Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 2)

[rluzinski]

In the post game, one of the reporters asked RR why he didn't have a pitcher or someone else bunt for Yuni. RR said something I totally agreed with - that the guy up there, Yuni, should know how to bunt.

Like every other skill, some players are better at bunting than others. If Roenicke isn't willing to take that into consideration because it doesn't doesn't fit with his idealistic view of baseball, he's a bad manager. His job is to put the Brewers in the best chance to win.

[Baldkin]

Kameron Loe should be able to get LHB's out, but he can't.

Yuni should be able to bunt, but he can't.

Kotsay and Gomez should be able to hit and draw walks, but he can't.

 

These things were all known going into this season. RRR has chosen to let these players prove and re-prove these things to him time and time again.

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[jmeks23]

Kameron Loe should be able to get LHB's out, but he can't.

Yuni should be able to bunt, but he can't.

Kotsay and Gomez should be able to hit and draw walks, but he can't.

 

These things were all known going into this season. RRR has chosen to let these players prove and re-prove these things to him time and time again.

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

You guys are taking the should and can't argument wayy too far. That's like saying you should be able to do anything you want in the universe but can't. You should be able to bend time but you can't. You can say that about anything.

 

We're talking about a major league hitter dropping down a bunt, which he's done over 30 times in the past. It shouldn't be that much to ask. I know everyone hates Yuni (I do as well) but the fact of the matter is you can't really fault RR for asking Betancourt to drop a bunt down. Yes he "hasn't" done it so far this year. But they practice it everyday in BP, and he's done it a lot in his career.

[topper09er]

This shouldn't be a question where you refer back to stats, you should be able to watch Yuni bunt and know that he is terrible at it. He basically screwed up every aspect of bunting in that AB. He held the bat wrong, he did not bend his knees (which he never does at any time) and put the bat at the top of the strike zone. He did not let any pitch go that was above his bat. He did not have the barrel closer to the pitcher than the handle, thus angling the ball towards 3rd instead of right at the pitcher.

 

Only conclusions,

1) RRR does not pay attention when the guys are bunting during BP

2) He does and doesn't understand baseball enough to recognize Yuni can't bunt

 

And the other annoying aspect of this entire thing is that someone on the brewers throws BP and must see him bunt while getting everything wrong, yet nothing is done about it. Either the coaches

1) don't care

2) don't recognize he has anything to correct

3) Yuni is too stubborn to take any direction/criticism.

 

I remember reading some stories about Yuni getting mad when the Mariners tried to get him to take some pitches.

[FVBrewerFan]

We're talking about a major league hitter dropping down a bunt, which he's done over 30 times in the past. It shouldn't be that much to ask. I know everyone hates Yuni (I do as well) but the fact of the matter is you can't really fault RR for asking Betancourt to drop a bunt down. Yes he "hasn't" done it so far this year. But they practice it everyday in BP, and he's done it a lot in his career.

 

We understand your point, Yuni should be able to bunt. Nobody disagrees with that. But as the MANAGER, RR should know he is terrible at it. Especially when the Cards were fully expecting it, it makes it that much mor diffiuclt to execute the play properly.

 

Here's maybe an analogy you can live with. Kotsay is starting in CF. It gets late in the game with a 3-1 lead and Gomez, Plush, and Hairston are all on the bench. Should RR put in a defensive replacement? I mean Kotsay can play CF, but wouldn't you rather have Gomez out there late in the game to protect the lead? Seems like a no-brainer right? Same thing is true here. Yuni can bunt, but your succes rate goes up rapidly by having someone else bunt who is much better at it.

[Thurston Fluff]

His job is to put the Brewers in the best chance to win.

 

Not to pick on you in particular but I see that thrown around all the time. What non-anecdotal evidence do you see that shows he isn't doing just that? Shouldn't that show up in the difference between the projected record and the actual record? I see the team winning at a better clip that I expected. That would appear to me to show he is indeed putting them in position to succeed at least up to their level of talent. Isn't it possible you aren't looking at the right skills to assess best position to win? Or perhaps that there is no such thing as best position to win? Or at least that it's impact is so minimal as to not hamper the team's record in any way.

[endaround]

Actually that is pretty apt. Kotsay shoudl never be in CF. Yuni should never bat for himself late in a game with as many middle infielders as the Brewers have. In fact he should have been lifted for a PH in the 7th.

