Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 3)

[Bernman23]

RRR excused the lineup's offensive impotency last night on the wind (it must have been blowing in on Yuni and McGehee all year) and credited Green's success partially to luck. It's funny, RRR attributed Green's success partially to good luck but Gamel's failure wasn't mitigated by bad luck with his tremendously unfavorable BABIP. I'm not a big supporter of BABIP's (ab)use in general, but it does have some merit, and I recall he did hit a number of line outs. RRR is just too veteran biased to see from different perspectives. So unfortunately I'd guess we see a similar lineup and order as usual tonight (hope I'm wrong), unless McGehee's injury became more painful after the adrenaline wore off.

 

-----

Continued from:

 

viewtopic.php?p=729734#p729734

 

Original Lead:

 

viewtopic.php?t=24967

[DuWayne Steurer]

RRR excused the lineup's offensive impotency last night on the wind (it must have been blowing in on Yuni and McGehee all year) and credited Green's success partially to luck. It's funny, RRR attributed Green's success partially to good luck but Gamel's failure wasn't mitigated by bad luck with his tremendously unfavorable BABIP. I'm not a big supporter of BABIP's (ab)use in general, but it does have some merit, and I recall he did hit a number of line outs. RRR is just too veteran biased to see from different perspectives. So unfortunately I'd guess we see a similar lineup and order as usual tonight (hope I'm wrong), unless McGehee's injury became more painful after the adrenaline wore off.

With guys like Yuni, it's "he has been hitting the ball hard" (which is complete and utter bullcrap) and with Taylor Green it's 'luck' when he gets a hit. It ***almost*** makes me think RRR doesn't want these kids to do well, so people can't second guess the decision to not bring them up sooner.

[Bernman23]

RRR excused the lineup's offensive impotency last night on the wind (it must have been blowing in on Yuni and McGehee all year) and credited Green's success partially to luck. It's funny, RRR attributed Green's success partially to good luck but Gamel's failure wasn't mitigated by bad luck with his tremendously unfavorable BABIP. I'm not a big supporter of BABIP's (ab)use in general, but it does have some merit, and I recall he did hit a number of line outs. RRR is just too veteran biased to see from different perspectives. So unfortunately I'd guess we see a similar lineup and order as usual tonight (hope I'm wrong), unless McGehee's injury became more painful after the adrenaline wore off.

With guys like Yuni, it's "he has been hitting the ball hard" (which is complete and utter bullcrap) and with Taylor Green it's 'luck' when he gets a hit. It ***almost*** makes me think RRR doesn't want these kids to do well, so people can't second guess the decision to not bring them up sooner.

Yeah, Yuni has had a significantly below average BABIP each of the last 4 years. There's not much unlucky about a pop-up 70 feet in the air not falling. He doesn't hit the ball hard at all on average.

 

Meanwhile, Gamel had a well above average BABIP in 2009, which provided by far the biggest AB sample of his career. He's got quick hands and a line drive stroke (I'd hate for Crew fans to not reap the benefits of it for the future). You'd figure over time, more balls than the average player would fall in than anything, as opposed to the nary few that did this year, improving his numbers dramatically.

 

Green has a line drive stroke as well. All but a couple of his balls in play have been liners. He won't hit .500 the rest of the season, but his hot start hasn't been due much to good luck. He's had a couple near hits that went for naught as well. I'd expect his BABIP to be on the high side throughout his career.

 

I doubt RRR wants the kids to fail, but it takes a lot to dissuade him from his confirmation bias negatively toward rookies, as well as positively toward veterans.

[DuWayne Steurer]

RRR excused the lineup's offensive impotency last night on the wind (it must have been blowing in on Yuni and McGehee all year) and credited Green's success partially to luck. It's funny, RRR attributed Green's success partially to good luck but Gamel's failure wasn't mitigated by bad luck with his tremendously unfavorable BABIP. I'm not a big supporter of BABIP's (ab)use in general, but it does have some merit, and I recall he did hit a number of line outs. RRR is just too veteran biased to see from different perspectives. So unfortunately I'd guess we see a similar lineup and order as usual tonight (hope I'm wrong), unless McGehee's injury became more painful after the adrenaline wore off.

