Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 3)

[gregmag]

I agree with those who have defended RRR on the Wolf / Kottaras decision. Wolf was dealing, and there's no need to risk handing the ball to somebody else at that point. But not hitting for Morgan mystifies me. Nyjer absolutely can't hit lefties, and I'm not sure having him around to play RF is worth losing leverage in such a key run-scoring opportunity. OTOH, Nyjer did make a nice running grab on that slicing liner later in the game, and perhaps Hart doesn't make that play. I can't be too hard on RRR about this, because he did get something for his decision, but it seems to me like the wrong gamble.

 

On Kotsay the night before . . . I think in what profiles as a pitchers' duel, when your guy has flyball tendencies and your corner OFs aren't very good, you have to place a premium on CF defense. Does that mean you play Gomez? I don't think so; I think Nyjer gives you very good defense and a decent chance to do something against Carpenter. If you want to play Kotsay for Hart, I think that's defensible, if (as seems to have been the case) you have good reason to believe that Kotsay will get good swings off Carpenter. But even that isn't an easy decision, because you're replacing a power bat in Hart with a poor hitter. Looking at that game, obviously you can't say what would have happened with different variables, but Kotsay really cost us on defense and on the bases.

[Thurston Fluff]

Since Kotsay isn't a better offensive player than Gomez there isn't anything to really discuss.

 

What numbers are you looking at? His numbers against RHP this season are better. His career numbers against RH are better. His numbers for the last three seasons were better. Last I checked Carpenter was a RHP. If you hate Kotsay so much that you can't admit the obvious there is no point in going further.

[endaround]

You can't compare Gomez's numbers this year to Kotsay's since Gomez faced mostly RH relievers biasing everything against him. Kotsay put up a wOBA of .300 this season and Gomez matched that with a wOBA of .307 vs RHers last season. There is very little difference in their offense, neither is very good.

[homer]

Yeah, I didn't have a problem leaving Wolf in at that point.

[topper09er]

There may be only 1 ball per game that Gomez gets to that Kotsay falls on his face just short of, but it may come at a huge moment in the game...exactly what happened in game 3. The same can be said on offense, but you have more control over the situation whereas on defense you cant predict that a ball will be hit to CF. Bases loaded, 2 outs, the difference between a flyout and a double could end up leading to 3-4-5 runs against you, but if you really think Kotsay is the better bat and Gomez comes up with the bases loaded and 2 outs you can choose to pinch hit there.

 

Also, wOBA does include SB/CS so that probably gives Gomez a decent boost, endaround said better offensive player, not hitter.

[SconnieKid]

Maybe somebody can help me here. Is there someplace I can look that shows me X amount of plays in the field made over the other guy adds Y amount to the win probability?

 

If someone on this board has some type of study that shows how may plays a particular defender has to make above a superior offensive player in order to make up for his sub-par offense I'd love to see it. Then I might be able to make an informed assessment of the Kotsay decision.

You aren't going to find what you want, since defensive metrics aren't nearly precise enough to determine something like win probability. This is a case where statistics aren't really of much use since it is a one game scenario with a very interesting pitching matchup of YoGa vs. Carpenter. With FieldFx data it might be easier to predict the odds on how many outs per game a Gomez or Morgan in CF would save vs. Kotsay, but I wouldn't trust anything that is out there right now. Common sense tells me that Gallardo is a fly ball pitcher, so put your best defenders in the OF, at least when your worst OF (Kotsay) is far, far, far inferior to your alternatives.

The problem isn't that there isn't data out there for Gomez. The problem is that there isn't any data at all for Kotsay being a CF. Because he isn't one. Guys like Bourn are -6 to -7 runs per 150 games. What does that leave Kotsay? Gomez was +27 runs per 150 games. My guess is that there is a far bigger difference between Bourn and Kotsay than between Gomez and Bourn. So that would give him a ~-33. I think the runs/War was like 9.6 this year. So we are literally talking needing the DIFFERENCE between the two of being a Braun/Fielder calibur hitter. These are inexact figures as it includes fielding metrics and some rough estimations but you get the idea.

