Impressions of Roenicke 2012

[3and2Fastball]

If Hardy continues to hit like he did last year for the next 9-10 years he'd actually, as crazy as it might sound, be talked about as a potential Hall of Fame candidate. I know that is a big "if" (averaging 30 HR's a season for 9-10 years into the age 38), but still....

[GormanHarvey]

Right now, Hardy is hitting .178 with an ops of .576. Lots of bad early lines out there. Look at Pujols...just snapped an 0-21 streak with a weak grounder he guided through the right side to beat the shift. Still homerless. Sometimes managers just need to ride it out with these guys.

 

And no, I am not comparing Pujols to McGehee. Or Hardy. Or anyone else, for that matter. Just thought I would mention it.

[logan82]

So anytime Gamel has a bad couple days at the plate Ishikawa will start?

 

"I don't know if the shoulder is bothering [Gamel] other than I know it's still sore," Roenicke said. "I don't know if it affects his swing. He says he's fine, which I'm sure he is. Probably if he would have been swinging great the last couple of days he'd be back in there. It's just my observation that maybe a day would help him."

[fondybrewfan]

I think you are nit picking a bit; he has looked awful the last couple days and I don't see anything wrong in a manager sitting him down for that. He probably is hurt more than he is letting on because between the crappy hitting and the horrible paly he mad at 1B; he just hasn't looked himself that last couple days

[Raw Biz]

I think you are nit picking a bit; he has looked awful the last couple days and I don't see anything wrong in a manager sitting him down for that. He probably is hurt more than he is letting on because between the crappy hitting and the horrible paly he mad at 1B; he just hasn't looked himself that last couple days

 

He's had 2 games back, I don't think you can justify any "crappy hitting" with two days. That being said, I might've given him a day off because of the mental mistake/error on defense.

[adambr2]

This is exactly why I didn't want Ishikawa on the roster in the first place. Just too good of an excuse for Ron to eventually give Gamel a few days off every week.

[fondybrewfan]

Except that prior to Gamel getting banged up at the plate Ishikawa had started one game (maybe 2). Big Deal. Gamel isn't Prince Fielder and has shown that he could or should be in the lineup everyday. Him getting a day off here and there is not going to hinder is development.

[monty57]

This is exactly why I didn't want Ishikawa on the roster in the first place. Just too good of an excuse for Ron to eventually give Gamel a few days off every week.

 

Yep. Putting a guy on the roster because the manager likes him (rather than because he's the best talent or best fit for the team) is a really bad idea. Having that player hit well in the first couple times he's used is probably a bad thing, because now Roenicke will feel justified using Ishikawa, even if he goes 0-for-his-next-30, because he hit a couple of HR early.

 

]He's had 2 games back, I don't think you can justify any "crappy hitting" with two days. That being said, I might've given him a day off because of the mental mistake/error on defense

 

Gamel is not a good defensive player and he's still relatively new at his position. He has better range than Fielder, but that doesn't make him good defensively. If Mat has proven anything during his time in the minors it is that when he gets regular playing time, he's a good hitter. For us to realize the full benefit of what Gamel brings to the table, we are going to have to suffer through some negatives, just like we have to with most every player.

 

Edit: Part of being a manager is knowing your players. If this was done because of the error and not becuase of injury, then I hope Roenicke knows what will best motivate / educate Gamel. Some players will respond better to getting sat for making a "bonehead" play, while others will not respond well. Without knowing all the details, I think the error / bad hitting over two days are an excuse for Roenicke to get Ishikawa another start.

[umphrey]

If Hardy continues to hit like he did last year for the next 9-10 years he'd actually, as crazy as it might sound, be talked about as a potential Hall of Fame candidate. I know that is a big "if" (averaging 30 HR's a season for 9-10 years into the age 38), but still....

 

Hardy was a major candidate for regression this year. No way he hits 25 again. Probably more like 17.

[Funketown]

You know 3and2, if I hit 30+ HR's per year from now on and retire when I'm 38 I'll be a shoe-in .

 

I'd peg Hardy's odds at ~1-2%. He'll go into the hall of "good, under-appreciated players, but not quite good enough for the prestigious Hall of Very Good".