With guys like Yuni, it's "he has been hitting the ball hard" (which is complete and utter bullcrap) and with Taylor Green it's 'luck' when he gets a hit. It ***almost*** makes me think RRR doesn't want these kids to do well, so people can't second guess the decision to not bring them up sooner.

 

I doubt RRR wants the kids to fail, but it takes a lot to dissuade him from his confirmation bias negatively toward rookies, as well as positively toward veterans.

I agree, that's why I said *almost*. There's plenty of managers and GM's out there that have that 'vet' bias, but it's pretty up front and blatant with RRR.

[fondybrewfan]

Not to overly defend RR here but: If you are a manager who is expected to go to the postseason would you rather have a veteran bias or trust an untested rookie. I know we as fans always like the prospects; but in reality I think most if not all managers would much rather go with veterans.

[trwi7]

fondybrewfan wrote:

---

Not to overly defend RR here but: If you are a manager who is expected to go to the postseason would you rather have a veteran bias or trust an untested rookie. I know we as fans always like the prospects; but in reality I think most if not all managers would much rather go with veterans.

When the veterans suck, it doesn't hurt to try the rookie.

[pebadger]

If we're going to throw the whole workplace analogy thing out there, in a lot of places I've worked people get more frustrated when certain workers aren't pulling their weight and yet nothing is done about it.

 

I also find it odd how in this thread:

1) Winning being affected positively by game strategy with a higher statistical percentage of working = Anecdotal

2) Winning being affected negatively by the team being upset that Yuni has to sit once in a while = Factual

Find me some evidence that there are guys who feel that somebody isn't pulling his weight to the extent that a change needs to be made. On the other hand, find me evidence that this team seems to be very comfortable with itself and how things are going.

 

Of course things can be disrupted if it feels like some folks are holding you back. That simply doesn't seem to be the case given all the evidence presented. In fact, this is a team that seems to be very satisfied with its construction and roles. It seems to be a team that is very open to everyone contributing, rather than worrying about who to throw under the bus in the quest for one more win. It seems to be a team that understands that it's not the Yankees, but is going to win anyway. THAT is what chemistry is. It's not about saying, well guys MIGHT feel this way or MIGHT feel that way. They're winning, they're satisfied with how they are winning and they are confident that they will keep on winning. It's an awesome yet potentially fragile thing.

 

It's funny how folks think that somehow the players being human beings shouldn't make any difference at all as to how they perform. Psychology matters in every form of human endeavor. Why WOULDN'T it matter here? We see these guys 3 hours per day about 6 days a week in game situations. They are together 24 hours a day on road trips and about 10 hours a day during homestands. I'm guessing how they interact, their workplace routine and the immense pressures to perform is probably MORE important to them than to the regular guy on the street.

 

Yet somehow we can pooh-pooh all this stuff as if these guys are robots. We know that in virtually every form of human performance change is disruptive. Yet somehow we're just suuposed ot ignore that here. We wonder how it can matter to Corey Hart whether he hits in the 5-hole or not. Guess what. It matters. Maybe there is a means by which someone can make it not matter to him, but until that happens it matters. It's not rational, but most of this stuff isn't rational. When a person commits a heinous criminal act, we often struggle to understand why it happened, when at its heart you often never can. It's very difficult to rationally analyze stuff that isn't based in cold, hard, objective logic (at least to the extent that we understand cold, hard objective logic).

