good pitching too often playing like that.

[MJLiverock]

Being open to stealing a base or using the speed of the team doesn't mean constantly running into outs. Stealing a base is a calculated risk and hopefully a manager can see that. Having guys like Gomez, Escobar, Weeks, Cain on the team who have used their speed as a tool all through their careers suddenly chained to first base last year was not an optimal use of their talent.

 

It isn't the end of the world if a guy gets thrown out once in a while, odds are he was going to get stranded at first anyway. If the speed guys can steal at a 70%+ success rate that seems to make sense to use that speed. I don't think anyone would advocate having Casey McGehee or LuCroy with constant green lights.

 

Moneyball was about identifying undervalued attributes or talents. Speed and the stolen base seem to be the latest undervalued tool. Everyone gets caught up in giving away outs while ignoring the success rate and halo effect of having a dangerous running game. Catchers haven't had to worry about a wild running game and probably have regressed in their ability to stop the running game. Plenty of pitchers have never had to worry much about their time to the plate. All of these adjustments will have some impact.

 

Looking at the catchers who caught more than 335 innings last year or about 23% of their teams's innings, (picked because it covers about 35 games each or 20% of the games) the average success rate of the steal was 72%. That is the average not just the guys who are actually good at stealing vs. the pool of catchers. That tells me the catching pool isn't really all that great at throwing guys out. Yadier Molina is pretty good, only giving up a 51% success rate, but if the Cubs want to keep putting Soto back there for his bat then make them pay by taking advantage of the 78% success rate of stealing on him. Koyie Hill allowed an 82% success rate.

 

Even the Phillies who are preceived as a HR hitting, top offense, were 4th in the league in stolen bases and were successful 83% of the time. Using the right guys to steal, even if you have some bashers on the team can be a boost to the offense. Looking at the total stolen base numbers is pretty amazing that a team like Philly was 4th with only 108 steals, 129 attempts. This is where I ge the idea that the steal is undevalued, teams barely even try anymore despite the evidence that catchers really aren't all that great at throwing guys out.

[RockCoCougars]

I also hate Sciosciaball. They stole like crazy last year, but were only successful 66.6%. That's horrendous and gives away way too many outs. I don't get why so many people are down on the Brewers hitting home runs. They were fourth in the NL in runs scored this year and third in 2009. Why are they trying to change the approach?

I can't speak for everyone but I was down on the Brewers hitting HRs because we became very hit or miss. It was either a 10 run outburst including multiple HRs per game or we'd score 1 or 2 runs with none or one HR. Maybe my memory is failing but it never seemed to be where they consistently put up 4 or 5 runs per game. The thought being there is more than one way for a team to average 5 runs per game. The Brewers were the team that scored 9 runs one game and 1 run the next. I for one would rather score 4 runs one game and 6 runs the next. Both teams average 5 runs per game, but the second scenario will win you more games.

Exactly, which is why I just roll my eyes when Macha supporters use the team OBP, runs scored, etc. stats in arguments regarding Macha's 'lean against the post and wait for a home run' offense. It was completely feast or famine, and Macha couldn't create a run to save his life, which was one of the reasons that the team was so fundamentally poor on the basepaths and simply getting a bunt down when it was absolutely necessary.

[MJLiverock]

Just for fun I grabbed a year in Fangraphs and picked 1987 without looking at any other years.

 

In 1987 the average NL team attempted 217 steals and was successful 154 times or 71%.

In 2010 the average NL team attempted 127 steals and was succuesful 81 times or 71%

 

Attempted steals have dropped by over 40% on average despite the success rate still being at the acceptable level. I would guess some of that had to to do with the explosion in HR's in the 90's and 00's. As baseball cracks down on PED's the running game may become more in vogue as the HR's drop.

 

In 1987 the average NL team hit 152 HRs and scored 731 runs.

In 2010 the average NL team hit 150 HRs and scored 700 runs.

 

Granted this isn't a full blown regression but I would expect the HR rate to regress toward the older levels like 2010 did rather than remain as high as they were when guys were jacking 60+ with regularity. Teams looking for an edge may well be looking at speed as a way to increase the runs scored. Even with 4 more teams diluting the pitching talent in 2010 vs. 1987 the runs scored were 31 less per team on average which is interesting in a single year comp.

[And That]

Isn't 67%-70% the "break-even" point for stolen base success? If so, a 66% SB% doesn't strike me as something that would sink a team.

