Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 2)

[MJLiverock]

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.

Playing guys you think are worse than players on the bench is your opinion. I feel that Counsel or Wilson are not better than YB, or that playing Kotsay in CF when the other choices were hurt for a game wasn't the end of the world.

Excessive bunting will result in fewer runs being scored in some situations. Completely relying on percentages in the aggregate is foolish in my opinion compared to looking at the actual match up. If you believe that the odds of scoring the runner from second are the same if the runner is Carlos Gomez and the next two hitters are Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder compared to the runner being Prince Fielder and the next two hitters being Betancourt and Kotsay then we will disagree on how much bunting is too much.

[homer]

How about bunting Hart over to second with zero outs in the 1st inning? How about guys trying to steal third with two outs in an inning? How about double steals with one of your slowest guys as lead runner?

[adambr2]

IMO the performance of a fantastic rotation this year (and especially in August) has really masked what a terrible manager this man is. I think the last few days really show that when the rotation performance hasn't been there.

[Ayt]

My impression? He looks like Skeletor.

http://mlblogsbabrewer.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/roenicke_31.jpg?w=250&h=263http://www.twocoppercoins.com/images/skeletor.jpg

[markedman5]

Looks like our manager has outsourced the decision making to the players.......

 

McCalvy Tweet

 

 

(fixed link --1992)

[Glennron]

How about bunting Hart over to second with zero outs in the 1st inning? How about guys trying to steal third with two outs in an inning? How about double steals with one of your slowest guys as lead runner?

IMO, Morgan definitely does that own his own. However, Roenicke clearly doesn't say anything to make him stop doing it, which is just as frustrating as Morgan thinking it's a good idea in the first place.

[rluzinski]

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.

I never said they hardly every happen and yes, the difference between a good and less than optimal strategy is usually small. The margins in baseball are pretty small overall, however. A great hitter gets on base only 10% more than a terrible one. A playoff team might only win 5% more games than an average one. Roenicke's sub-optimal strategies might only be 2 games below average (and no I don't pretend to know) but 2 wins is worth a lot! A franchise pays around $5 mil a win on the open market after all.

Is the vitriol for Roenicke's sub-optimal strategies sometimes disproportional to the amount of damage they can do? Sure. I believe the frustration lies with the fact that a player just can't will himself to be a better player but a manager can simply just start making better choices.

Perhaps this team really is a 100 win type of team but is being managed to a 92 win team level.

My guess is that the Brewers are a little better of a team than we thought they were going to be in terms of collective talent (perhaps 90 wins). The balance of the difference is whatever you want to attribute it to. It could be 7 games of luck and -2 games of manager.. I don't know.

[pebadger]

I honestly don't understand how anybody can have a problem with RR saying that the player prefer to play with their guys unless they have never been part of a team in a competitive situation. That what being part of a real, successful, cohesive team is all about. If you've ever been a part of something like that you never forget it. If you haven't, you simply wouldn't understand this situation or the situation in many other team sports. This ain't Strat-o-matic.

 

There is a lot of game management decision-making not to like with RR. He may even have cost them some games in the aggregate when you look at teh statistical estimators. At teh same time though, all the fudge factors, including luck, chemistry and whatever else you want to call it, seem to be working in the Brewers favor this season. Isn't it just a little bit possible that RR managing people, as opposed to managing a game, has something to do with that? Managing people over the long term, and being a leader, is what every big-time business is looking for in its top management folks. You can hire bean counters and math whizzes to make sense of the back-office stuff and to help formulate organizational goals and strategies, but without good personnel management and leadership even that stuff becomes a bit less that it might otherwise be. Everyone will make mistakes. RR has made mistakes. The difference is that this team seems to believe in what he is doing, and because of that they are as willing to forgive his mistakes as he is willing to forgive thiers. In short, there is trust in this clubhouse. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that matters.

[yount19.u]

Whatever happened to small sample sizes. RRR has managed only 138 games as the main skipper and he's certifiably terrible? Like any rookie, he's feeling his way along and adjusting on the fly. He's not perfect by any means, and I have questioned a number of his moves, but the team has overcome a poor start to lead the division by 7.5 games after a sweep by the Cards. The true test will be next year after Fielder is gone. Until then, I'll reserve my final grade, and say for certain that I would much rather have RRR over Macha and Yost.

BTW - I am convinced some on this board would never be happy with our manager unless Billy Beane or a computer were coaching. I would like to replay the half of the '82 season that Harvey Kuenn managed and see how many questionable moves he made in game compared to RRR.

[Schlitz001]

I honestly don't understand how anybody can have a problem with RR saying that the player prefer to play with their guys unless they have never been part of a team in a competitive situation. That what being part of a real, successful, cohesive team is all about. If you've ever been a part of something like that you never forget it. If you haven't, you simply wouldn't understand this situation or the situation in many other team sports. This ain't Strat-o-matic.

