After 70 games, what's RR's grade so far?

[schuld66]

I know it's seems early, but we're actually nearing the halfway point of the season. The Brewers are 8 games above .500, so how would you grade Ron Roenicke, and why?

[DocBrewPack]

Cant complain about 8 games over .500 and 1st place, but..... I can complain about a lot of other things: lineup, bullpen usage, keeping Nieves for so long.

 

C-

[joepepsi]

C.

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

C-

 

He's had some good in game moves, but the mistakes outnumber them.

[nate82]

C-, but no manager in MLB would be graded any higher than a C+.

[Funketown]

D, relative to other MLB managers, most of whom I find to be borderline incompetent.

 

I'll give him a B for his relationship with the players (too early to judge how they'll like him when they're really struggling) and a solid F for his understanding of the game and evaluation of talent.

 

I do think it's important to have a manager that motivates the players, I just feel like his friendly persona can't even nearly outweigh his incredibly poor understanding of baseball talent.

[logan82]

C is an average manager so I give him an F. He has made bad decisions on almost all the fringe choices he has had.

[DougJones43]

D

 

Would be an F, but the guys seem to like playing for him. That's worth something I guess.

[DHonks]

I don't get worked up over minor things like most people. I look at the record and team effort/energy as we observe it. I give RR a B, trending upwards.

 

I'm starting to think that the best things a manager can add to the team deal with the unmeasureable ideas of energy, optimism, leadership, etc. We saw with Yost that a fiery supportive manager can make lots of mistakes and win. We saw with Macha that poor relationships with the team and a clear lack of communication overpowered his modern ideas that emphasize ultra-conservative strategies. Perhaps RR's communication skills and energy do help encourage the players to thrive. They don't tell Weeks to get thrown out at second foolishly twice, but they encourage him to be the most exciting player that he can be.

[berniebrewer4life]

Bullpen Usage: D-

Team relationship(how well they like him): A-

Bench Usage: C(i don't agree with everything he does, but it has seemed to produce positive results)

Team Record: A.

 

Overall: B

 

Solid for his first 70 games. I don't like that he plays Kotsay a lot, or didn't move Mcgehee when he was struggling, and i think he's horrible with the pen. But the team is in first place, and his platoon with Morgan has worked beautifully(which is easy to say in hindsight, but when he was traded for, i doubt many of us thought he could do anywhere near this level). After having managers like Yost, Macha, and Royster the past few years, i'm happy with him.

[JJHardy7]

Most things are always related to the most recent game, etc here at times, but I think overall he's done a good job. We did have some key injuries to start the season and we're still sitting in a good spot.

 

The bench is questionable, but again, DM put this team together. I don't think RR should take the blame for that at all. And I also think Kotsay being on the team may not be on RR. That probably is on DM.

 

The bullpen thing is my real only complaint. I think overall he's the best manager (small sample) we've had in awhile. I really wish some would embrace the good, but we could be undefeated and he'd get a F grade from some.

[Ennder]

I'll give him a B. The team plays hard without a lot of distractions coming up and that is probably the most important part of his job. He could certainly make some better decisions here and there but the major flaws with this team are in the roster itself more than his mistakes.

[Robideaux]

The record is good because the talent level is better than in previous years, but RR's in game decisions are hurting rather than helping. I don't judge a manager based on whether a specific move works or not, but rather on the decision-making process. For this, he gets an F.

 

There is anecdotal evidence that the team likes playing for him. That's worth something, so I'll raise my grade to a D.

[Raw Biz]

The record is good because the talent level is better than in previous years, but RR's in game decisions are hurting rather than helping. I don't judge a manager based on whether a specific move works or not, but rather on the decision-making process. For this, he gets an F.

 

There is anecdotal evidence that the team likes playing for him. That's worth something, so I'll raise my grade to a D.

I agree with everything here. People seem to be forgetting that Yost had some awful teams to work with and Macha had a terrible pitching staff. Roenicke has arguably the most talented team of the past 20 years. I wouldn't doubt if Macha would have an even better record at this point if he had this team (mainly Greinke/Marcum). He was actually able to get decent results out of the bullpen (mostly the same players) last year, probably because he managed it better.