[Thurston Fluff]

How have any of those moves prevented us from winning? I think you guys are so stuck looking at trees you missed the forest.

[topper09er]

What non-anecdotal evidence do you see that shows he isn't doing just that?

Brewers record when Gomez was the primary 2 hole hitter (Opening day - May 16): 19-21, averaging 4.17 runs/game

Rest of the season: 62-34, averaging 4.49 R/G

 

You cant put that all on Gomez but that is one way RRR was not putting the team in the best position to win and they didn't score as many runs as they should have. Also Ryan Braun had the most NL HRs in April, so that was a really bad time for a guy with a .278 April OBP to be hitting in front of him.

[Baldkin]

And when one of these moves loses us a game vs the Braves or the Phillies in the playoffs, what happens then?

[Raw Biz]

This just further shows me that Roenicke is a terrible manager (IMO). He thinks yesterday was the first game where Yuni didn't hit a ball hard and because of that, he doesn't need to sit. Yet Hart has sat I believe 3 times since Yuni last has while Hart is clearly a better player. He also thinks Yuni still plays well defensively, which is just untrue. He might make a few flashy plays but for the most part, he is still awful. And finally, he didn't play Taylor Green last night because "it wouldn't be fair" with the game on the line. So I guess instead it's fair to make him sit every game, even though he's probably the best bat on the bench (and better than some starters).

[logan82]

At the beginning of the year when the Brewers were struggling to keep their heads above .500 there were times that Roenicke's tactics made me cringe or dig my finger nails into my skull. The incredible run the team has gone on has made those moments of frustration disappear. However, it only takes one horribly managed game to send all that frustration back to the forefront.

All of RR's "interesting" moves from last night have been discussed and examined so I'm not going to rehash them, however I saw this gem at brewcrewball....

He's now 0-for his last 21, his OBP has dropped to a career-low .267 and he's hitting .102/.117/.203 in his last 15 games. He also hasn't missed a game since July 18.

Why every game Ron? Why?

That made me think of Nancy Kerrigan.

[Thurston Fluff]

Brewers record when Gomez was the primary 2 hole hitter (Opening day - May 16): 19-21, averaging 4.17 runs/game... You cant put that all on Gomez but that is one way RRR was not putting the team in the best position to win and they didn't score as many runs as they should have.

 

That is pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. I would suggest not having Greinke or Hart had more to do with the record and runs scored than where GoGo batted in the lineup. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to show your second hypothesis is actually true. In fact I think the opposite has been shown to be true. Wasn't there a study that showed batting order has very little to do with runs produced.

 

Given the state of this team and where it was projected to be I believe there are three ways position to win could be applicable here.

 

1- They are winning despite not being put into the best position to win. If they are then I suggest to you it doesn't matter to actually winning.

2- They are being put in the best position to win and you simply don't see it because you are looking at the wrong things that effect it.

3-There is no such thing as best position to win. The player either has enough talent to succeed or they don't.

 

 

And when one of these moves loses us a game vs the Braves or the Phillies in the playoffs, what happens then?

 

More hypotheticals? If the players play up to their talent level it won't matter in the least. Our players will win it or lose it not the manger putting someone in the mythical position to win. The odd thing about the position to win myth is I see a lot of the sabre guys espouse it as though it is real. Shouldn't you be measuring it to see if it is real or if it matters before claiming it as truth? Maybe it's not real at all or maybe it's more like wins and batting average? No measure of anything that matters to winning at all.

[thebruce44]

1- They are winning despite not being put into the best position to win. If they are then I suggest to you it doesn't matter to actually winning.

You know as well as the rest of us that it isn't black and white. There are degrees of winning. If they were being put into a better position to win they would be winning more games than they are now and have a better chance to win games going forward. They are at a .596 win percentage right now inspite of not being put in the best position to win, which would be higher if they were managed more effectively.

 

What non-anecdotal evidence do you see that shows he isn't doing just that?

You are asking for something that doesn't exist. What evidence do you see that shows RR is putting the Brewers in the best chance to win?

Since that doesn't exist either can we just use common sense?

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I agreed with RR's decision to bunt. Unlike sac bunting in the first inning, when playing for the one run and taking the DP out and bringing the sac fly possibility in to tie the game, it made sense.