[Thurston Fluff]

So anytime Gamel has a bad couple days at the plate Ishikawa will start?

 

That was a mighty big leap from the quote you posted. Ron has said all along he will not so that. He specifically said Gamel will be given a long leash. He also has said many times in the past that Gamel is not Prince and will not play every day no matter what. I read the comments to mean that all things considered Gamel looked like he could use a day off.

[adambr2]

RR using "Gamel is not Prince" as an excuse to start Ishikawa occasionally is kind of annoying to me. Ramirez, Gonzalez, Hart, and Weeks are all not Prince, but they are all every day starters. If a starter has an injury or otherwise needs a rest day or mental day off, then sure, by all means, but just because Gamel is not Prince, that should not be used as justification to start Ishikawa.

 

The amount of days off that Gamel should have during the season could be easily covered by Hart or Kottaras. Let's not overestimate the value of a bench player like Ishikawa. He is carrying a .208 OBP and is limited to one defensive position, a position that could be played by almost anyone on the roster in a pinch. He could be DFA'ed today with no real affect.

[logan82]

So anytime Gamel has a bad couple days at the plate Ishikawa will start?

 

That was a mighty big leap from the quote you posted. Ron has said all along he will not so that. He specifically said Gamel will be given a long leash. He also has said many times in the past that Gamel is not Prince and will not play every day no matter what. I read the comments to mean that all things considered Gamel looked like he could use a day off.

I don't think it is a big leap at all. He said that Gamel told him he was fine and he was sure that he was fine. He didn't start him because he had a couple bad days.

 

He says he's fine, which I'm sure he is.

Probably if he would have been swinging great the last couple of days he'd be back in there.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't think it is a big leap at all. He said that Gamel told him he was fine and he was sure that he was fine. He didn't start him because he had a couple bad days.

 

I have little doubt Gamel told him he was fine. I also have little doubt if Ron had seen him playing fine he would have chosen some other time to do so. But that doesn't mean he say him, because he was struggling in and of itself. He was simply giving you a snapshot of how he went aobu tdeciding when to give a rookie a day off. We already knew Gamel isn't going to play 162 anyway. I seem to remember something about the 140 - 150 range mentioned though I do not remember where or if it was Ron who said that. Given he isn't going to play 162 it seems logical to pick and choose those off days. Seems to me to make more sense to sit him after a couple rough days, both offensively and defensively, than when he is really hot.

Ramirez, Gonzalez, Hart, and Weeks are all not Prince, but they are all every day starters.

 

Which one of those guys haven't got a few days off a year in their careers? Hell Braun's high water mark was 158 games in his career. Does that mean he isn't an everyday player? You act like Gamel has been on the bench for a week and is now in a platoon. Gamel has played in 19 of the 22 games so far. What about that ratio seems so out of line? If that is your idea of mismanagement I think you are looking for excuses not to like him vs objective evaluation of the situation.

[Baldkin]

He's only started 18/22 games.

What is off by that? That means our no-hit, LH backup 1B is on pace to start 30 games. That is way, way too many.

[GormanHarvey]

He's only started 18/22 games.

What is off by that? That means our no-hit, LH backup 1B is on pace to start 30 games. That is way, way too many.

 

And 2, possibly 3 of those starts were due to Gamel having a bruised/sore shoulder, so your extrapolation of 30 starts for Ishikawa is totally skewed

[Madtown343]

Making the Gamel - ish discussion moot point in my opinion is the fact that Conrad is tearing the cover off the ball.

 

We have a 2B, 3B, emergency C, veteran who has had success pinch hitting who is RH a call a way. He has a huge hole in his swing, is not a savior by any means, but literally fits the exact description of what we need for a bench bat right now. Ish will likely clear waivers and can play everyday at AAA as depth. All he was ever signed for initially.

 

If weeks needs a day off we need to have a player on our team that can spell him. Conrad was banged up to start the year so not breaking camp was acceptable. Continuing to ignore the fact that our ability to rest players, make late game moves, and ultimately win close games is jeopardized is starting to frustrate me.

 

I would love to see Conrad and a healthy knitzler called up soon. I also wouldn't hate Rivas being called up to fill more of the long man role as he seems to have taken well to the pen move. Similar player to Marco in a lot of ways.

