Impressions of Roenicke 2012

[Baldkin]

The contact play with the infield in is a stupid, stupid proposition.

 

That is an out at home 90% of the time. If the ball is NOT hit right at an infielder, it is a run anyway. Why put it on?

[jerichoholicninja]

Of all the reasons why Ron should be fired, number one is because of the number of base runners thrown out at home because of the contact play. I would be curious to know the number of times there's been a runner of third that's gotten out on a ball hit to the infield. It seems like it happens every other game.

 

Has anybody actually run the numbers on the contact play or does everybody here just automatically assume that it costs the team runs? I think that the emotional reaction of getting a guy thrown out at home just drives people nuts so much that they try to avoid it at all costs even if it is a decent play by the numbers.

 

People do realize that if the contact play is NOT on, a routine out will almost always be made at first, right? The only time I think it's a horrible play is when there is only a guy on third and nobody out. How many times has the contact play been on in that situation? I can't remember any, but I haven't watched a lot of games this year. If there is one out and just a guy on third, I don't really like the play, but I don't think it is horrendous depending on the runner and where the ball was hit.

 

When there are 2 guys on base, the contact play is always the right play. If it doesn't work, no big deal, you still have 2 runners on base. But if it DOES work, you have a run, and if you happened to force a throw home, you have a run, you STILL have 2 guys on base, and you also have another out to work with in the inning. I would guess that it only needs to work somewhere around 5% of the time in order for it to be worth it in that scenario. You just don't lose very much when it doesn't work.

 

A runner on third with one out or a runner on first with one out. Tell me which situation you would rather have.

[TheCrew07]

Actually the contact play issues are not just limited to the MLB team, it's an organization wide deal I've witnessed T-Rats getting thrown out on it in person and listened to Huntsville, Wisconsin, and Nashville players get nabbed on the radio broadcasts.

 

The Brewers might want to reconsider the employment of whichever statistician completed the study for them suggesting it was a winning move, because it isn't working at any level of professional baseball enough to be a winning strategy.

 

I don't believe this particular strategy is an RR issue, it's something the organization as a whole has adopted.

 

I personally hate it and always have, I bagged on it quite a bit in my Link Report write-ups earlier this season.

[Oxy]

The contact play with the infield in is a stupid, stupid proposition.

 

That is an out at home 90% of the time. If the ball is NOT hit right at an infielder, it is a run anyway. Why put it on?

 

As I said in my post earlier, I agree that it is a poor play with a guy on third and one out. Still, it isn't nearly as horrendous a play people here make it out to be. Even if the guy is dead-to-rights out at home he can just get caught in a run down and allow the batter to get to second base. Then there is a guy on second with 2 outs. Had the contact play NOT been on in that situation, there would be a guy on 3rd with 2 outs. The run expectancy difference between a player on 2nd and a player on 3rd with two outs is 0.043 runs, which means you only have to be successful 1/20 times in order for the play to be a successful strategy. Think about that.

 

Now I realize that you won't ALWAYS get that guy to second base. However, the defense won't always execute either and everybody will be safe and a run will have scored.

 

And this is just the numbers with only a guy at 3rd. With guys on first and third or second and third it skews even more heavily in favor of keeping the contact play on.

 

Quite frankly, if fans could just get over the emotional trauma of "OH no! an out at the plate!!" They could see that it is a good play.

[Oxy]

 

A runner on third with one out or a runner on first with one out. Tell me which situation you would rather have.

 

Did you actually read either of my posts?

[Baldkin]

Now I realize that you won't ALWAYS get that guy to second base. However, the defense won't always execute either and everybody will be safe and a run will have scored.

 

Defensive mistakes cannot be counted on as they can happen whether the contact play is on or not. If it's not on, the 3B could just as easily throw the ball into the stands.

 

The guy almost NEVER gets caught in a rundown as he is breaking for the plate and the ball is hit behind him. He doesn't know where the throw is, or if he needs to get caught in a rundown until it is too late.

 

I'd wager that the guy gets to second 20% of the time at the absolute most.

 

That means the run expectancy difference comes out to be .117, which means it needs to be successful 1 in about 8.5 times, where it would NOT have been successful otherwise for it to be viable. I just doubt that it does that.

[Oxy]

Now I realize that you won't ALWAYS get that guy to second base. However, the defense won't always execute either and everybody will be safe and a run will have scored.

 

Defensive mistakes cannot be counted on as they can happen whether the contact play is on or not. If it's not on, the 3B could just as easily throw the ball into the stands.

 

The guy almost NEVER gets caught in a rundown as he is breaking for the plate and the ball is hit behind him. He doesn't know where the throw is, or if he needs to get caught in a rundown until it is too late.

 

I'd wager that the guy gets to second 20% of the time at the absolute most.

 

That means the run expectancy difference comes out to be .117, which means it needs to be successful 1 in about 8.5 times, where it would NOT have been successful otherwise for it to be viable. I just doubt that it does that.

 

As I said, I agree with you for the most part on this specific situation (guy on 3rd, 1 out, infield in). But there are also times

when you can improve the odds depending on the baserunners involved and the guy on deck, so it shouldn't be automatically denounced as a losing strategy.

 

The odds are also improved by the possibility of saving an out and scoring multiple runs if everybody is safe.

 

Still, if everybody is coached well and executes well (both offensively and defensively) I think it is a sound strategy.

[jerichoholicninja]

 

A runner on third with one out or a runner on first with one out. Tell me which situation you would rather have.

 

Did you actually read either of my posts?

 

No.

[RobDeer 45]

Just wanted to give some love to RRR. He got a team to the playoffs last year, as he was supposed to do, and he's got a team that was a seller and was almost dead, playing meaningful baseball in Sept.