 

Yes, Yuni should know how to bunt, but after watching him for 135 games RR has to realize he is one of the most fundamentally unsound players in MLB. Not putting your hand around the bat on a bunt is something they teach in little league. On the bench sits Craig Counsell who has long outlasted his expiration date by being one of the most fundamentally sound players in MLB. Counsell should probably be retired, yet if you are ever going to use him in a situation late in the game that makes sense, that was it. Even a Counsell basher (and I am not one at all) would admit the guy can make contact and lay down a bunt with the best of them. Plus he'd be a late inning defensive upgrade. Then to make up some excuse that he didn't want to burn the bench, then use him after the Yuni fail as a pinch runner made no sense at all.

 

I like RR personally and it appears his players do as well. He's kept them focused and there is a great vibe around the team that has paid off in emotional contests like they've had with the Classies. But he has made so many questionable managerial moves I can't help but think this will come back to bite them in some close playoff games.

[rluzinski]

His job is to put the Brewers in the best chance to win.

 

Not to pick on you in particular but I see that thrown around all the time. What non-anecdotal evidence do you see that shows he isn't doing just that?

I was referring to RR making the pronouncement of what his players SHOULD be able to do. If he assumes everyone is equally a good bunter, he's blinding himself of reality.

And I do my best to not use anecdotal evidence to strengthen my arguments in general. When a bad choice in baseball still succeeds 40+% of the time, the result of a handful of decisions is largely irrelevant. You know the kind of evidence I try to employ. If you don't it compelling, so be it.

[Thurston Fluff]

You know as well as the rest of us that it isn't black and white. There are degrees of winning.

 

And here I thought you either won or lost. What kind of fool am I? Joking aside I know what you mean. Everything contributes. It's to what degree. On this I think you over estimate those moves importance when weighted against other factors. I've said this early in this thread and it seems to be coming true. How the manager handles the players early matters later. If playing Kotsay in center early for example gets all your players playing their best later then it offsets any minor deficiencies in that particular game. That could be as easily defined as putting the players in the best position to win as whether he makes them hit second in the order. There is really no way of telling which is more important. They often conflict with each other so the manger makes a choice in which direction he feels puts them in the best postion to win. The way to tell if he got it right is if the team is playing up to expectations. If you can't accept results as proof then you made up your mind too early. Now you refuse to accept the evidence for what it is.

 

You are asking for something that doesn't exist.

 

I'm glad you agree the idea of putting someone in the position to win doesn't exist. I have been saying all along it doesn't exist. Or at the very least is worthless. I am perfectly willing to accept I am wrong. Hell I even gave you a path to follow to prove I am. Number 2 above. Look elsewhere for this trait. I will even go so far as to suggest looking at what he does right instead of what he does wrong. It seems to be working.

 

What evidence do you see that shows RR is putting the Brewers in the best chance to win?

 

Their record. The lead in the division. Their bullpen is not depleted, Their starters aren't looking in the dugout every time they get in a jam after the 4th inning. The players are focused and playing hard yet relaxed enough to ride the wave. They have steadily improved since the beginning of the season. This is a team that is winning at the high end of projections.

 

You claim the team is being held back by managerial decisions that don't put the player in the best potion to win. Your burden of proof for me to show it isn't true is to prove he does something above and beyond what anyone thought was possible. Yet you tell me I 'm supposed to accept what you say does exist on faith alone in return. For heaven's sake be reasonable. All I'm asking for is to show me why a manager who manages his team to it's level of ability is somehow not putting them in the position to succeed to their level of ability.

[Thurston Fluff]

I was referring to RR making the pronouncement of what his players SHOULD be able to do. If he assumes everyone is equally a good bunter, he's blinding himself of reality.

 

I think you could equally argue he's setting a precedent so others work at all facets of their game. He's established the way he's going to play. Then he set a minimal level of expectations for each player. If he gets the other players to play to those levels because of it then it offsets what you already claim is minimal damage.

 

And I do my best to not use anecdotal evidence to strengthen my arguments in general. When a bad choice in baseball still succeeds 40+% of the time, the result of a handful of decisions is largely irrelevant. You know the kind of evidence I try to employ.

