Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 2)

[danzig6767]

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)

Roenicke has made numerous decisions like yesterday which left me really scratching my head questioning what the hell he was thinking.

 

That said, for as many outs as many here believe Roenicke wastes by bunting so much, especially with Morgan, i have no doubt that his very aggressive defensive shifts have saved more outs than it contributed to hits, maybe by a fairly significant amount.

 

During an in game thread, if say a bunt happens many posters will often be very upset and talking about wasting an out. In a fair number of instances, i'll agree with that views of others. Then again, if the bunt helps lead to a run/runs or multiples squeeze plays ended up being a walk off win, Roenicke won't be given credit. Also, on the very numerous plays on the infield where the heavy shifting allowed for a base hit to turn into an out or double play instead, it's not like there will be posters saying great job RR for that shift which likely created an out/outs and may have also saved a run or runs.

 

In fact, if someone charted this enough to try and gauge the number of outs saved by Roenicke's willingness to shift his defenders more aggressively than all to nearly all other managers, it may have ended up saving more outs than all bunting outs combined, discounting pitchers. This wouldn't include the many times where bunting has lead to positive things be it Morgan also getting getting base from a great bunt, not just moving the runner over which also sometimes allowed Weeks or Hart to score on a single. The multiple successful squeeze plays.

 

Again, i agree that Roenicke has made to many really head scratching moves which made little sense, but at the same time i don't think he gets anywhere near the same amount of credit for things he's done well or that worked out better than many here disagreed with, compared to the venom he gets when he does dumb things which make little sense and deserve some strong questioning.

[thebruce44]

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.

While not really an applicable analogy, I find this interesting. In my field, engineering, when I am managing someone if they mess up and it gets past me as a licensed engineering I am required to take full responsibility for their mistake. Wouldn't the manager of this accountant take the blame for hiring an accountant who couldn't add? At the very least, wouldn't people be concerned that this manager didn't know how to properly manage his people and what their strengths and weaknesses were?

[DuWayne Steurer]

. 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.

Like the bruce says, this analogy doesn't work.

 

When I was a foreman for a concrete company, I had a 6 man crew. Every job, I had the same 2 guys put the windows in. Theoretically, I should have been able to have any of my 6 guys do this, but I knew those 2 guys could be counted on to do it RIGHT. IF they didn't do it right, it was my butt, not theirs on the line. Why? Because I already know which of my guys can be trusted. If I choose to have someone else do it, when I full well know those 2 guys are the guys for the job, it's not their fault for not being able to do it right, it's my my fault for knowing ahead of time what the result would most likely be, and choosing to go that route anyways.

 

RR can say all day "Yuni's a pro ball player, he should be able to bunt", that doesn't mean he will. Part of a job of a manager is knowing his players strengths and weaknesses, and blindly ignoring them, and saying "well, that guy OUGHT to be able to do that" is just bad managing, period.

[fondybrewfan]

I would hope all the players would be putting a couple bunts down in every batting practice. You would think Yuni's approach would have been corrected at that point. I guess Yuni could be a good practice bunter but then just freaked out in the game situation; who knows.

 

Between his sorry bunt attempt on Tuesday and his missed Squeeze a couple weeks ago I think RR just needs to end the Yuni bunt experiment right now. The only guys who should ever bunt are Morgan and the pitchers; Hairston and Lucroy could bunt in only obvious bunting situations. No one else should do it period.

[MJLiverock]

Generally, RR's decisions don't bother me much, certainly less than a number of posters here, but I have to agree that using Betancourt to bunt in that situation was dumb. I have no problem at all with the decision to bunt but c'mon, subbing in Counsell there was obvious. Counsell doesn't bring a whole lot of offense but I have a much greater faith in him getting a bunt down than Yuni.