 

This season belongs to the 2011 Brewers. The 2011 Brewers know who they are. You don't get to be a 2011 Brewer until the 2011 Brewers decide you are one of them. You earn that distinction. You earn that trust and respect. Different guys will earn it in different ways, by adhereing to different standards, and at different speeds. Taylor Green is earning that distinction every game he plays. Yuni has earned it by showing up every day, playing SS through the good and bad, and being a good teammate. You usually can't simply impose changes to a group by proclamation and make them immediately work to their greatest effect. The new kid in town doesn't just get to pick his friends and become "one of the guys" in the middle of a school year, even if the group is a really good group who are happy to have a new friend and who view the new guy with zero hostility. In the end it's about trust and expectations. Both of these take time to develop. Everyone on the roster knows there are better shortstops in baseball than Yuni. The difference between them and us is that they are willing to see what Yuni brings to the table and are happy for his successes, rather than unceasingly wishing they had somebody else and fretting over the things he can't do. It's that kind of support of your teammates that makes a differnce, not only to your teammate, but to yourself and to those around you. As soon as you collectively throw one guy under the bus, everyone else knows that they can also be thrown under the bus. When you feel like you will never be left behind if you do what is asked of you, that's a great feeling to have.

[monty57]

It's funny how folks think that somehow the players being human beings shouldn't make any difference at all as to how they perform. Psychology matters in every form of human endeavor. Why WOULDN'T it matter here?

 

Then why didn't the team implode when Weeks & Gomez got injured and we brought in new players (Lopez & Hairston) to start in front of Counsell & Wilson, or when we traded for K-Rod which bumped Loe, Saito, Hawkins, etc down a peg in the 'pen, or when Gamel came up to DH, or most lately when Taylor Green actually was called up and has played well enough to take some starts away from McGehee and apparently leap-frog in front of Kotsay as the #1 pinch hitter?

 

I understand that teams are made up of humans, but MLB teams aren't made up of 10-year-old girls. They understand that this is a business and that it's a game. When McGhee was plodding through a really, really bad few months, I highly doubt anyone would have been so upset with a Taylor Green call up that they would have let it affect their game. Seeing how he's hit and the reception he (and other new players) have received in the dugout, I'd guess we simply would have had one more good player on the 25-man roster for an additional few months this year at the cost of someone like Wilson who isn't doing anything for this team anyways.

 

For every arguement that bringing someone up could upset the fragile psyches of our players, one could argue that not bringing someone up will lead to resentment by the rest of the team that the front office isn't doing anything to try to improve. All in all, it appears that we have a pretty accepting group of players on the team. They cheer for their teammates, whether they be a struggling Counsell or a Taylor Green getting his first hit (it was veteran pitcher Marcum scuffing up the "fake" ball). We have brought in both veteran and young players this season with no apparent change in the team's overall demeanor, so I don't think the "team chemistry" thing Roenicke likes to talk about is really "team chemistry" as much as it's a fear of playing rookies (or maybe more accurately, people Roenicke hasn't seen play).

[Raw Biz]

Monty sums it up perfectly for me. Pebadger, I think your post is just over-the-top. You keep using these analogies that just don't make sense to me (criminals?). Apparently you can't be on the team this year unless the other players on the team agree to it? So did all the players huddle around and vote whether to allow Hairston, Lopez, etc. to join the team mid-season?

I also think you're still putting way too much emphasis on this chemistry stuff. Obviously the players want everyone to do well and will cheer when they do. But I also think they would be willing to accept another player who performs better. If we got Furcal/Barmes/Ryan at the deadline to replace Yuni, would the team have shunned them simply because Yuni was a good teammate? No, they would've made the team better.

Also, these guys want to win. Winning I think is the main reason the chemistry is so good. Last year it was many of the same guys but they weren't winning and the chemistry was down. Some might argue that's because of Macha but really it's because of the pitching this year (IMO). A winning team usually means a happy team. Greinke even said himself that he didn't try as hard at times in KC besides it didn't matter since they weren't going anywhere. Monty nailed it when he said not bringing someone up could lead to resentment by the team that the FO isn't trying to improve. That's what happened with Greinke and he wanted out of KC. The team went on a huge run the last month so they were obviously happy with how things were going. But if Green or someone else that could've improved the team were brought in, I bet they would've been welcomed with open arms.

[DuWayne Steurer]

pebadger wrote

 

 

You don't get to be a 2011 Brewer until the 2011 Brewers decide you are one of them.

 

Or unless Doug Melvin puts a guy on the roster.

