Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 1)

[adambr2]

“He’s been our guy,” said Roenicke. “I still have confidence in him. He’s getting some sinkers up in the (strike) zone. They’re not down like they were earlier.

 

“We’ve been pitching great. You’re not going to pitch great all year. I still really like Kameron Loe and I have a ton of confidence in him.”

 

 

Tell me this is all just manager-speak.

[Fear The Chorizo]

RR biggest problem is hanging on to a player, position in the lineup, bullpen role, etc. too long.

 

That's a catch-22...if he would pull the plug as often on things as some people want he'd have his players' heads spinning wondering what the heck's going on. If you have a good roster you can develop the level of continuity where players settle into their spot in the order or their role in the pen. Bullpen injuries early on and limited options for the bench hurt Roenicke's options somewhat, and sure he could've made better decisions on some specific situations, but I think he's been adequate for a 1st year manager in charge of a good yet thin roster.

[yoshii8]

For a first year manager, I think he is doing a great job and making a lot of good adjustments. It's great to have a manager that the players seem to all like and respect. I could see him being the manager in Milwaukee for a long time.

[RockCoCougars]

RR biggest problem is hanging on to a player, position in the lineup, bullpen role, etc. too long.

 

That's a catch-22...if he would pull the plug as often on things as some people want he'd have his players' heads spinning wondering what the heck's going on. If you have a good roster you can develop the level of continuity where players settle into their spot in the order or their role in the pen. Bullpen injuries early on and limited options for the bench hurt Roenicke's options somewhat, and sure he could've made better decisions on some specific situations, but I think he's been adequate for a 1st year manager in charge of a good yet thin roster.

Exactly. This video game type change in real time mentality is all fine and dandy on a message board- but in real life your clubhouse would be Machaed in short order.

[Ennder]

So much of the on field stuff involves things we don't know about and so much of the after game interviews involves manager speak that I don't worry too much about those things. The players really seem to play hard for him and they walked through the game like zombies for Macha so I give him a thumbs up for that. Some of his in game management confuses me but it isn't as jaw dropping bad as some of the things Yost did.

[Thurston Fluff]

I heard some of Roenicke's comments after the game last night. Tom Haudricourt asked him why he left Loe in to give up five runs. Roenicke's response started with, "What do you mean?" He then went on to talk about only having a few pitchers available, but then he was very effusive about how he thinks Loe is a great pitcher, etc. I think he is enamored with Loe and thinks he's an elite setup man.

 

He also mentioned if they did pull him earlier they would have to use yet another pitcher in there and that taxes the pen more. He mentioned something about how few pitchers they would have ah in the event of extra innings. I also think it matters in the long run. I agree Loe really has been overused so far. I hope that changes sooner than later. I would like to see him use two guys in that setup role.

[FVBrewerFan]

RR biggest problem is hanging on to a player, position in the lineup, bullpen role, etc. too long.

 

That's a catch-22...if he would pull the plug as often on things as some people want he'd have his players' heads spinning wondering what the heck's going on. If you have a good roster you can develop the level of continuity where players settle into their spot in the order or their role in the pen. Bullpen injuries early on and limited options for the bench hurt Roenicke's options somewhat, and sure he could've made better decisions on some specific situations, but I think he's been adequate for a 1st year manager in charge of a good yet thin roster.

Exactly. This video game type change in real time mentality is all fine and dandy on a message board- but in real life your clubhouse would be Machaed in short order.

 

I don't think I suggested that. There is actually something between making changes daily, and letting something go on for two months.

[Raw Biz]

Nieves is hitting .146/.196/.188 and Kottaras .348/.431/.584 in AAA. I have no doubt that Kottaras would be on the team were it not for Roenicke. Melvin needs to take charge and bring Kottaras up and just cut Nieves. He brings nothing to the table and is a waste of space. Haudricourt should show these numbers to Roenicke everyday and ask him why he still wants to keep Nieves. Then when Roenicke brings up his defense, he can play the clip of Nieves dropping the ball from Kotsay that hit him square in his glove.