I'm not judging him based off the record, I'm judging him based off his decisions. I would give him a D+, simply because he seems to relate to the players and sometimes I like his use of defensive shifts.

[TooLiveBrew]

They're winning in spite of his in-game strategy, save the shifts. Relative to other big-league managers, I think I'd go with a D or D+.

[rluzinski]

The players like him but I think that has a very small effect on overall player performance. Over 70 games, no manager is going to have a huge effect on team record so I am not even considering that.

 

He might have influence on who's on the roster but that's Melvin's job so I won't fault RR for it.

 

R's in game strategies sucks, which isn't surprising based off the kind of logic he uses to develop them. He also seems to be poor evaluating talent (Gomez, Kotsay).

 

D

[PrinceEatMeat]

Roenicke has not been good at all this season. He's lost us quite a few games, and I can't say his decisions have won us any game besides maybe one or two. The talent on our team has won us pretty much all of our games. His bullpen management is absolutely horrible, his lineup decisions for the most part have been horrible, his input on roster decisions is horrible, his assessment of talent on and off the roster has been horrible, his sense of holding players accountable for anything has been non-existent, his aggressive style has seemed to do more harm than good in key situations, and there's probably many more but I won't go on. The only good thing is his relationship with the players, and I guess his aggressive style has helped a time or two. Really, he has done a lot more wrong than he has done right. However, the relationship with his players is very important as has been evidenced with previous managers. I can't say he's a complete failure yet, and I still think it's too early to judge him completely. The thing is that most managers have similar problems. So I'll give him a C.

[PrinceEatMeat]

If we wanna go over specific things about him that have pissed me off, we'll start a list....

Continuously batting Gomez in the 2 spot after he proved he couldn't handle it, playing Kotsay in CF, not going to a platoon with Morgan/ Gomez almost immediately, playing Betancourt almost everyday even though he doesn't even deserve a roster spot, wanting to keep Nieves on the roster even though he can't hit better than any of our pitchers, refusing to move McGehee from the 5 hole during his very long slump, sticking Lucroy in the 8 hole pretty much the whole year even during his hot streak, making Loe the designated 8th inning guy after Saito got hurt instead of basing it on matchups and performance, not using Braddock in key spots against lefties, not using Axford in the highest leverage situations late in games or ever for more than one inning, letting relievers not pitch for a week or more at a time and get cold in favor of pitching Loe way too many days in a row, not having a quick enough hook or pitchers ready in the pen when Narveson's meltdowns start, starting Kotsay way more than he should, thinking Kotsay is a good player, not playing Counsell and Wilson, or Boggs while he was here, at all so they are completely rusty off the bench even though there is a terrible player they could play for, and I'll just stop there before it gets out of hand. Add on if you wish.

[Ennder]

I agree with everything here. People seem to be forgetting that Yost had some awful teams to work with and Macha had a terrible pitching staff. Roenicke has arguably the most talented team of the past 20 years. I wouldn't doubt if Macha would have an even better record at this point if he had this team (mainly Greinke/Marcum). He was actually able to get decent results out of the bullpen (mostly the same players) last year, probably because he managed it better.

I'm not judging him based off the record, I'm judging him based off his decisions. I would give him a D+, simply because he seems to relate to the players and sometimes I like his use of defensive shifts.

Yost made much worse in game decisions than Roenicke and Macha completely lost his team. People keep trying to downplay the player management aspect but the in game decisions don't really change things all that much either. The difference between starting Kotsay in CF and starting Gomez in CF for 6 or 7 games is almost nil as well. Most of the things I dislike about him are the same things I dislike about every manager in baseball so hard for me to downgrade him much for any of it. I usually don't feel like smacking him upside the head every time he opens his mouth like Yost and Macha and his players seem to try for him, that is about all I can ask.

 

[danzig6767]

A fair amount of decision Roenicke makes and some of his comments on why he does things will really leave me shaking my head in bewilderment. In watching how most other managers though handle their teams and make decisions, i think he in many ways just follows the managers handbook of today's baseball manager, especially when it comes to pigeon-holing certain relief pitchers in select roles regardless if it's based on logic.