[dadofandrew]

Miller Park is a HR park, though it is neutral overall. Doug is smart enough to build a team to the park they play in 81 times a year, and any manager will be smart enough to play to his team's strengths. As is, Lucroy, Fielder, and McGehee are not going to run, and certainly not go 1B-3B very often either. Gomez, Braun, Cain, Hart, and so on have and will continue to do so. Cameron was one of the best at taking an extra base (they keep stats), so losing him hurt, possibly it had others not look to do so as much.

 

Gomez certainly had the green light all the time, so to be honest, I think lots of the players simply did not feel running was worth the risk. I doubt much will change, unless personnel does.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

I think that Roenicke's success or lack thereof will be affected more by his ability to motivate players to play hard and with discipline on a daily basis then by his strategy.

[Oldcity]

NL Stolen Base Leaders

2010: 13th in runs scored (Mets)

2009: 12th in runs scored (Mets)

2008: 8th in runs scored (Rockies)

2007: 4th in runs scored (Mets)

2006: 3rd in runs scored (Mets)

2005: 7th in runs scored (Mets)

 

NL Walk Leaders

2010: 5th in runs scored (Braves)

2009: 2nd in runs scored (Rockies)

2008: 1st in runs scored (Cubs)

2007: 1st in runs scored (Phillies)

2006: 1st in runs scored (Phillies)

2005: 2nd in runs scored (Phillies)

 

NL Home Run Leaders

2010: 1st in runs scored (Reds)

2009: 1st in runs scored (Phillies)

2008: Tied for 2nd in runs scored (Phillies)

2007: 5th in runs scored (Brewers)

2006: 2nd in runs scored (Braves)

2005: 1st in runs scored (Reds)

 

 

You know what creates more runs than stolen bases? On-base percentage and home runs. There is NO CORRELATION between stolen bases and runs scored.

[And That]

There's a very low correlation between SB leaders and R leaders to be sure, but as long as the team is successful in stealing a relatively high percentage of bases, that has some positive value. I'm a fan of successful stolen bases - they help score more runs.

 

To that end, trying to correlate SB with overall runs scored is kind of off base (ha-ha) IMO - stolen bases are such a small part of the overall game that its effect on the total number of runs scored in a season is going to be relatively low. A really bad stolen base team may be worth, at most, a couple wins less than a really good stolen base team. Walks and especially HR obviously have a much bigger impact. However, the incremental impact of successful stolen bases should not be discounted. Every little bit helps.

[Oldcity]

Of course we're all fans of successful stolen bases. I don't see anyone who'd argue that. But it's truly about success rate, and the Angels have hurt themselves by running more than they've helped themselves the last few seasons. Their management's failure to realize that they aren't good at stealing has hurt the team.

 

You admit the impact is incremental. My question, then, is why are so many clamoring for a drastic change in our offensive approach when we've had a top offense for the last several years?

[dlk9s]

For me, I look at the Brewers and stealing like I look at the Packers and the running game. I would like there to be some threat of it to keep the other team honest.

[owbc]

I think those stats are distorted because high HR and high OBP teams tend to score lots of runs in big outbursts. A stolen base isn't going to help you much in a 7-3 game but it could really help you in a 2-1 game. Were the Padres really lucky for winning all those close games, or did they have the skill set and game plan needed to win them?

 

Also, the Brewers offense is specially equipped and can fit into both the fast and power-hitting categories. Usually home run hitters are slow runners, but Braun, Weeks, and Hart can all run also.

 

A top offense is useless if it is as inconsistent as the 2010 Brewers' offense. They couldn't beat elite pitchers and they couldn't win close games, but of course they could blow out the Pirates to distort their stats.

[Warning Track Power]

A top offense is useless if it is as inconsistent as the 2010 Brewers' offense. They couldn't beat elite pitchers and they couldn't win close games, but of course they could blow out the Pirates to distort their stats.

This is precisely the point. Who cares if you lead the league in runs and home runs if a weeks worth of Pirates games enabled it? This was the 2010 Brewers offense in a nutshell. Stats do not tell the entire story. Sometimes you can believe your eyes and my eyes told me the Brewers were a below average offensive team in 2010 despite their impressive numbers.

[greeg35]

Isn't 67%-70% the "break-even" point for stolen base success? If so, a 66% SB% doesn't strike me as something that would sink a team.

2 out of 3 won't sink you; but the Angels are consistently league leaders in attempts, so it hurts them more to give away those extra outs. Even then, it may not sink a team (depending on what they do with the rest of their outs); but it sure isn't smart. In general its worse to do non-smart things more often.