 

Honestly, I just can't buy that comment. You only get to be a Brewer if they let you? Unless you have some insight into the clubhouse that no one else here has, I think this is just a baseless statement that's far more of a guess than it is a factual statement, which it's presented as.

[Crew2323]

He put Green in the lineup tonight at 2B and has him batting 6th. He dropped Yuni to 7th. At least he's showing some willingness to tinker. Last nights bottom of the order, aside from Lucroy, was bad.

[markedman5]

I guess Counsell's role wasn't so defined afterall................

 

Good to see Taylor in the lineup

[markedman5]

Also Hairston mentioned that this was a great clubhouse and they welcomed him with open arms from the day he arrived. He said he feels like he has been on the team all season and would be open to returning next year.

[TheBwaz]

Past performance does not predict future results. Defense will stipulate that McKendrick ordered the men not to touch the victim if the government will stipulate no other member of Rifle Platoon Company Windward was in Dawson and Downey's room 5 minutes after the platoon meeting.

 

I think RR is stuck a little by where we are at in the season. He shuffled things right after the break, and then Yuni and McGhee heated up. Now that they have somewhat re-established themselves, it would be very hard to lay both of them back off. Yes, they are pros, and they understand it's a business. I've seen people get laid off and then their depart gets pretty salty for a few days. Do they still do their job? Yes. Is the effort the same as before? No.

 

I'm with pebadger on this (not a popular opinion I notice). We have our spreadsheets of info indicating that taking a different course. RR has spent most waking moments around these guys since February. If anybody here has been in the clubhouse this year without the media present, I'll be happy to hear from you. RR has, and he made the managerial decision to go this way. I don't think it makes sense to go with 13 MLB at bats even with the impressive minor league stats, in all situations.

 

Prince started off 0-11 his first full year, and some in here were ready to jump. Unlike Yost and Macha, I haven't had a moment this year where I thought a decision was completely bonheaded (like yelling at Cappy on the mound, or basically sleeping through 2 years as a manager).

[pebadger]

Yes, the team is accepting and supportive of other guys. That's part of the great chemistry they have. But it's easier to have that chemistry within the framework they are working in, and RR has promoted that framework. Guys become part of the roster when Melvin puts them there. They become part of the team by earning the respect of the guys around them. SOmetimes that respect is earned by simply overwhelmingly good play. Other times that respect is earned by doing your job and fitting in.

 

I don't think this team is fragile mentally. Quite the opposite. They're very solid, they have a good idea of themselves, of their own strengths and their own weaknesses. They know what to expect of themselves, their teammates, their manager and the coaches. That is a powerful thing. Because they are strong they aren't going to implode when setbacks happen.

 

What WILL gradually undermine all that is to introduce doubts about their roles, their strengths, their weaknessed ans their expectations. It's fine to bring in new guys, but you don't just do it and make wholesale changes that disrupt the routine. JHJ didn't disrupt the routine when he came in. CC and Wilson knew what they were in the big scheme of things: reserve infielders. JHJ was brought in to do the job that he is doing right now and he had s track record of success; he wasn't given something for free and he didn't step on toes to make it happen. He earned his keep by performing. Felipe Lopez came in and didn't earn his keep. He's gone.

 

TGreen is working through that process right now, and rather quickly. His performance this season in Nashville helped to speed up the process, but until he came up and proved not to be overwhelmed, he simply wasn't going to be handed a big spot in the player rotation. The major leagues, and the Brewer roster, is full of guys who were not overly blessed with talent and who carved out an MLB career for themselves ahead of guys who were more talented and who did not capitalize on those talents. That's why established guys want to see performance from the new guys they don't really know as players; front office projections and minor league numbers just aren't enough. Especially when a special season is on the line. We can *%%%% about the unfairness of a guy having to prove himself in a small sample size, but life in general is full of that challenge: often you get one or two opportunites at something you really want. If you fail, that dream is gone (or at least deferred).