 

The reason I finally posted in the topic was hearing Hardicourt explain RR's thoughts on the radio last night while driving home. He didn't want to use Counsell to PH for YB because he knew he was going to use Kotsay for Hairston and he didn't want to be forced to have Taylor Green make his major league debut batting for the pitcher with the game on the line. Hearing that explanation actually made me angry, I've never called him stupid or idiotic but this one ranks ups there with Yost having Shouse walk Howard to face Burrell.

 

First YB is a terrible bunter, I knew that and I don't even see him bunt that often, second Prince being on 2nd and being slow, meant it had to be a good bunt, third he failed and Counsell came in as a PR anyway. If RR was so worried about using Taylor Green with the game on the line, just let Hairston bat, there was no reason he had to get Kotsay into that spot and could have easily saved him for the pitcher's spot. It's not like Hairston has some awful platoon splits and can't hit a RH pitcher or that Kotsay is so good he had to get him in there. And finally, if the manager is so worried about not having a guy's ML debut come with the game on the line then maybe he should try and get the guy into a game almost as soon as he comes up rather than wait around and act like he is playing a guy short when a game is on the line. A guy making his ML debut is probably so jacked and nervous, having the game on the line probably doesn't make it any worse or better for him.

 

The whole explanation was dumb and at every turn made no sense.

[rluzinski]

I think you could equally argue he's setting a precedent so others work at all facets of their game.

He can use practices and meetings to tell his players what he expects of them. He should use games as an opportunity to leverage the strengths and weaknesses of his players in such a way as to maximize team wins. That's what I'm talking about when I say he should put his players "in the best position to win." I reject the "major leaguers should be able to..." philosophy that managers will throw thereout when they are trying to defend a bad move.

As far as the working 40% of the time part, if you accept it is trivial why do you care?

I DON'T think it's trivial. Far from it. My point is that the closer you are to 50/50 odds, the larger sample you need to be able to judge the effectiveness of a strategy by its results. A sub-optimal strategy that still has the desired result 40% of the time can perform very well over 10 instances. That's why I cringe when I hear a manager can learn from their mistakes as the season goes on. Statistically, the opportunity to do so is extremely limited.

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.

Didn't mean the "so be it" comment to mean, "screw you". I just meant that you are more than familiar with the kind of evidence I offer up at this point. Me dishing out a little more to you isn't going to change your mind, either way. That's not right or wrong, it just is.

I think not subbing Betancourt with Counsell was only a minor mistake. The issues I had were:

1. Bunting at all: I know everyone wants to play for a tie as the home team but I don't think that is sound strategy. Finishing the innings tied still means you have a 50% chance of losing. I could go on and on with why but I just want it noted.

2. Bunting with Fielder at 2B

3. Continuing to call for a bunt attempt when the Cardinals went "all in" on the sac attempt with their defensive alignment on the first pitch. Someone HAS to post a screen grab of the Cardinals alignment just prior to Betancourt's bunt attempt.LaRussa knew he could be aggressive because Roenicke has become painfully predictable despite not being a ML manager for even a full season. "Keep em' guessing" isn't just a cliche. Game theory is very important in this situation.

Can anyone think of a better player to ask to swing away with? Betancourt LOVES TO SWING. Let him swing with the infield COMPLETELY out of alignment.

[scrapiron]

I commend Backupcatchers for fighting the good fight so far.

I find it odd that I come across so many posters (not all on this forum) that think the only "good" manager/gm/other is only "good" if that manager/GM plays things like they would. I go to a Packer forum that a group of posters despise Ted Thompson with the wraith of a thousand white hot suns. To heck with the fact his teams have made the playoffs 3 of the past 4 years and in that time have one a championship. He sucks and that's all there is to it. Any success is either luck or the always wonderful "winning in spite of him".

Here is another example of such irrationality. I find it odd that it happens on this forum. Up to this point there are only two conclusions you can draw.

1) That regardless of how head-scratching or incomprehensible, a mangers in game decisions have little if anything to do with the overall success of the team. They might increase or decrease a teams chances in any one particular game or instance, but over the course of the year, and heck even the playoffs, it matters little, and the teams success is primarily derived from the talent on hand and how they perform in any given instance.

or

2) Ron Roenicke is actually a good manager.