 

Overall, i don't think baseball managers compared to other managers will end up having a significant impact on their team's final record based, unless maybe a manager really abuses starting pitchers which leads to injury or if a team hates the manager so much that some players quit caring as much.

 

So even though i find his decision making and reasons for it to be quite baffling at times, he at least has bought into and brought over the extensive defensive shifting which i think overall has definitely saved more hits than given up. I'd say somewhere around a C and i'd bump that up if he'd stop being so stubborn/stupid by keep trotting Betancourt out there nearly everyday.

[Pack Attack]

First the positives: His players really like him. The infield shifts.

 

Now the negatives: Staying with Gomez in the 2 spot way way to long. Using Loe as his exclusive "8th inning" guy. Keeping Nieves around as long as he did when it was obvious he couldn't hit ML pitching anymore. Not moving McGehee down in the order. Bettancourt. His refusal to intentionally walk hitters to set up force plays and give your team a chance.

 

So the negatives greatly out weight the positives I guess I'd have to give him a low C- teetering on a D+

[chadomac]

I'll give him a C-

 

Count me in with the people that don't think a manager makes a huge difference on a team. The players seem to like playing for him and the shifts have worked out more than they've hurt us, so I'll give him that. I have plenty of things I don't like:

 

- Gomez should've been taken out of the 2 spot much sooner.

- McGehee should've been taken out of the 5 spot sooner (Hart in the 5 spot). Hopefully McGehee is breaking out of that slump right now, though.

- His overuse of Kameron Loe, especially in key situations and against any left-handed hitter.

- His underuse of everyone in the bullpen except Kameron Loe

- Starting Betancourt almost every day despite having both Counsell and Wilson on the roster

 

And finally I will admit that Kotsay is a better hitter than I expected, but I still think relative to the rest of the bench he is getting too much playing time, and I don't really want him playing CF anywhere - especially in San Diego or another cavernous ballpark.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'd give him a C+.

 

I don't have a huge problem with the lineups. He's a little slow making changes, but he's new and doesn't know his personnel all that well. I like the suicide squeezes (which I don't remember Macha ever using). He may have overdone them a little, but believe me when the opponent knows it could be coming, it can mess with them. I also like that he lets Braun run even when Fielder is hitting. So offensively he's a B+.

 

Defensively, I've not been a huge fan of the exaggerated shifts in the past because a pitcher can get discouraged when he induces what normally is a routine groundball that turns into a hit, but they've worked to a great extent so it's hard to complain.

 

His timing and selection of relief pitchers is a mystery. The 8th inning has been a disaster. He's somewhat hamstrung by lack of lefties but he's stuck with Loe far too long. How about using Axford occasionally to get out of the 8th? That worked last year often. His grade for handling pitching is a D.

[joepepsi]

I think he'd deserve a D or F if a team this talented had a losing record. A better manager might have them running away with the division by now, but they are at least performing to an expected level; ie; playing competitive, winning baseball. He gets some credit for at least not screwing things up. That's why I give him a C.

 

He has played Kotsay way too much, but it looks like he's settling with him as a Sunday afternoon outfield stander and a left PH. That's an appropriate role, for a reserve.

 

Nieves is finally gone. Wilson appears to be an acceptable bench player. I think Gomez has value in his current role. Counsell would benefit from more playing time. I think after horrible bench decisions to start the season, the current bench is not bad.

 

If RR can figure out how to use his bullpen in the same manner then he has a chance to really help the team. Despite his long experience in baseball, he's only 70 games into his managerial career. It's a world of difference from being the guy who takes orders to being the guy who's accountable for all decisions. As someone who was recently promoted into a supervisory position, I can tell you there is a lot of adjustment to make even if you are knowledgeable about your job. How much a new leader is willing to learn from mistakes and make necessary changes determines his/her success going forward. RR hasn't been good out of the box, but if he's willing to learn and change as he grows into the job, he has the chance to be very good.

[logan82]

He might have influence on who's on the roster but that's Melvin's job so I won't fault RR for it.

I will. It may be Melvin's decision but since he relies on DPR's input. Until the move to go from Nieves to Kottaras every fringe roster decision has been less than optimal and in some cases just plain wrong. Honestly I think most managers get some input into bench players.