I can't relate to this, because I've never been on a really competitive

sports team before. Do you think the team would play worse if they

substituted in slightly more qualified players at a few positions? Would the other players perform at a lower level if Yuni or McGehee were benched a few days out of the week? I'm asking for an honest opinion on this, because to me it doesn't make sense that Braun would hit fewer homeruns if the "cohesive" unit were broken up. RR seems to be doing a wonderful job with team chemistry so far, but it's hard to deny that certain positions on the field are underperforming while we have in house upgrades available.

[FVBrewerFan]

There's a fine line between being a players' manager and the players actually managing. If he's not playing Green (and I'm assuming hasn't ever wanted him brought up) because the players don't want him in there, that's troublesome. If he really is a players' manager, it has to work both ways. Fine to allow player input, but then they have to trust the manager also.

 

And we're not even talking about benching McGehee. It upsets team chemistry so deeply to let anyone else start a game at 3B or SS once a week? Really?

[DougJones43]

I don't get it. Does this mean that guys like Yuni and Casey can NEVER be replaced, because it would upset the rest of the team too much? I'm sure the players would like to have all their same teammates back next year and the year after, and since apparently they get whatever they want I guess we'll never be able to bench anybody.

[rluzinski]

I honestly don't understand how anybody can have a problem with RR saying that the player prefer to play with their guys unless they have never been part of a team in a competitive situation. That what being part of a real, successful, cohesive team is all about. If you've ever been a part of something like that you never forget it. If you haven't, you simply wouldn't understand this situation or the situation in many other team sports. This ain't Strat-o-matic.

My coach picked who played but of course, that was football, where people don't act like chemistry is the difference between winning and losing. I didn't want to see any of buddies benched of course but if they didn't perform, you just kind of expected it.

The irony is that baseball is the least "team sport" of all the major professional sports in the United States.

 

[DougJones43]

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9732/norookies.jpg

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[young guns]

I don't get it. Does this mean that guys like Yuni and Casey can NEVER be replaced, because it would upset the rest of the team too much? I'm sure the players would like to have all their same teammates back next year and the year after, and since apparently they get whatever they want I guess we'll never be able to bench anybody.

Boras won't be happy when the entire team shows up at the negotiating table and try to force Prince to resign.

[danzig6767]

For the very stat minded folks here, has anyone/any site looked into the effects of Roenicke's very aggressive approach at shifting his infielders per each batter?

 

I ask because Roenicke was on Homer about a week ago and he was asked about his aggressive defensive shifting compared to most other teams. Homer later asked Roenicke if the team tracked the estimated number of outs saved vs outs given up based on whether the defense was instead in a traditional alignment on the infield. Roenicke stated that the team was way ahead in outs saved and just watching the games over this season i'd be inclined to believe that he was correct, but with the insane amount of data out there today, i was curious if anything tracked what Roenicke does by shifting defenders on pretty much every hitter? More so than i notice other teams doing.

[markedman5]

I have a problem with allowing the players to make the decision on who plays and who doesn't. They like Casey but he may not be the best choice to play and they might be too close to the situation to see it.

 

 

With that logic changes would never be made........sometimes rookies can make the difference.

 

If we still had Lawrie I would hope, for everyones sake, that our manager would have the guts to play him ahead of Casey no matter how loyal the players were to CM.

 

They certainly understand that the managers job is to put the best players out on the field in order to give the team the best chance to win.

 

Loyalty is a good thing.....too much loyalty gives us 4 months of Kameron Loe blowing games in the 8th and starting Jeff Soupon in the playoffs because he is a gritty veteran with big game experience.

 

Its a fine line....but the best managers know how to do it.

 

Time will tell if RR can make the tough decisions or just defers to the players.

[markedman5]

I heard that interview and he may in fact be right that the shifting has been effective. I have no idea how to prove it.

 

In the same interview he also stated that Brewers were also "way ahead" with the aggressive basrunning that he loves so much. He admitted that we have made lots of outs on the bases but said we have gained lots of runs by going first to third on singles.

 

I SERIOUSLY doubt if he is correct in that assumption.

 

For the very stat minded folks here, has anyone/any site looked into the effects of Roenicke's very aggressive approach at shifting his infielders per each batter?

 

I ask because Roenicke was on Homer about a week ago and he was asked about his aggressive defensive shifting compared to most other teams. Homer later asked Roenicke if the team tracked the estimated number of outs saved vs outs given up based on whether the defense was instead in a traditional alignment on the infield. Roenicke stated that the team was way ahead in outs saved and just watching the games over this season i'd be inclined to believe that he was correct, but with the insane amount of data out there today, i was curious if anything tracked what Roenicke does by shifting defenders on pretty much every hitter? More so than i notice other teams doing.