Now these conclusions can change over time, even this year. But from what evidence there is on hand these are are only conclusions you can draw NOW, at this point. The team is winning, in first place by 8.5 games, has improved over time and is playing up to or even exceeding expectations. Yet through all of this he sucks, and this from a forum that generally argues facts and statistics over opinion and hyperbole. Me, I'm more on the side of #1.

I get that people don't like how he does things, nothing wrong with that. But just because you don't like they way he does things doesn't mean he's incompetent at what he does. Thats akin to saying that there's only one way that things can work, point blank and period. If I don't agree with it its wrong. I'm not sold on RR, the jury is still out on him as the season still has a month to go. The team may collapse, who knows. But to this point he at least hasn't [expletive deleted] anything up. Up to this point he hasn't been a "bad" manager.

The whole bad managers can have good teams and do good while good managers can have bad teams and be bad may be true but also silly and pointless to argue.

1) what truth there is to it only reasserts that mangers have little to do with the outcome of games and...

2) ...makes it so there is no objective way to measure a mangers competency. What only matters is what one or a group of peoples opinions are of him and his managerial style are. Championships and record are meaningless. By that reasoning the Brewers can win the next 4 championships and RR would still be a bad manager.

People don't like what RR has done in his decisions, thats fine. But he hasn't done a poor job. His players like him and are playing for him. That's probably the most important thing he done and why he's been successful to this point.

 

 

(edit: language --1992)

[TooLiveBrew]

I commend Backupcatchers for fighting the good fight so far.

 

I probably shouldn't even waste my time on this, but if the "good fight" is defending a clearly bad in-game strategist with 'hey he hasn't driven the team bus off a cliff!', I'm happy to say I have been fighting & will continue to fight the "bad fight".

 

 

But to this point he at least hasn't [expletive deleted] anything up. Up to this point he hasn't been a "bad" manager.

 

I don't think you're being objective at all. I think he's messed plenty of things up, & continues to do so.

[scrapiron]

I don't think you're being objective at all. I think he's messed plenty of things up, & continues to do so.

 

 

And those things that he continually messes up on have done little to mess the team up at this point, and I never once implied that he hasn't done anything wrong or at least things I haven't agreed with. I'm being objective because I'm not letting my opinions on how I think he should be doing things but by the results of the team. I'm at least giving RR a chance to see how things play out before coming to any conclusion. I don't like a lot of the stuff he's done AT ALL, but I'm objective enough to know that there can be more than one way to do things and that what matters in the end is the result, not the path taken to get there.

And you're fighting a bad fight because you automatically assume that he is driving over the cliff, regardless of result. That things have to be a certain way to achieve any sort of success. Sure, the straight percentage plays he's done are poor and I dislike them just as much, but again, how much does that affect anything?

The team is winning, and people are upset with RR. He's had success to this point and that upsets people? the team may collapse or may not, but why not just enjoy and let the chips fall where they may. It may be proven that the RR haters were right, it may not. If they win I really don't care.

[scrapiron]

It seems I've violated some language rules, this I apologize for.

[Raw Biz]

Choosing to lay a bunt down in the 1st inning of one game won't have a large effect on the whole year obviously. But when you start doing it every game, squeeze twice a month, become predictable in when you bunt (i.e. not changing strategy when you see the IF charging in), refuse to sit two guys having terrible years when there are better options, etc., all of that stuff adds up. So yes, I think these bad decisions definitely have a large effect on the overall success of the team.

[Raw Biz]

scrapiron wrote:

The team is winning, and people are upset with RR. He's had success to this point and that upsets people? the team may collapse or may not, but why not just enjoy and let the chips fall where they may. It may be proven that the RR haters were right, it may not. If they win I really don't care.