[Thurston Fluff]

You can't compare Gomez's numbers this year to Kotsay's since Gomez faced mostly RH relievers biasing everything against him.

 

I compared what they did every single season they have been in the league and found each and every season Kotsay did better against RH pitchers. You are using a single season of part time play by both players. Isn't it generally accepted the larger sample size is likely to be the most accurate? But to your point about Gomez facing so many more tough RH relievers how did you arrive at that? He started out as the every day centerfielder then turned into a platoon guy who started against lefties. Kotsay was a pinch hitter for the better part of the season.

[topper09er]

True, Gomez only faced a RH reliever 6 times this season.

 

Overall, Gomez had the platoon advantage 37% of the time this year.

Kotsay had the platoon advantage 94% of the time this year!

[Thurston Fluff]

Also, wOBA does include SB/CS so that probably gives Gomez a decent boost, endaround said better offensive player, not hitter.

 

Good point. However what Ron was looking for wasn't a base stealer. He was looking to get men on in front of Braun and Fielder which has been a severe problem in this series. Thus the decision to forgo Gomez's defense/offenseive skill set for Kotsay's on base advantage. Just like you could pinch hit with Kotsay you could pinch run with Gomez later if needed. What you can't do is pinch hit Kotsay every time Gomez comes to the plate.

 

So that would give him a ~-33. I think the runs/War was like 9.6 this year. So we are literally talking needing the DIFFERENCE between the two of being a Braun/Fielder calibur hitter. These are inexact figures as it includes fielding metrics and some rough estimations but you get the idea.

 

They might be inexact but it was at least an honest attempt. Thanks. I think you are getting to the extreme edge of the difference but at least I can go by something other than Kotsay should never play type of stuff.

[SconnieKid]

I was actually surprised to see that GoGo's baserunning was actually -.7 Which means he was essentially a net negative 1 run on the basepaths this year. So his CS and a few dumb baserunning choices over the year overcame his tremendous speed.

[endaround]

No, it isn't measured that way. Stealing is entirely separate. Its all his bad moments on the bases, of course part of that is the manager's style.

[TheCrew]

Sure, but this is a terrible way to look at things. If a manager puts you in a situation where his player succeeds 15% of the time but another player would have succeeded 25% of the time it is a bad move. 15% of the time it will still work out, 75% of the time it wouldn't have even mattered but 10% of the time he made a mistake that cost you the game. Eventually that 10% is going to bite you in the butt.

Isn't this what a manager is supposed to do? Knowing when to go with a player, even though the math suggests it's not the best move.

 

The correct answer is not always the one that the math suggests will be correct.

[Oxy]

Sure, but this is a terrible way to look at things. If a manager puts you in a situation where his player succeeds 15% of the time but another player would have succeeded 25% of the time it is a bad move. 15% of the time it will still work out, 75% of the time it wouldn't have even mattered but 10% of the time he made a mistake that cost you the game. Eventually that 10% is going to bite you in the butt.

Isn't this what a manager is supposed to do? Knowing when to go with a player, even though the math suggests it's not the best move.

 

The correct answer is not always the one that the math suggests will be correct.

Yes. Exactly. Statisticians will never accept the fact that there are factors that numbers cannot account for, however. And even if they do, they figure that since they themselves are unable to see these factors nobody else can see these factors either (i.e. even managers who have spent their entire lives analyzing and playing the game of baseball). Still, Kotsay should never start in CF :P

[SconnieKid]

You guys need to go see Moneyball. Like now.

[Ennder]

Sure, but this is a terrible way to look at things. If a manager puts you in a situation where his player succeeds 15% of the time but another player would have succeeded 25% of the time it is a bad move. 15% of the time it will still work out, 75% of the time it wouldn't have even mattered but 10% of the time he made a mistake that cost you the game. Eventually that 10% is going to bite you in the butt.

Isn't this what a manager is supposed to do? Knowing when to go with a player, even though the math suggests it's not the best move.

 

The correct answer is not always the one that the math suggests will be correct.

Do you believe the manager who doesn't even know why he left them in there had some super secret reason though? Regardless my point was just saying it worked it must have been the correct move is a terrible way to look at things. I don't claim that anyone can perfectly state what the percentages are.