It was completely feast or famine, and Macha couldn't create a run to save his life

As previously stated, the Brewers were 4th in the league in runs so Macha couldn't have been too bad at creating runs...or just letting them happen. One of these days I'll find the time and energy to analyze (or find existing analysis) on the game to game variability of the Brewers runs vs. a team that is widely considered more a "consistent" run scorer. I have a feeling the differences are not significant over the course of the year. Until then, I guess we'll have to rely on the anecdotes and the prevailing attitude of the fans and media who say it was obvious that the Brewers are "boom or bust"

Moneyball was about identifying undervalued attributes or talents. Speed and the stolen base seem to be the latest undervalued tool.

Lo and behold, the A's were 3rd in the AL in stolen bases; but their success rate was about 80%. Undervalued or not, it is not smart to give away outs.

[And That]

You admit the impact is incremental. My question, then, is why are so many clamoring for a drastic change in our offensive approach when we've had a top offense for the last several years?

I, personally, don't want to see any drastic changes to our offensive approach. And as long as we field basically the same lineup and since we have the same hitting coach, I don't see the approach at the plate changing a whole lot. Adding some stolen bases and a hit-and-run here and there to our approach won't hurt team OBP or SLG much if at all, and as long as the SB% is high enough, it will help the team score more runs, and score runs more consistently. Putting some diversity into the offensive will reduce the risk of the long offensive droughts this team has gone through.

[1992casey]

Isn't 67%-70% the "break-even" point for stolen base success? If so, a 66% SB% doesn't strike me as something that would sink a team.

 

I remember someone posting 68.something somewhere, and Tangotiger commented that the figure was as good as any. That's just an average, of course. It might have been in the same place where it was mentioned that the necessary success rate varies with game situation. There are situations where you'd better be successful 90% of the time, and other situations where 60% is adequate.

 

A stolen base isn't going to help you much in a 7-3 game but it could really help you in a 2-1 game.

 

Run-constrained situations are among the times to consider breaking out base stealing as a weapon. Stolen bases shouldn't be an all-purpose centerpiece of a team's offense. That's when the caught stealings start to add up.

[dadofandrew]

I have no doubt Gomez's speed led to several runs. However, finding guys that hit like Braun and run like Gomez are mighty tough.

 

The Brewers had a fine offense. If the pitching had been better, they would have been fine. The Reds offense was almost a mirror image of the Brewers, and they had success, because they did not allow as many runs to score.

[rluzinski]

Isn't 67%-70% the "break-even" point for stolen base success? If so, a 66% SB% doesn't strike me as something that would sink a team.

I've seen estimates of between 65% and 75%. What we need to keep in mind, though, is:

1. The breakeven point changes dramatically based on the base/out situation.

2. The breakeven point is based on maximizing runs. What we really care about is the probability of winning and how it is affected by a SB or CS. Early in the game, maximizing runs is a good proxy for maximizing your odds of winning, obviously.

What I'd like to see is the "win probability added" (WPA) from stolen base attempts, caught stealing and pick offs for each team. That would tell us a lot more about how well the Angels were picking their spots. I am not aware of any site that offers that. Here is some team baserunning information:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2010-baserunning-batting.shtml#teams_baserunning_batting::none

"Stats do not tell the entire story. Sometimes you can believe your eyes and my eyes told me the Brewers were a below average offensive team in 2010 despite their impressive numbers."

Aggregate stats don't but there are plenty of stats that can tell you what you are looking for. Perhaps just look at the median runs scored per game, for instance. Your eyes told you that the Brewers were a below average offensive team in 2010 but what does that even mean? Most define that as the collective team talent to score runs but your definition is different. It's you definition, so you can't be wrong but if you want to compare your opinion to others, shouldn't we be comparing apples to apples?

Because of it's makeup (lot's of HRs), I have no doubt that the Brewers are someone predispositioned to get runs in bunches but I don't think the effect is nearly as dramatic as it was in 2010. It was mostly a fluke, just like the Brewer's early home record last year.

Reading some of Roenicke's interviews, I like to hear him emphasizing the value of getting runners on base. I also appreciate that he completely dismisses superstitions. I am a little concerned about him possibly being too aggressive on the basepaths but there's really no way to know how he's going to manage until he actually manages. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He may pick his spots perfectly and add a couple of wins next year. We shall see.

 

[MJLiverock]

Again no one is saying the team needs to have everyone running the bases on the first move. Use the tools of the guys with the speed, that is all.

 

I'm not sure I follow Greeg point about the A's. an 80% success rate is pretty good and add value. There is such a thing as being too risk averse and "giving away" outs by getting caught stealing isn't bad if you are successful 80% of the time. These steals also avoid outs in double plays and allow a single to score a run which is why that 70% success rate matters.