The team is winning. This team probably would've won with just about any manager because of its talent alone. Obviously the Brewers aren't the Yankees but if you stuck a 12 year old kid in that dugout and told him to manage, I bet that team would still come close to making the playoffs. The point I've been making all along is that the Brewers could have had a few extra wins if Roenicke made better decisions. We've also come back to win games that Loe blew by pitching to power-hitting lefties (which Roenicke should have known to not use Loe in those situations).

Also, the Roenicke supporters have not explained why Yuni/McGehee are still starting every game. Even if you throw out all in-game strategy stuff, there is no way I can see anyone reasonably defend that fact when there are better options on the bench.

 

[Thurston Fluff]

He can use practices and meetings to tell his players what he expects of them.

 

What is the use of telling them what he expects if he then can't expect it from them during a game? I understand what you are saying. If they can't do it then it is stupid to ask them to. Yuni had his first sac bunt attempt. It failed. Back when LuCroy had his first suicide squeeze call he succeeded at it. The expectation for both of them was to get the job done because both of them knew, or should have known, they are expected to be able to do it. When they can't I tend to blame the player while you tend to think the manager should have known better than to ask it of him. I honestly don't see a right or wrong side in that. They are just different opinions of the situation.

 

I DON'T think it's trivial. Far from it. My point is that the closer you are to 50/50 odds, the larger sample you need to be able to judge the effectiveness of a strategy by its results. A sub-optimal strategy that still has the desired result 40% of the time can perform very well over 10 instances. That's why I cringe when I hear a manager can learn from their mistakes as the season goes on. Statistically, the opportunity to do so is extremely limited.

 

Isn't this sort of contradicting itself. On the one hand statistically it hardly ever happens yet on the other it's it's far from trivial. In any event these low occurring events have a good outcome of what maybe 60% while the poor ones 40%. Thus a 20% differential between bad moves and good ones in the outcome. Even if Ron screws up every move we are still left with a very small amount of effected outcomes. I'd even go so far as to say a statistically insignificant amount.

 

Roenicke has become painfully predictable despite not being a ML manager for even a full season.

 

I think this is an very good criticism of him. Something I hope he will work on once he gets a chance to sit back and evaluate himself. Rookie managers can improve and I hope he does on this count.

 

I just meant that you are more than familiar with the kind of evidence I offer up at this point. Me dishing out a little more to you isn't going to change your mind, either way.

 

Let me start by saying you are one of my favorite posters. I think you know how much I respect you. So please take this one criticism for what it is. It's merely a disagreement in this single area. I think some of the stuff you posted in this thread was great at the micro level. It had merit as a predictive tool to how successful he would be. Yet at this point it's relationship to the overall success that has happened doesn't support your view. At some point if it matters it should show up in the record. I see a team doing what is expected maybe a little better. If that is the case and these moves are so important to success then shouldn't we see that in the overall record? Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps this team really is a 100 win type of team but is being managed to a 92 win team level. That was not what anyone thought going in and you have always been one to believe that type of analysis meant something. To now say they would have won more games than they have is moving the target to fit your analysis. I have never seen you do that before.

 

Kind of off tangent a little but I think when it comes to management the concept of replacement level goes from defining what anyone can be expected to do to what a perfect manager could do. There will never anyone capable of being good under that level of judgement.

[rluzinski]

The whole bad managers can have good teams and do good while good managers can have bad teams and be bad may be true but also silly and pointless to argue.

1) what truth there is to it only reasserts that mangers have little to do with the outcome of games and...

2) ...makes it so there is no objective way to measure a mangers competency. What only matters is what one or a group of peoples opinions are of him and his managerial style are. Championships and record are meaningless. By that reasoning the Brewers can win the next 4 championships and RR would still be a bad manager.

People don't like what RR has done in his decisions, thats fine. But he hasn't done a poor job. His players like him and are playing for him. Thats probably the most important thing he done and why he's been successful to this point.