[Ennder]

If Hardy continues to hit like he did last year for the next 9-10 years he'd actually, as crazy as it might sound, be talked about as a potential Hall of Fame candidate. I know that is a big "if" (averaging 30 HR's a season for 9-10 years into the age 38), but still....

 

Hardy was a major candidate for regression this year. No way he hits 25 again. Probably more like 17.

 

 

He really wasn't at all. He displayed the same power last year that he has every time he has been healthy. The huge concern with Hardy has always been injuries and how terrible he plays while dealing with them, that would be the reason to expect a big step back. There was nothing flukey about last year for him other than staying more healthy than normal. Hardy is a legit 25-30 HR player and has shown it his entire career while healthy.

[monty57]

He was simply giving you a snapshot of how he went aobu tdeciding when to give a rookie a day off. We already knew Gamel isn't going to play 162 anyway. I seem to remember something about the 140 - 150 range mentioned though I do not remember where or if it was Ron who said that. Given he isn't going to play 162 it seems logical to pick and choose those off days. Seems to me to make more sense to sit him after a couple rough days, both offensively and defensively, than when he is really hot.

 

But he just had three days off in a row (two games and an off day). Surely if he's healthy no one would expect him to need need a rest after three days off/two days on.

 

If weeks needs a day off we need to have a player on our team that can spell him. Conrad was banged up to start the year so not breaking camp was acceptable. Continuing to ignore the fact that our ability to rest players, make late game moves, and ultimately win close games is jeopardized is starting to frustrate me.

 

Me too. I guess the decision will be forced on them if Weeks, Gonzalez or Ramirez get a "day-to-day" injury. If one of them can't go, but isn't going to the DL (or paternity), will we continue to play without a backup for 2B, SS or 3B, or will we finally be forced to send someone...Ishikawa... down and bring up Conrad?

[Thurston Fluff]

Surely if he's healthy no one would expect him to need need a rest after three days off/two days on.

 

He had a young player who was coming off an 0 for 8 streak after sitting a couple days with a sore shoulder. It appeared to Ron he wasn't swinging the bat well and botched a play in the field to boot. So Ron sat him a day and Gamel came back and got his first base hit in a week. And for some odd reason you think that is bad management. I simply don't get it.

[Raw Biz]

Surely if he's healthy no one would expect him to need need a rest after three days off/two days on.

 

He had a young player who was coming off an 0 for 8 streak after sitting a couple days with a sore shoulder. It appeared to Ron he wasn't swinging the bat well and botched a play in the field to boot. So Ron sat him a day and Gamel came back and got his first base hit in a week. And for some odd reason you think that is bad management. I simply don't get it.

 

Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe Gamel would've hit a couple of home runs if he didn't sit. And maybe sitting did help him clear his head. Just because he got a hit, doesn't mean it's because he had a couple of days off. If Roenicke sat him because he thought he was still hurting or he saw something in his swing, that's fine. But if he sat him because he had a couple of 0-fers, then that's bad managing.

[monty57]

Surely if he's healthy no one would expect him to need need a rest after three days off/two days on.

 

He had a young player who was coming off an 0 for 8 streak after sitting a couple days with a sore shoulder. It appeared to Ron he wasn't swinging the bat well and botched a play in the field to boot. So Ron sat him a day and Gamel came back and got his first base hit in a week. And for some odd reason you think that is bad management. I simply don't get it.

 

Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe Gamel would've hit a couple of home runs if he didn't sit. And maybe sitting did help him clear his head. Just because he got a hit, doesn't mean it's because he had a couple of days off. If Roenicke sat him because he thought he was still hurting or he saw something in his swing, that's fine. But if he sat him because he had a couple of 0-fers, then that's bad managing.

 

Well said Raw Biz. As a general rule, unless the better player is injured or needs some rest, I think the better player should play. Everyone gets banged up or tired at some point, so we have backups to fill in when necessary. That's why I prefaced the sentence which Thurston bolded with "...if he's healthy." Maybe his shoulder was sore and needed another day's rest, in which case he should have sat. If the shoulder was fine, he definitely shouldn't have needed a days rest after just getting three of them.