 

RR has shown himself willing to tinker with the lineup when he feels confident in doing so. The players seem to have his back. They know their roles and are comfortable with them. That's all I'm really saying. This season has the potential to fulfill the lifelong dream of a whole lot of guys who have worked their whole lives to be in this position. It's easy to say somebody else should gamble with that when it's not your dream on the line.

[Bernman23]

Good to see Green in the lineup. I guess there wasn't much of a choice yet if Hairston is still out. RRR was also hyping Green's experience at 2nd base in the post-game presser, which was a turnabout from the previous spin when all middle infielders but Weeks were available.

 

Now that Green has another opportunity, he needs to run with it. 1-4 with a double on Monday didn't make enough of an impression on Roenicke, even though it's average for a 3rd baseman which is significantly better than we can say about McGehee's performance this year. I think TG needs at least 2 hits, or get on base thrice, hit a homer, etc; so there can be no reasonable explanation to leave him on the bench anymore. Also, if he can play a passable 2nd base (aka Keith Ginter-esque), then that would help him get starts on versatility.

 

Also, I talked about it last night; I'm interested to see what McGehee can do with protection other than Betancourt. I was dreading leaving it to Yuni B in the on deck circle, so McGehee could have been of the same mentality. More likely though is minor league stats were reflective of the player he is.

[TooLiveBrew]

For Roenicke, this is really shaking things up, so kudos. Looks like Green still has to prove he's better than McGehee, though.

[fondybrewfan]

For Roenicke, this is really shaking things up, so kudos. Looks like Green still has to prove he's better than McGehee, though.

I get the feeling that McGehee is feeling the footsteps. If Green plays well this last month; the odds just get that much greater that McGehee is going to be playing somewhere else next year. I highly doubt he would be in the teams 1B plans. I also think Melvin would jump at the chance to start Green instead of having to give McGehee a big raise in arbitration after having a bad year.

 

 

[pebadger]

If this weren't Green, and just some non-descript journeyman, would we be railing against RR for just "riding the hot hand"?

 

Another question for those of you who downplay the significance of psychology:

 

For those of you old enough to remember the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team (and those who aren't should just go watch the HBO documentary about them or the movie 'Miracle' right now), how many of the guys on that team, two games into the Olympics, would have traded a single guy on that team for one of the much better players on the Soviet roster?

 

I'm guessing not a single guy would make that trade, no matter how much better the Russian was. And I'm guessing there isn't a single guy on that team that would have at that point traded one of his teammates for an American NHLer either. That is what it's like to be part of something bigger than yourself.

 

Now, if in training camp or the pre-Olympics exhibitions they could have made that trade, they liely would have and they would have adapted. They had to deal with that sort of thing right up until the roster was finalized. But when the games start being played, and you band together behind your teammates and the success you are having, that's a very powerful combination. That US team, underestimated as their talent was, was still not better than the Soviets, or the Swedes or the Finns and probably even the Czechs. They won anyway.

 

Sure, baseball is different. The season is longer. Changes need to be made for a whole lot of reasons. But the dynamics of how teams come together are much the same. It doesn't always happen, or even happen all that often. Sports are full of egos and agendas and all sorts of other individual preferences and conflicts that make teams like that a rare and beautiful thing. But when it does happen, messing with something like that in any way is just not something to be taken lightly. Not because the players themselves are fragile, but because the situation itself is fragile.

 

I agree that overwhelmingly often "chemistry" is an effect of success rather than a cause of success. Most often teams are successful simply because they are overwhelmingly better than most everyone else, and just fortunate enough to beat their closest competitors on a given day or days. It's hard to tell the diference between the two. Often it doesn't matter. But for guys who have been involved in sports long enough, as these guys with this years Brewers have, they usually know when they have something special going. The managers and coaches know when they have something special going. If that makes them a bit more conservative in their approach than we might like them to be, I think that can be both understood and forgiven.