The difference between optimal strategy and somewhat but sub-optimal (but not absurd) in-game strategy might only be 3 games (making up a number for discussion but it's something like that). The collective talent of a team obviously has a SIGNIFICANTLY larger effect. 3 times larger, easily. As such, it should be clear that correlation between a manager's skill level and his team's record after 140 games is going to be very weak. Now, if a manager with an perennially average payroll at his disposal and has a team that performs well over a 10 year period, that is a very different situation. It is not THIS situation, though.

You can claim that Roenicke has been successful but that's because you are attributing a portion of the team's success to Roenicke. I don't because of the correlation issues I mentioned above. I disagree that there is no objective way to attempt to measure a manager's competency. Through analytical means (simulations for instance), one can attempt to estimate the optimal strategy for a particular situation and compare its expected success rate with that of the manager's strategies. If we have a large enough sample to work with (years), we can look at the actual success rate of his moves, relative to the estimated success rate.

I don't claim to have "proof" that Roenicke is a bad manager but I'm not just blindly disagreeing with his strategies either. I have not studies his moves particularly close but I am confident that his small ball strategies are better suited for the run environment you would have found at the turn of the 20th century than for the 4.25ish runs/game you see today.

Even if you compare Roenicke to his contemporaries, he's leading the universe in sacrifice attempts:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2011.shtml#teams_standard_batting::25

So everything else equal, either the rest of the NL is wrong for not utilizing sacrifice bunts enough or Roenicke is for employing the strategy too often. I don't know what the answer is for sure but I feel inclined to assume the latter.

[TooLiveBrew]

And you're fighting a bad fight because you automatically assume that he is driving over the cliff, regardless of result.

 

This is a broad & baseless statement.

 

Let's just be honest about this discussion. What this statement -- "up to this point he hasn't been a "bad" manager" -- & the many like it really mean is, "the Brewers are winning, so why can't you relax & enjoy it?". I don't think anyone who's objective can agree that RR has been an asset at manager. Just some people are really driven crazy by the details on this team not being done right, and some aren't. Really it's fine either way, imo, but when it starts breaking down into what fans are on the "good" side, & what fans aren't, it's just annoying.

 

 

The team is winning, and people are upset with RR. He's had success to this point and that upsets people?

 

If you're here to argue whether or not people are enjoying themselves, or declare that the "good fight" fans are here to scold others for 'not enjoying' this season, then I think you're just not having the same discussion I am, & many here are.

[MJLiverock]

Also, the Roenicke supporters have not explained why Yuni/McGehee are still starting every game. Even if you throw out all in-game strategy stuff, there is no way I can see anyone reasonably defend that fact when there are better options on the bench.

 

Well I'll take a stab it. McGehee was absolutely atrocious in the first half but since the All-Star break he is .315/.437/.753, which in today's realm of third baseman isn't terrible. Green could have arguable been given a shot earlier but maybe McG picked it up just in time to avoid being benched, we'll probably never now how close Melvin came to calling up Green. Which also points out that RR doesn't make the decision to call up Green or not. I seriously doubt that Green finally got the call because RR stormed into Melvin's office and said I gotta have Green for the playoffs. Melvin likely decided it was time.

As far as YB starting it comes down to there not being a better option. I don't believe Counsell or Wilson are better options. Hairston got picked up later in the 2nd half but he has only played 1 game at SS this year and only 62 last year, he just may not be viewed as a SS anymore. And since he has barely played it in 2 years and even less prior to that, I don't see how any fan can really have a knowledgeable opinion on how well he'd perform there since no one outside the coaching staffs of his respective teams has seem much of him there. If you are one that puts faith in the defensive stats he had negative value as a SS for 2 out of the last 3 years, (not counting his 1 game there this year). Not to mention if Hairston started at SS then one of Counsell or Wilson plays 2nd and again, neither are any better than YB.

[scrapiron]

Let's just be honest about this discussion. What this statement -- "up to this point he hasn't been a "bad" manager" -- & the many like it really mean is, "the Brewers are winning, so why can't you relax & enjoy it?". I don't think anyone who's objective can agree that RR has been an asset at manager.