[xisxisxis]

For a first year manager, I think he is doing a great job and making a

lot of good adjustments.

 

Why does he need a "grace" period? The man's been in baseball 20+ years as a player/coach. What did he do that entire time while he was sitting on the bench watching games? Did he sit their humming to himself with not a thought in his head. He's watched more live games than 99.9% of the posters on this board. Other than Lucroy all of the players on this team have multiple years of big league experience. He shouldn't need more than the few months (from hiring til day 1) to have an idea what each player has to offer. Granted it will take some time to figure out each players personality, but it hardly needs much to figure out that Carlos Gomez shouldn't see the 2nd position in the order more than in an emergency, that Kotsay is spent, Corey Hart is the regular RF and doesn't need a ton of time off, this is not a running team and Kameron Loe is a ROOGY.

 

 

It's great to have a manager that the players

seem to all like and respect.

 

Baseball is littered with managers that players didn't like and it was never an issue as long as the team was winning.

 

 

I could see him being the manager in

Milwaukee for a long time.

 

That's my nightmare too. He's no different than 99% of the other old school managers that have no clue about putting players and teams in the best position to succeed/win. He has a team with much better talent than Macha so they will win more games this year and most people without thinking a bit about the change in personnel will just assume RR is a better manager.

[Raw Biz]

I could see him being the manager in

Milwaukee for a long time.

 

That's my nightmare too. He's no different than 99% of the other old school managers that have no clue about putting players and teams in the best position to succeed/win. He has a team with much better talent than Macha so they will win more games this year and most people without thinking a bit about the change in personnel will just assume RR is a better manager.

I worry about this too. I'm not saying I want him fired but if the team does well this year, it will be because of the personnel and not Roenicke. Managers have some effect on the outcomes (filling out the lineups, managing the bullpen, keeping players motivated, etc.) but the players control most of it. I would say we've actually won a few games this year despite the mistakes that Roenicke has made (Wednesday's game immediately comes to mind). He should be putting the team in the best position to win and I don't think he always does that. Also, it seemed like at the beginning of the year, some people were upset with Roenicke when the team was losing. After they went on that tear, people all of a sudden thought he was doing a good job because they were winning, despite the fact that he was still making the same stupid decisions he has all year.

[Thurston Fluff]

He should be putting the team in the best position to win and I don't think he always does that.

 

I don't know what this means anymore. Is giving a player a chance to work out of a slump putting them in a position to win? Is allowing a young player to bat against same handed pitchers putting them in a position to win? If not does that player ever learn to be anything other than a platoon player? Does putting a player in position to learn, even if they fail at first, automatically mean they are not being put in a position to win? To me the term is more a catch phrase than anything real.

I get there are times being put in a position to win is real. For instance putting in a 35 year old loogy to face three straight righties is not putting a player in a position to win. Other than players being put in positions they were never meant to be in it really is on the player to show he is good enough to be here.

If a player can only succeed if he is perfectly positioned then maybe he just isn't good enough to help a team win. The only way to find that out is to play them in the position the TEAM needs him to succeed in and see if he can. If not then maybe get another player who can fill that role. If there are none then maybe the team just isn't good enough to win.

 

RRR has shown he will give players the chance to succeed. I think that is important over the long haul. Considering his past, Gomez had a good amount of time in center. In that time he failed to show he was good enough and is now in a platoon. It appears Yuni B. is going there as well. McGehee gets a longer leash because he has a better record of success. I personally think he handled their playing time pretty well. He found that balance where players can only blame themselves for their failures while not harming the team's chances of success.

 

If someone feels the need to, the best way to determine if RRR is putting his players in a position to win seems obvious. Their record. If we are winning he must be putting them in a position to win. More likely we just have enough good players that there is no need for perfect placement by the manager. I really do not believe there is any manager out there who can put lousy players in a position to succeed that somehow makes them anything other than lousy players. I also don't think mangers can possibly put good players in a position they can't succeed in. If you are good enough you will succeed. If not you won't. Doesn't matter who puts you there.