Yes I do know what you use for evidence. Which is why I picked on you.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif You usually don't use cliche's "like best position to win." When you do I tend to think there is factual meaning behind it. Since you did I thought it fair to ask what that was. As far as the working 40% of the time part, if you accept it is trivial why do you care? Especially if that might conflict with getting them all to play to their best of abilities. If it just bothers you I get it. It's just not the way you like. That shouldn't be confused with good or bad.

 

If you don't it compelling, so be it.

 

It isn't whether I find it compelling or not. It's whether maybe there is another way of seeing things that might be equally compelling. How can you judge two trails when you only traveled one? My way is to ask questions. Whether you find it compelling enough to answer is up to you.

[homer]

How have any of those moves prevented us from winning? I think you guys are so stuck looking at trees you missed the forest.

 

Just because the Brewers win doesn't mean he's making good decisions. They are winning in spite of his decisions (i.e. they are getting great pitching)

[Raw Biz]

You claim the team is being held back by managerial decisions that don't put the player in the best potion to win. Your burden of proof for me to show it isn't true is to prove he does something above and beyond what anyone thought was possible. Yet you tell me I 'm supposed to accept what you say does exist on faith alone in return. For heaven's sake be reasonable. All I'm asking for is to show me why a manager who manages his team to it's level of ability is somehow not putting them in the position to succeed to their level of ability.

Because who knows exactly what that level of ability is? You mentioned earlier about this team exceeding expectations right now because they were only predicted to get something like 87 wins and they were on pace for 93 (just made those up for argument). Well that number really doesn't mean much to me because it is created by formulas, stats, etc. What people are arguing is that the team has won despite bad decisions from Roenicke and that the fact that this team has a lot of talent and many people could probably have done almost as well (i.e. team wins) just by letting them play.

We are saying that Roenicke isn't putting the team in a position to win when he continues to play a very bad SS EVERY DAY without sitting him and then reasoning it with the "fact" that he has hit the ball hard, despite atrocious overall season numbers. He also played inferior players at various positions throughout the year when other options were available on the bench, simply because those inferior players were "veterans." He also stuck with Loe for too long in the 8th inning role, fell in love with the squeeze (and the bunt in general), and countless other things.

The point is that just because this team has played better than expected does not mean that he is a good manager. Most of the time the players (mostly pitching recently) have been the reason for success. Expectations also change as the season goes on.

Also, here's an example. Let's say the Brewers went 8-2 over ten games. Most of the wins were just from the players doing well with no real tough decisions to be made. Then in one of the losses, the Brewers were up by 1 in the late innings with Kotsay having started in CF. Roenicke has already used Morgan to PH and Hairston was already PH for with Counsell. So Kotsay stays in and doesn't catch a ball that any normal CF gets to, resulting in a triple. Then a sac fly, Yuni doesn't get to ball, etc, Brewers lose. In the other loss, Brewers up big so Roenicke uses Loe against some tough lefties who end up hitting him hard, Brewers lose etc. Basically my point is sure 8-2 looks good on paper but it could've been 10-0. Those losses should have been wins but ended up being losses because of bad management. I know this is all hypothetical and the players still need to perform but we need to get as many wins as possible. Just because we are "exceeding expectations" doesn't mean there is good managing going on.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Roenicke isn't putting the team in a position to win when he continues to play a very bad SS EVERY DAY without sitting him and then reasoning it with the "fact" that he has hit the ball hard, despite atrocious overall season numbers.

 

I wonder if Ron's a little too accepting of effort & camaraderie as a manager. Not as cut-throat as fans like me would like to see.

 

Hairston not starting ahead of Betancourt continues to make me sad.

[Baldkin]

I was referring to RR making the pronouncement of what his players SHOULD be able to do. If he assumes everyone is equally a good bunter, he's blinding himself of reality.

 

I think you could equally argue he's setting a precedent so others work at all facets of their game. He's established the way he's going to play. Then he set a minimal level of expectations for each player. If he gets the other players to play to those levels because of it then it offsets what you already claim is minimal damage.

The time to teach YuniB how to bunt is during practice. The time to set an example is during spring training, or during April when you're up 5 against the Astros. The time to NOT do these things is in late August against the team in 2nd place in your division in a 1 run game.