 

I posted a whole bunch in the Green thread that he should have been brought up long ago. I still think that. I wouldn't have object to a move to upgrade the SS position earlier in the year either, though I didn't make that big a deal about it because I didn't think (and still don't think) that there was really all that much out there to go after at a reasonable price. I quibble and flat out disagree with a whole bunch of RR's game decision-making. All that said, I think the man deserves a heck of a lot of credit for how he has managed the team as a collection of individual players who are trying to accomplish something as a group. To me that outweighs all the other mistakes; mistakes which RR would not be alone in making.

[Bernman23]

Past performance does not predict future results. Defense will stipulate that McKendrick ordered the men not to touch the victim if the government will stipulate no other member of Rifle Platoon Company Windward was in Dawson and Downey's room 5 minutes after the platoon meeting.

 

I think RR is stuck a little by where we are at in the season. He shuffled things right after the break, and then Yuni and McGhee heated up. Now that they have somewhat re-established themselves, it would be very hard to lay both of them back off. Yes, they are pros, and they understand it's a business. I've seen people get laid off and then their depart gets pretty salty for a few days. Do they still do their job? Yes. Is the effort the same as before? No.

 

I'm with pebadger on this (not a popular opinion I notice). We have our spreadsheets of info indicating that taking a different course. RR has spent most waking moments around these guys since February. If anybody here has been in the clubhouse this year without the media present, I'll be happy to hear from you. RR has, and he made the managerial decision to go this way. I don't think it makes sense to go with 13 MLB at bats even with the impressive minor league stats, in all situations.

 

Prince started off 0-11 his first full year, and some in here were ready to jump. Unlike Yost and Macha, I haven't had a moment this year where I thought a decision was completely bonheaded (like yelling at Cappy on the mound, or basically sleeping through 2 years as a manager).

That's one argument that the front office apologist likes to fall back on. So by your logic, fans should never be able to question a coach then, even when his decisions are completely inexplicable to the majority of independent eyes observing them or the objective statistics. We aren't privy to what goes on in the locker room. Maybe if we were, we'd see that his other players are motivated by having to overcome statistically the worst 5-6 duo in the majors.

 

Another argument is that coaches shouldn't be questioned by fans because they are inherently more knowledgeable from being offered the position. Sure, because nobody who has a job is unqualified for it. We find out if they were deserving by their performance in the time that follows it being GIVEN to them. Some paid manager's philosophies conflict with others. Should we not question theirs either? One of the two sides has to be wrong. Paul Goldschmidt was started in a division race immediately after being called up and the D-Backs haven't looked back. You mean to tell me that if Brett Lawrie weren't dealt that he'd have to ease his way into the lineup super slowly because we're so comfortable with Yuni B and McGehee? C'mon.

 

There's a right and wrong way to handle this situation. Roenicke has handled it the wrong way. There have been two holes in the lineup throughout almost a full season now and a guy in the minors who projected to upgrade the .OPS in one of their spots nearly 200 points according to some projections based on years of data that's been compiled. Nobody is saying start him indefinitely regardless of performance. But give him a reasonable shot to correct a major problem on the team they'd have to overcome otherwise to win a title. And continuing to play him if he was performing is not an example of drawing upon a small sample. There's more evidence to indicate Green can be a good hitter at the major league level than Betancourt or McGehee. He's basically only been an elite hitting prospect when healthy. Betancourt has never been a good hitter in the majors or minors. And McGehee was a mediocre hitter in the minors before ironically being a much better hitter for his first year and a half in the majors. When has that ever happened? The only other example I can think of is Podsednik, who proceeded to prove his minor league numbers reflective of who he was. McGehee was the hot hand and Betancourt has never been hot.

[Baldkin]

Yes, its all chemistry, that's why the team wins.

 

Gehrig and Ruth hated each other, to the point where Ruth's wife despised Gehrig's mother.

"You don't have to love a guy to play alongside him." ~Bill North said that about Reggie Jackson.... after they got in a fight in their own dugout. Those early 70's A's teams were pretty good.

 

Oh, and if you want to read more, feel free.