[Raw Biz]

He should be putting the team in the best position to win and I don't think he always does that.

 

I don't know what this means anymore. Is giving a player a chance to work out of a slump putting them in a position to win? Is allowing a young player to bat against same handed pitchers putting them in a position to win? If not does that player ever learn to be anything other than a platoon player? Does putting a player in position to learn, even if they fail at first, automatically mean they are not being put in a position to win? To me the term is more a catch phrase than anything real.

Putting Nieves out there when there are better options in AAA immediately comes to mind. And I think we all know by this point that its Roenicke's call to have Nieves on the roster, not Melvin's. All he has to do is tell Melvin he wants Kottaras or Rivera and it's done. When I say putting the team in a position to win, I mean maximizing potential, knowing what stats matter and what don't, etc. Last night he put McGehee 5th and Hart 6th because McGehee had 4 hits in 13 at bats against Lohse, despite the fact that McGehee has been terrible so far this year. That might be nitpicking but it's just one example. Another example is sticking to the defined roles in the bullpen (i.e. bring Loe in the 8th no matter what). It would be better to play the match-ups.

[gregmag]

For a first year manager, I think he is doing a great job and making a lot of good adjustments.

 

Why does he need a "grace" period? The man's been in baseball 20+ years as a player/coach. What did he do that entire time while he was sitting on the bench watching games? Did he sit their humming to himself with not a thought in his head. He's watched more live games than 99.9% of the posters on this board. Other than Lucroy all of the players on this team have multiple years of big league experience. He shouldn't need more than the few months (from hiring til day 1) to have an idea what each player has to offer. Granted it will take some time to figure out each players personality, but it hardly needs much to figure out that Carlos Gomez shouldn't see the 2nd position in the order more than in an emergency, that Kotsay is spent, Corey Hart is the regular RF and doesn't need a ton of time off, this is not a running team and Kameron Loe is a ROOGY.

I get your point, and I agree with you about the mistakes you refer to (and probably more that we could both refer to). But I do think managers take time to adjust to managing. I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't "need" that time; it just happens. Making the decisions differs a lot from watching the decisions get made. If Roenicke is like most managers, he will change some of his approaches over the first part of his career, as he feels the consequences of his mistakes. I also think he has given indications of being an intelligent guy who is capable of learning as he goes. Probably a new manager is also more reluctant than a veteran to bring the hammer down on guys who aren't performing.

 

 

[rluzinski]

It just seems like RR is trying to push his brand of baseball, even if the situation screams to play straight up power baseball. Just last night, Morgan sacrificing in front of a Braun blast, Lucroy sacrificing with the pitcher up next (was that a RR call?), yet another safety squeeze. Just let them play already.

 

The sacrifices in front of Braun and Fielder are really getting to me. You have the two most prolific power hitters in baseball and you play small ball in front of them? And the Brewers seem to be on pace to shatter the world record for outs at home this year.

[topper09er]

yet another safety squeeze. Just let them play already.

He has called 3 squeeze plays (I think?) over the hundreds of times it was possible, and they have all worked. Are you really going to criticize this? Not every event in baseball follows the average result every time. You can look up the average runs scored in any situation but half the time more runs are scored and half the time less runs are scored, the situation needs to dictate what to do. The best managers realize the times when the play that is usually the worse play is actually the better play in a certain situation.

[Oxy]

It just seems like RR is trying to push his brand of baseball, even if the situation screams to play straight up power baseball. Just last night, Morgan sacrificing in front of a Braun blast, Lucroy sacrificing with the pitcher up next (was that a RR call?), yet another safety squeeze. Just let them play already.

 

The sacrifices in front of Braun and Fielder are really getting to me. You have the two most prolific power hitters in baseball and you play small ball in front of them? And the Brewers seem to be on pace to shatter the world record for outs at home this year.