 

 

I think you should qualify this as "hasn't been an asset as an "in game" manger"". And I certainly would agree with it. What I'm saying is that what negativity he has done as an in game manager has been mitigated by what he does bring as a player manager. And my argument for this is there record and place to date. Which leads to the question of what, if anything, a good in-game manager actually brings to the table. I had very few complaints with Macha as compared to RR as an in game manager, but the players hated Macha and the results showed. I'm not here to question anyone's enjoyment, debating managerial moves is fun and questioning tactics is just part of being a fan, but the amount of hand wringing over specific in game decisions and general venom towards RR (not just on this forum) seems just a bit over the top. Yes, his in game management can be questioned, but the team is playing well. RR has to be given some credit for that as he is part of the team.

Once again I'm objective because I'm basing my argument on results. I don't think he is "good", and I don't think he is "bad", but he has been successful and I see that. I dislike a lot of his strategy, but the players love playing for him. He should be faulted and praised for both.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't think anyone who's objective can agree that RR has been an asset at manager.

 

I other words anyone who disagrees with you about how good Ron is isn't being objective? All I've seen is people who bash him saying in game strategy and lineup decisions are important. Then they say Ron isn't good at them. Yet here we are playing better than expected. That is objective fact. It is not made up. It is verifiable. It is not a moving target to fit the premise which is more than I can say about Ron bashers. If it is important like you claim then Ron must be good at it. If he wasn't then it would have showed up in the record. Conversely if Ron isn't good at it then game strategy and lineup decisions aren't important. Objectively speaking you cannot have it both ways. That is cold hard logic. It might even be considered objective. At least far more than claiming those things are important and he sucks at it but the team is winning for some unexplained reason. Magic is not objective. It is fantasy.

[Raw Biz]

Also, the Roenicke supporters have not explained why Yuni/McGehee are still starting every game. Even if you throw out all in-game strategy stuff, there is no way I can see anyone reasonably defend that fact when there are better options on the bench.

 

Well I'll take a stab it. McGehee was absolutely atrocious in the first half but since the All-Star break he is .315/.437/.753, which in today's realm of third baseman isn't terrible. Green could have arguable been given a shot earlier but maybe McG picked it up just in time to avoid being benched, we'll probably never now how close Melvin came to calling up Green. Which also points out that RR doesn't make the decision to call up Green or not. I seriously doubt that Green finally got the call because RR stormed into Melvin's office and said I gotta have Green for the playoffs. Melvin likely decided it was time.

As far as YB starting it comes down to there not being a better option. I don't believe Counsell or Wilson are better options. Hairston got picked up later in the 2nd half but he has only played 1 game at SS this year and only 62 last year, he just may not be viewed as a SS anymore. And since he has barely played it in 2 years and even less prior to that, I don't see how any fan can really have a knowledgeable opinion on how well he'd perform there since no one outside the coaching staffs of his respective teams has seem much of him there. If you are one that puts faith in the defensive stats he had negative value as a SS for 2 out of the last 3 years, (not counting his 1 game there this year). Not to mention if Hairston started at SS then one of Counsell or Wilson plays 2nd and again, neither are any better than YB.

I said every game. I've said I don't expect them to lose their starting jobs. But why aren't they given say 1 day off a week? That is what I'm getting at.

And I do believe that Roenicke had something to do with Green not being up until now. Managers and GMs work together. All Roenicke had to do was tell Melvin he didn't want Green up because it would affect "team chemistry" or some crap like that. And since they were winning, Melvin waited. Then Melvin finally decided that Green is a better option for the playoffs and since rosters would be expanding anyway, he called up Green a few days ago. But Roenicke has still shown he doesn't trust Green simply because he's a rookie. He's basically said so himself.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

I other words anyone who disagrees with you about how good Ron is isn't being objective?

 

Not because it's someone who disagrees with me. Because I think that would be someone disagreeing with facts.

 

 

Yet here we are playing better than expected. That is objective fact. It is not made up. It is verifiable.