[Oxy]

You guys need to go see Moneyball. Like now.

I am guessing it tells of the dualistic tension between instinct and reason, how some are lost on the side of tradition while others blindly push for progress through technology and mathematics, when in fact the truth lies somewhere in between. Then again, I could be way off, and it's just a veiled attempt to push the Hollywood agenda by casting Jonah Hill alongside Brad Pitt. Or something.

[TheCrew]

Hey, I never defended him on George/Wolf/Morgan http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Nothing but luck bailed him out of that one and fwiw, I thought Lucroy should have pinch hit.

[SconnieKid]

I am guessing it tells of the dualistic tension between instinct and reason, how some are lost on the side of tradition while others blindly push for progress through technology and mathematics, when in fact the truth lies somewhere in between. Then again, I could be way off, and it's just a veiled attempt to push the Hollywood agenda by casting Jonah Hill alongside Brad Pitt. Or something.

 

No, you pretty much got it. But technology and math trumps the hell out of tradition. Just look around you. A hunch doesn't buy you what it once did.

[Oxy]

[quote author=SconnieKid wrote:

[/b]

No, you pretty much got it. But technology and math trumps the hell out of tradition. Just look around you. A hunch doesn't buy you what it once did.

That's what all the kids say. Wait 'till you are SconnieMan and then come back to me http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

[rluzinski]

Oxy]

Sure, but this is a terrible way to look at things. If a manager puts you in a situation where his player succeeds 15% of the time but another player would have succeeded 25% of the time it is a bad move. 15% of the time it will still work out, 75% of the time it wouldn't have even mattered but 10% of the time he made a mistake that cost you the game. Eventually that 10% is going to bite you in the butt.

Isn't this what a manager is supposed to do? Knowing when to go with a player, even though the math suggests it's not the best move.

 

The correct answer is not always the one that the math suggests will be correct.

Yes. Exactly. Statisticians will never accept the fact that there are factors that numbers cannot account for, however. And even if they do, they figure that since they themselves are unable to see these factors nobody else can see these factors either (i.e. even managers who have spent their entire lives analyzing and playing the game of baseball). Still, Kotsay should never start in CF :P

 

That is just silly. Scientists and engineers make models all the time and none of them quantify every variable. What I'm not going to is assume a person of questionable intelligence can make more accurate predictions simply because he played and managed it. Half the time RR's explanations are nonsensical, which give me good reason to give him the doubt.

[Oxy]

[quote author=rluzinski wrote:

[/b]

That is just silly. Scientists and engineers make models all the time and none of them quantify every variable.

Yep. And the best ones are humble enough to realize this, and understand both the ramifications AND limitations of their findings. Others let their ego get the best of them and ignore certain biases and assumptions that have inevitably entered into their research/models.

[SconnieKid]

Oxy][quote author=SconnieKid wrote:

No, you pretty much got it. But technology and math trumps the hell out of tradition. Just look around you. A hunch doesn't buy you what it once did.

That's what all the kids say. Wait 'till you are SconnieMan and then come back to me http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

I'm all man. I say what I can to talk myself into staying young. We are in a different age. We have infinitely more information at our fingertips now than any generation before us. Suggesting we shouldn't efficiently and effectively utilize this information because we have a hunch, well thats how you end up Ned Yost.

 

 

[SconnieKid]

Oxy]

rluzinski wrote:

That is just silly. Scientists and engineers make models all the time and none of them quantify every variable.

Yep. And the best ones are humble enough to realize this, and understand both the ramifications AND limitations of their findings. Others let their ego get the best of them and ignore certain biases and assumptions that have inevitably entered into their research/models.

And the most arrogant of us disregard all that information thinking we know better. We call that person Dusty Baker.

 

 

[SconnieKid]

[expletive deleted] was RR doing pitching Narveson for one hitter? Ugh. It hurts.

 

 

(edit: language --1992)

[TheCrew]

Trying to get a batter out - which he did with 1 pitch.

 

Narvy should be fine for extended work tomorrow if needed.