As long as they are making the 3rd out at home I am all for this, unless they are down by 3+ runs or Braun/Fielder is up next. Even if you get thrown out 50% of the time in this scenario you will come out ahead in the long run. Additionally, if the decision is either sitting at third and giving up a guaranteed out at 1st/2nd (or a possible DP), or heading home and forcing a close play at the plate I am all for going home as the benefit of scoring in that situation is not only a run, but it also keeps the other team from recording an out (if they so choose to throw home), and the worst case scenario isn't that bad (same number of outs and baserunners, but you no longer have a guy on third). I think teams are far too tentative to force plays at the plate because of the psychological negative impact of making an out in that scenario. If teams (and fans) can get over that and learn to accept the bad with the good on aggressive plays at the plate more victories will be the result.

 

Of course a big caveat to this is the quality of the defense you are facing, and that's hard to quantify.

[RockCoCougars]

This brand of baseball is much better than sitting around watching Macha wait for a three run homer. Better yet, it seems that the players are more 'enthused' than last season.

[Ayt]

It just seems like RR is trying to push his brand of baseball, even if the situation screams to play straight up power baseball. Just last night, Morgan sacrificing in front of a Braun blast, Lucroy sacrificing with the pitcher up next (was that a RR call?), yet another safety squeeze. Just let them play already.

 

The sacrifices in front of Braun and Fielder are really getting to me. You have the two most prolific power hitters in baseball and you play small ball in front of them? And the Brewers seem to be on pace to shatter the world record for outs at home this year.

He brought it up before anyone even asked in his press conference and said it was missed signs.

[cwolf2012]

Kotsay starting in CF and batting 2nd again today. Ugh, I thought this was over.

[razzzorsharp]

I still think Macha knew more and was a better number cruncher but for whatever reason the players seem to enjoy their job more this year. Whether that is translating into wins I do not know. Whether the players are enjoying the season more because of winning, I do not know.

[YoGasKpose]

Agreeing with those who talk about atmosphere and enthusiasm. I'd love a great in-game manager, sure. And there have been plenty of times this year when I've disagreed with RRR's decision-making, mostly as it relates to handling the bullpen and (not) double-switching. Still, there's something to be said for being able to manage personalities and build a team-first atmosphere. I think that's the most underrated aspect of team sports. You have to get guys to play together, and, even in baseball, where "team" is more of an aggregation than a more-than-the-sum-of-parts type thing, chemistry matters. It's an overused cliche, sure, but it also happens to be true.

I think someone like Ron Gardenhire is a great example of a bad to mediocre in-game manager who still manages to produce successful teams consistently.

[MVP2110]

It just seems like RR is trying to push his brand of baseball, even if the situation screams to play straight up power baseball. Just last night, Morgan sacrificing in front of a Braun blast.

 

The sacrifices in front of Braun and Fielder are really getting to me. You have the two most prolific power hitters in baseball and you play small ball in front of them?

Moving a guy into scoring position with less than 2 outs IMO is generally a good move, unless your down a few runs. Sure Prince and Braun are prolific power threats, but they still hit Home runs less than 10% of the time. Where as they get basehits a little more than 30% of the time. To me it sets up to at minimum score 1 and maybe more.

[endaround]

Moving a guy into scoring position via sacrifice is almost always a bad move. The cost is just too high for something that is often the byprodcut of a normal at bat anyway. And having Morgan bunt makes even less sense. You bunt often to stay out of double plays, Morgan can run.

[homer]

This brand of baseball is much better than sitting around watching Macha wait for a three run homer. Better yet, it seems that the players are more 'enthused' than last season.

The Brewers are averaging 4.3 runs per game this year. Last year they averaged 4.6.

[Invader3K]

The Brewers are averaging 4.3 runs per game this year. Last year they averaged 4.6.

This seems very puzzling. Then again, we aren't even halfway through the season, so I would assume that total for the year will go up a bit. Perhaps a lack of multi-run home runs is to blame? Other than McGehee at 3B, there isn't a position on the field that is greatly under performing last year's numbers from what I can gather (Yuni is basically a wash compared to Escobar's numbers).