[Thurston Fluff]

Because who knows exactly what that level of ability is? You mentioned earlier about this team exceeding expectations right now because they were only predicted to get something like 87 wins and they were on pace for 93 (just made those up for argument). Well that number really doesn't mean much to me because it is created by formulas, stats, etc.

 

All the arguments I've seen against him are based on stats and analysis of what should happen that are supposed to effect the team negatively. If the projections are based on stats wouldn't it be reasonable to think going by the stats would result in the stats based projections? If we somehow do better than that how can you use stats to say we should be doing still better yet? Somewhere there is a disconnect between what is really happening and what should happen on paper. On paper we are not quite as good as it appears. Paper also says his moves should make us worse than what paper says it should be. Yet we are doing better than what the paper says we should. Isn't it about time to start questioning your suppositions instead of the manager's moves.

 

What people are arguing is that the team has won despite bad decisions from Roenicke and that the fact that this team has a lot of talent and many people could probably have done almost as well (i.e. team wins) just by letting them play

 

It appears to me you start with what you think is absolute fact and refuse to see it isn't true. You know his managerial decisions are bad. Yet when the team succeeds when he does it you don't admit it might be you who is wrong. You say something fantastical happened instead. That the team magically performed as well or better than expected despite this huge liability they suffer with. I call bull pucky. That just seems far fetched. Or an unwillingness to accept the obvious. If the team was projected to win X amount of games and they do then you better have pretty strong evidence to say they did so with a lead weight on their legs.

 

The point is that just because this team has played better than expected does not mean that he is a good manager.

 

Just exactly what does then? Your ideas of when he should play someone, call a bunt or which place in a lineup someone should play?

The time to teach YuniB how to bunt is during practice. The time to set

an example is during spring training, or during April when you're up 5

against the Astros. The time to NOT do these things is in late August

against the team in 2nd place in your division in a 1 run game.

 

I think you're putting a lot of unnecessary emphasis on that game. It was a one run game with a ten game lead and a month of games left to go and a favorable schedule ahead. The time to teach everyone what they need to be capable of is ask them to do it when the situation dictates. Bunting is no more an exclusive spring training thing than batting is. They have batting practice almost everyday. It's a simple skill any major leaguer should know. If they are not accomplished then practice. It is obvious it is a requirement. If they can't do it then blame the player not the manager. It's like blaming an manager of accountants for screwing up because the accountants don't know how to add.

[Raw Biz]

The point is that just because this team has played better than expected does not mean that he is a good manager.

 

Just exactly what does then? Your ideas of when he should play someone, call a bunt or which place in a lineup someone should play?

Part of that, yes. Like others have said, good managers can have bad teams and bad managers can have good teams. Do you honestly think playing Yuni everyday is a good idea? I'm sure everyone would like him released but obviously that won't happen. But why does he play everyday while Hart, Hairston, McGehee, etc. all get days off? You could argue that there are more guys capable of playing SS on the team than any other position. And Yuni is just one example.

And I still don't buy into your expected wins argument. Like I said, expected by who? Some stat/formula? That doesn't tell the whole story in terms of being a good manager. Look at the decisions. If Roenicke had a player worse than Yuni (nearly impossible I know) starting at SS everyday but had a better (though younger) player sitting on the bench all year and the Brewers won 90 games instead of say 87, would you still consider him a good manager? No, because that better player could've added even more wins and he rode the bench all year. I know another hypothetical but I'm just giving an example of how bad decisions can lead to fewer wins while still "exceeding expectations."

[Baldkin]

It was a one run game with a ten game lead and a month of games left to go and a favorable schedule ahead. The time to teach everyone what they need to be capable of is ask them to do it when the situation dictates. Bunting is no more an exclusive spring training thing than batting is. They have batting practice almost everyday. It's a simple skill any major leaguer should know. If they are not accomplished then practice. It is obvious it is a requirement. If they can't do it then blame the player not the manager. It's like blaming an manager of accountants for screwing up because the accountants don't know how to add.

It was a 1 run game that was worth 2 other regular season games, and your analogy is horrible. Bunting is not a simple skill, pitchers prove that every game, its no different than hitting, some players are WAY better at it than others. To use your analogy, it would be like the manager giving something under a time crunch to the person who doesn't really understand it, and might get it done right even though there were 3 other people who know the project, and would be much more likely to get it done correctly and on time.