 

Several people disagree with his style and some of his moves, but he does deserve a lot of credit for his results. I kind of think that no matter who our manager is, half the people will disagree with the guy. I guess that's what a site like this is for, to discuss all the different opinions. I just want to give him some credit for his results. Cheers.

[rluzinski]

I think there is a very weak correlation between manager performance and team performance, so I will never use a team's record as a basis for either praise or scorn of a manager. RR gets paid about as much as a utility infielder because that is what he is worth to the Brewers.

[fondybrewfan]

so RR = Cesar Izturis?

 

Talk about an insult

 

I like RR and have always liked him. Sometimes his in game management is "suspect" but through almost 2 years it seems that he is pretty good at pushing the right buttons and keeping the team motivated and playing well. He definitely seems that he is a much better behind the scenes manager than an in game manager but I don't think he is that bad at in game management. He probably isn't worse than anyone else; its just that we watch him every day.

[Thurston Fluff]

I agree there is little correlation. However the small amount there may be is in keeping players focused and playing when they could give up. Not in who he pitches in the late innings or how he orders his lineup or strategic moves during a game. I think this late run, after everything that happened up to August, is evidence of that. Even then I think a lot of that goes to the players who buy into what is being sold. But you still need the salesman to sell it.

[brewmann04]

Yes does RR make some mistakes sure but boy have to give him credit the way he got his team to play down the stretch.

[Mudville9]

I completely agree with Thurston. As far as wins are concerned, I doubt manager decision factor into much more than one or two wins a season....BUT I think if manager can keep teams loose and keep good team chemistry that goes a long way to staying competitive and I think this latest hot streak can be partly do to this effect by RR. Some of our past managers would not be able to claim the same thing. Probably none since Garner.

[jerichoholicninja]

So because of Ron, Weeks is hitting like his normal self, the bullpen doesn't suck anymore, the Pirates collapsed and the Cardinals and Dodgers played a tough schedule?

[topper09er]

I just hope it doesnt work out in such a way that Marcum is the next guy up to pitch the 1 game playoff and RRR goes with him. That would be a disaster but if it was Marcum's turn I have no doubt RRR would start him and leave him in too long

[TURBO]

So let me get this straight.

 

When we sucked, and everything was going wrong, there were certain people on this site who said it was not because of RR.

 

Now that we are winning, there are those who think RR deserves the credit?

 

Ok, just checking.

[fondybrewfan]

So because of Ron, Weeks is hitting like his normal self, the bullpen doesn't suck anymore, the Pirates collapsed and the Cardinals and Dodgers played a tough schedule?

 

By that same logic it also wasn't Ron's fault when Rickie & the bullpen sucked. I don't want to give RR too much credit for the improved individual performances in the 2nd half; but I can't fault him that those guys played so poort before.

 

I really think that is was just a matter of the season playing itself out. The Brewers weren't nearly as bad as June & July indicated and it was a matter of time before they started playing better. Granted no one saw them winning 20 out of 26 or whatever it is; but this team had to much talent for that bad period to last for a whole season.

[RobDeer 45]

I don't think anyone is saying that individual players are exceling beyond their talent because of him, I just think he's kepth them on track, both years. I think it's much more common to put blame for a loss or a season on a manager and sometimes there is cause for giving a guy praise. That's all, just some positive vibes towards our manager.

[Mudville9]

Maybe I should say that it would have been easy for the team to quit and take a "Wait til next year" mentality after Greinke was traded. I think a lot of players have stepped up since that time, and while I'm not saying RR is the reason for all of this, I am saying that whatever he does in the clubhouse made that possible. I guess the only metaphor I can come up with is the throwing seeds on soil or rocks. Although if I want to play devil's advocate with myself I guess I could say that if RR has something to do with the recent hot streak, he also had something to do with the Brewers suckification during the first half.

[JJHardy7]

I give Ron credit for not having his team quit on him. How does he not get some credit for that?

 

I think it's hard to blame or credit him for individual performances, but some managers may not have been able to be calm and keep what appears to be solid chemistry. I know we can't quantify that, but I think it exists. It'll be interesting to see if we actually come all the way back to claim the wild card...we'll see!

[homer]

As much as I dislike Ron's use of the bunt and the way he manages the bullpen to innings instead of situations it could be much worse.....think if Bobby Valentine had been hired!

[Ennder]

There is no way to ever measure how much a manager matters to a team outside of maybe game time decisions. This isn't something new. RR seems like a decent manager to me but there just is no way to quantify it.

[Fear The Chorizo]

For as many injuries and bullpen ineptitude this team suffered, the fact that they didn't quit and have given themselves a shot after trading their best pitcher reflects very well on the approach Roenicke takes with the players. I have no problem venting about certain in-game and lineup decisions that he makes, but I'd argue those may not be as impactful on game outcomes as how he handles the team off the field. A big part of that is having players with the right mentality, but I think Roenicke deserves alot of credit for keeping the team playing hard. No way to quantify it, for sure, but ask Boston fans what Bobby V did to an already shaky clubhouse about how much a manager can screw up a team off the field.

[rluzinski]

How come in professional baseball we give the manager so much credit for keeping the players motivated? This isn't little league, where you have to buy them ice cream after practice. This isn't high school football, where some kid who will never play organized football again needs a pep talk from the coach in order to willingly smash his undersized body into a superior athlete. Most of these guys want to perform well, so they continue making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. 99% of them care about money first, team success second and I wouldn't expect anything more from anyone in this world.

 

I don't give RR any credit for the players not quitting since I wouldn't expect them to. I can't be the only one.