 

As for "Riding the hot hand": If RRR were playing Felipe Lopez instead of McGehee, yes, he would be getting railed. You see, he got railed for that for 2 weeks, Lopez hasn't been able to hit for 2 years but since he got 3 hits in his first 2 games, he was set, and Hairston couldn't see the field (and Green didn't get called up earlier to play 2B).

Green had a 1.000 OPS his first time in AAA. Kid can play.

[thebruce44]

If this weren't Green, and just some non-descript journeyman, would we be railing against RR for just "riding the hot hand"?

How is that at all, in any possible way, relevant to this situation?

[Thurston Fluff]

Excessive bunting results in fewer runs scoring. This has been proven by several people. A quick Google search will lead to you the results. If you want to refute, please do so.

 

Sorry it took so long but I did take up your challenge. I found plenty of studies that showed the relationship between runs and bunts. I found none that related to winning more games. I realize more runs are very strongly related to wins. Yet it is not a one to one relationship. There are times when perhaps going for less runs to make sure you get some runs can lead to more wins than sitting back and waiting for more runs at the risk of getting none. That was why we got Carlos Lee for Scotty Po. They wanted to get away form an all or nothing offense. Apparently it worked for the White Sox. I know it was the pitching that they won with. But good pitching is when fewer runs spread out more evenly may win more games than more runs in sporadic fashion.

I am not saying it is so. I am saying it is possible. From what I can find there is nothing more to contradict it than validate it. The problem I've found with some of the studies I looked at is they don't seem to measure the likelihood of one run scoring. Instead they focus on average runs scored. I did find something about a study done by James Click, a writer for Baseballprospectus.com. that appears to address that. I did not see the original work but found reference to it here. If anyone knows where I can read this study I would like to see it. If the methodology is acceptable then the specific situation Rluz talked about a few pages back with Yuni B. appears to show Ron was not so out of line

With a runner on first base and no outs, any

hitter with an on-base percentage (OBP) of at least .206 and/or a

slugging percentage (SLG) of at least .182 – numbers that would

encompass practically every hitter in the majors, including many

pitchers – should swing away. The only exception is when a team is

playing specifically for one run, in which case the thresholds are a

.282 OBP and/or .322 SLG.

I honestly don't remember the whole situation any longer other than it was late, we were down by a run and Yuni bunted. I also don't know if there has been a study done of that specific situation if it differed for the above situation. Or if there is even enough information available to make it worthwhile. In the article linked above Bill James addresses some issues with the never sac bunt mentality. All I know is it seems there are situations where a bad hitter may help score one run more often by sac bunting. Perhaps Ron does bunt to much but the specific example of Yuni B.

bunting late to try to score one run to tie a game doesn't appear to be an

example of it.

 

Keep in mind the difference in sac hits between Milwaukee and Philly for example is 19. I have no way of knowing how many either team's pitchers did so vs one or the other. Either way that is an insanely low number of times that should in no significant way reflect on the overall competence of a manager or his ability to help his team win games.

[Raw Biz]

Excessive bunting results in fewer runs scoring. This has been proven by several people. A quick Google search will lead to you the results. If you want to refute, please do so.

 

I honestly don't remember the whole situation any longer other than it was late, we were down by a run and Yuni bunted. I also don't know if there has been a study done of that specific situation if it differed for the above situation. Or if there is even enough information available to make it worthwhile. In the article linked above Bill James addresses some issues with the never sac bunt mentality. All I know is it seems there are situations where a bad hitter may help score one run more often by sac bunting. Perhaps Ron does bunt to much but the specific example of Yuni B.

bunting late to try to score one run to tie a game doesn't appear to be an

example of it.

If you're talking about the Cardinals game, the issue wasn't simply bunting in that situation. It was bunting with the corners crashing in and not using a far superior bunter (Counsell) over someone who doesn't even have the proper bunting mechanics (Yuni).

[1992casey]

I did find something about a study done by James Click, a writer for Baseballprospectus.com. that appears to address that. I did not see the original work but found reference to it here. If anyone knows where I can read this study I would like to see it.

I can't point you to the original study, but I can point you to a short Brewerfan thread on the article and some discussion at Baseball Think Factory.