 

It's... almost like there's some really tangible explanation for it, like excellent pitching.

[homer]

This has become such a circular chicken and egg argument.

 

RR is bad, they are winning he can't be bad, they are winning because they are getting good pitching, then the manager doesn't matter so what's the point?, the point is they could be doing better, how can they do better than what they've been doing? With a better manager....because RR is bad.

 

Rinse, repeat.

[Thurston Fluff]

It's... almost like there's some really tangible explanation for it, like excellent pitching.

 

We knew that going in. It was part of the equation that got us to the 88ish win estimation. If the manager was hampering it then one should expect a regression from that estimation not an improvement on it. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your predisposed suppositions but the only real fact is they don't.

 

Not because it's someone who disagrees with me. Because I think that would be someone disagreeing with facts.

 

What fact would that be? That strategy and lineup decisions are significant or that Ron is bad at them? I think those "facts" are very much in dispute. 90% of this thread is debating those facts. So far the evidence that does not presupposed what it takes to be a good manager points to him not being bad.

[Raw Biz]

It's... almost like there's some really tangible explanation for it, like excellent pitching.

 

We knew that going in. It was part of the equation that got us to the 88ish win estimation. If the manager was hampering it then one should expect a regression from that estimation not an improvement on it. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your predisposed suppositions but the only real fact is they don't.

You keep coming back to this win estimation. Basically you're saying that if they win more than estimated, its because of the manager? Its not because the pitchers have played even better? I know you're probably going to respond with maybe the pitchers have played better because of the manager. But that's just a terrible manager. Like I've said, I don't think you can use the estimation thing to determine whether or not the manager is good or bad. You can look at how he fills out the lineup, how he manages the bullpen, strategy, etc.

 

edit: Meant to say terrible argument.

[homer]

What fact would that be? That strategy and lineup decisions are significant or that Ron is bad at them? I think those "facts" are very much in dispute. 90% of this thread is debating those facts. So far the evidence that does not presupposed what it takes to be a good manager points to him not being bad.

Playing guys that are bad is a bad decision when you have guys that are better on the bench. If you want to refute that, please do so.

 

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.

[Thurston Fluff]

Its not because the pitchers have played even better?

 

How many players are playing above their expectations compared to ones playing below it? Overall I see a the majority of them playing at about where they should be.

 

I know you're probably going to respond with maybe the pitchers have played better because of the manager. But that's just a terrible manager.

 

I don't get what that means. I guess if you don't believe how a manager handles the players as a factor to begin with then we just have to disagree.

 

Like I've said, I don't think you can use the estimation thing to determine whether or not the manager is good or bad. You can look at how he fills out the lineup, how he manages the bullpen, strategy, etc.

 

Why is one valid and the other not? Your argument seems to be only the things we can measure are counted. Yet when I asked for measurement of putting players in the best position to succeed I get nothing. When I use the wins vs projected win as a measurement that gets disregarded. All of a sudden what matters are these things that cannot possibly be measured like winning in spite of him, or putting player in the position to win suddenly become ok. Bull pucky.

The bottom line of all the lineup moves all the stats and everything related to baseball is about wins. Why on Earth wouldn't wins count? why would all your ideas of wha tit takes to be good matter more than the ultimate goal of winning games? It might be time to accept what you thought was important really isn't. Then the record and how well they are doing suddenly makes sense.

 

Playing guys that are bad is a bad decision when you have guys that are better on the bench. If you want to refute that, please do so.

 

Who are the Brewers playing who shouldn't be right now? Earlier in the season I have already outlined why that wasn't a bad idea. The basics being bench players should play more early to keep the regulars fresher later and the bench players sharp later. That strategy seems to have paid off in a nice surge in the dog days of august. At this point Yuni could be replaced but, as has been pointed out by MJliverock, there are some circumstances that make him the best available.

 

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 agree it does reduce runs. If I had my druthers I would bunt less. So you got me. That one trait makes him a terrible manager. I keep forgetting replacement level for managers is perfection.