 

To take this to extremes, if Roenicke sat a healthy Braun for a week and played Corey Patterson in his place, it would be a dumb move, even if Patterson somehow hit .750 for that week. Gamel is not Braun, but he is better than Ishikawa, so if he's healthy and not in need of rest, let him play.

[Thurston Fluff]

Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe Gamel would've hit a couple of home runs if he didn't sit.

 

And maybe he would have gone 0 for 20. We can do that kind of game both ways and nobody can be wrong. What we do know as a fact is he was banged up, wasn't swinging the bat very well coming back, sat a day then got his first base hit in a week. And somehow that is evidence that Ron did something wrong in your view. That seems to me you want to find something wrong with him because he didn't do what you thought was right. Doing so to the point that you dismissed the evidence at hand that showed maybe, just maybe you were the one who was wrong. I think if you want to say a manager mismanaged a situation you should at least find a situation in which the results show it was a bad choice. Like Kotsay in center in the playoffs. Then again he could have won us the game just as easily as lost it so using your logic you shouldn't use that as an example of bad management.

 

To take this to extremes, if Roenicke sat a healthy Braun for a week and played Corey Patterson in his place

 

As soon as he starts doing extreme things like playing Patterson over Braun for a week I'll be right beside you calling him a bad manager. Until then I fail to see what that has to do with giving one player who wasn't swinging the bat very well one day off. Unless you can show me how doing that relates in any way to extreme examples that nobody ever does or would do I think it best to deal with reality. In reality he sat a guy ONE day because he felt he was struggling and the next day he broke an 0 for 8 streak. And somehow that good result is evidence that Ron made a bad choice in the matter.

[monty57]

Unless you can show me how doing that relates in any way to extreme examples that nobody ever does or would do I think it best to deal with reality.

 

Sometimes using extremes illustrates a point. The point was you should play the more talented player if he isn't hurt or in need of rest, whether that player is Braun, Hart, Weeks, Gallardo, Greinke or Gamel.

 

Gamel is the more talented player relative to Ishiwaka, so unless he is injured or needs a day off, he should play over Ishikawa. That's reality. Every time a manager "goes against the odds" and plays the worse player, he hurts the chance for a team to win. Odds are just that. In a small sample, going against the odds can work, but over time it usually doesn't.

 

Now, if Gamel was hurt, Ishikawa could have been the better choice and Roenicke made the right move. I've ceded that point multiple times. However, all I said was that Gamel shouldn't have needed a day of rest after just receiving three days off, and you won't cede that point.

 

You seem to think that I'm on an anti-Roenicke rant. I'm not. I'm simply saying that barring injury a mid-20's player in good shape shouldn't need a day's rest when he's rested three of the previous five days.

[Raw Biz]

Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe Gamel would've hit a couple of home runs if he didn't sit.

 

And maybe he would have gone 0 for 20. We can do that kind of game both ways and nobody can be wrong. What we do know as a fact is he was banged up, wasn't swinging the bat very well coming back, sat a day then got his first base hit in a week. And somehow that is evidence that Ron did something wrong in your view. That seems to me you want to find something wrong with him because he didn't do what you thought was right. Doing so to the point that you dismissed the evidence at hand that showed maybe, just maybe you were the one who was wrong. I think if you want to say a manager mismanaged a situation you should at least find a situation in which the results show it was a bad choice. Like Kotsay in center in the playoffs. Then again he could have won us the game just as easily as lost it so using your logic you shouldn't use that as an example of bad management.

 

If you look at what I wrote, all I said was maybe sitting Gamel helped and maybe it didn't. Like you said, there is no way to really know. But you were insinuating that because he got a hit his first start back, the rest was a good thing. I said that there is not necessarily causation between the two. I also said I wouldn't have had a problem if Roenicke sat him because he thought he was still hurt or he was off. But Roenicke came out and said he wouldn't have sat him if he was swinging the bat better (i.e. he actually got a couple of hits). So my inference from that statement was that he sat him because he was hitless for two days, which like others have pointed out, is bad managing because you play the better talent. Of course all of this is moot because Ishikawa will likely be manning 1B for the foreseeable future.