[greeg35]

That was my point. Its possible that they recognized speed as undervalued; but were smart about using it. So I think we are in agreement on that. Use it as a tool if you have a good chance of being successful at a good rate, and, as Rluz points out, in higher leverage situations. The angels, on the surface, did not appear to be as smart with it.

[logan82]

I am ok with letting our guys run more. I will however turn on Roenicke quick if I see Gomez or Escobar near the top of the lineup or I see the Brewers hitting and running or sac-bunting in non-close and late situations with position players.

[rluzinski]

I just threw this together and it might not contain any meaningful information but it's interesting nonetheless. The first column is stolen bases plus "bases taken" from BR.com. "Bad" includes stolen bases, pick offs and "out on bases". Last year, the Angels were below the Brewers in terms of the net positive difference between the two:

TM	SB + BT	BAD	Diff
TBR	375	137	238
OAK	333	123	210
TEX	322	138	184
NYY	264	97	167
BOS	226	65	161
PHI	235	75	160
CLE	265	107	158
CHW	309	153	156
SEA	277	122	155
NYM	267	118	149
COL	252	111	141
KCR	264	128	136
BAL	236	102	134
MIN	241	108	133
FLA	223	91	132
SDP	252	127	125
LAD	251	129	122
WSN	229	110	119
DET	208	94	114
ATL	203	90	113
SFG	204	92	112
MIL	210	99	111
STL	226	120	106
CHC	192	90	102
LAA	229	128	101
HOU	194	94	100
TOR	179	83	96
CIN	224	129	95
ARI	196	104	92
PIT	180	111	69

 

[logan82]

There were a couple links for Roenicke over at BrewCrewBall.

Baesball Prospectus

Batter's Box

[OldHoss]

I like an aggressive running game so long as it is not running just for running's sake. A healthy dose of prudence is required.

 

Try to turn that long single into a double or that double into a triple if the timing's right. You might force a throw that goes wide. Never turn down free bases.

 

Install the Davey Lopes stopwatch over at first base. He's the reason the Phillies are so successful at stealing bases. I think they're about 80% as a team...but I think I remember reading an article that each player was right around 80% too -- even guys like Howard and Ruiz. He knows how long it takes each player to go from first to second. He knows how long it takes a pitcher to complete his motion and he knows how long it takes for the ball to travel to the catcher. And I'm sure he's got a good idea of how fast the catcher can get a throw to second. Do a little math and you should have a good idea about your chances of stealing a base. When the probability's right: go for it. A good running game can also get a pitcher off his rhythm.

 

Base running also is about the threat of running...make the opposing team hold you on base -- that creates holes in the infield and the possibility of cheap hits.

 

I like the hit and run when you have the right players executing. You need speed on the bases and a guy with a good contact rate at the plate. This is especially true when the batter has no speed. A failed hit and run may ultimately result in two outs, but so does a double play. If used wisely you have a good chance of saving an out; used improperly, you may just guarantee two outs and waste the baserunner.

 

From all accounts, it sounds like Roenicke is well thought and not prone to impulsive moves. If this is true, I have hope that he can employ a successful running game -- one that is both aggressive and prudent.

[topper09er]

What I'd like to see is the "win probability added" (WPA) from stolen base attempts, caught stealing and pick offs for each team. That would tell us a lot more about how well the Angels were picking their spots. I am not aware of any site that offers that.

They seem to have this for every offensive event except SB at bbreference, maybe they will add it soon. Just looking at one game year where the angels stole 5 bases and were caught 3 times http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA200905190.shtml

 

1st: Hunter steals 2nd, WPA = .02

2nd: Figgins steals 2nd, WPA = .01

3rd: Hunter steals 2nd, WPA = .02

3rd: Hunter CS 3rd, WPA = -.07

4th: Kendrick CS 2nd, WPA = -.03

6th: Izturis steals 2nd, WPA = .01

8th: Izturis CS 2nd, WPA = -.03

9th: Abreu steals 2nd, WPA = .02

total: -.05,

and that is stealing at a 63% rate in that game which is below any threshold.

 

In another game they stole 5 bases with 0 CS http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL200908160.shtml

6th: Double steal 3rd/2nd, WPA = .02

7th: Aybar steals 2nd, WPA = .01

8th: Abreu steals 2nd, WPA = .01

13th: Aybar steals 2nd, WPA = .01

 

So they didnt do a great job of leveraging those SBs in this particular game either.