[pebadger]

Of course it doesn't mean guys can't ever be replaced. And it doesn't mean that guys shouldn't sit every now and then. Everything has a time and a place. There is an internal dynamic at work in these situations that unless you are there is hard to know about. Guys on a really tight team are usually very willing to give new guys their chance in that time and place and they'll be supportive of those efforts. But a lot of that comes back to folks feeling secure in their roles on the team. If you create insecurity by messing with people's roles (or their perception of their roles), you create trouble. This doesn't mean that the players are running the team when you as manager defer to those roles, if you are the one who has created those roles for the player in the first place. If you arbitratily deviate from the system you have developed, you not only created uncertainty for the players with respect to their place in the team, you create uncertainty with regard their expectations of you as manager.

 

Take the Green situation as an example. Platoon situations work best when guys know they are platooning and they both understand their role in that platoon. If you take a guy out of an established everyday role and create a platoon (whether spoken or unspoken, "hard" or "soft"), you are demoting that player. For some guys this works to motivate them, or otherwise improve thier play. But then do you go back to giving that guy an everyday job if his performance picks up? If so, what effect does that have on his platoon partner? Will he feel used, and that you never really intended to give him a shot at the job? Will he feel demoted when he loses that platoon role? What if the new guy takes over the everyday job? Then you have a whole new set of issues to deal with, especially if the guy losing his job is one of the core players of the team. You have those issues regardless of how well the demoted player handles the demotion and his new role. Not least of these issues is how the other players perceive the situation. If one guy gets the axe, especially if the axe falls when the replacement is seen as only marginally better, or as not having paid his dues, or if the new guy is simply not liked, other guys will wonder if they are next. Some guys can perform under these conditions. Others simply can't.

 

When you create roles for players, and then stick with those guys through good and bad, you create certainty. This doesn't mean you can't take guys out of jobs. Indeed, its imperative that performance DOES matter so the when changes are made it's very clear as to why. But there are different ways to make performance matter than simply jerking guys around in terms of playing time. In the end it all comes down to an intuitive calculation: is any personnel move you make going to create enough of a performance boost to offset the disruption caused while adjusting to those changes? It seems pretty clear to me that the Brewers simply did not, and do not, beleive that would be the case this season. It may have been easier to make changes early in the season, but this is a team that s pretty well set at the moment and it simply doesn't make sense to really change things up right now. Certianly not in a game where you are trying to avoid being swept by your closest divisional rival.

 

This weekend's games are important, but it's quite likely we'll see some different things going on this weekend in terms of guys getting days off and the like. It's the right time and place for it to happen.

[danzig6767]

I heard that interview and he may in fact be right that the shifting has been effective. I have no idea how to prove it.

 

In the same interview he also stated that Brewers were also "way ahead" with the aggressive basrunning that he loves so much. He admitted that we have made lots of outs on the bases but said we have gained lots of runs by going first to third on singles.

 

I SERIOUSLY doubt if he is correct in that assumption.

 

For the very stat minded folks here, has anyone/any site looked into the effects of Roenicke's very aggressive approach at shifting his infielders per each batter?

 

I ask because Roenicke was on Homer about a week ago and he was asked about his aggressive defensive shifting compared to most other teams. Homer later asked Roenicke if the team tracked the estimated number of outs saved vs outs given up based on whether the defense was instead in a traditional alignment on the infield. Roenicke stated that the team was way ahead in outs saved and just watching the games over this season i'd be inclined to believe that he was correct, but with the insane amount of data out there today, i was curious if anything tracked what Roenicke does by shifting defenders on pretty much every hitter? More so than i notice other teams doing.

Come to think of it, now i do recall Homer asking about the baserunning and no way has it lead to more positives than negatives except for Roenicke giving Braun pretty much the green light to steal bases. On trying to take an extra base after hits though, it's definitely resulted in to many outs to justify all the attempts. At least that has mostly come to a halt compared to the first 40-50 games or so where i've never seen a team run into more outs on the bases.

 

That said, it sure has seemed to me that the aggressive shifting of the infielders has helped cover for shortcomings defensively among the infielders. There have been countless times where after a ball was initially hit that i was quite sure it would be getting into the outfield, but instead one of our infielders was standing right there to field the ball because of a shift. Much more so than times where a ball ending up getting through, mainly because say the shortstop or secondbaseman had vacated their typical spot because of a shift.

[rluzinski]

For the very stat minded folks here, has anyone/any site looked into the effects of Roenicke's very aggressive approach at shifting his infielders per each batter?

 

I ask because Roenicke was on Homer about a week ago and he was asked about his aggressive defensive shifting compared to most other teams. Homer later asked Roenicke if the team tracked the estimated number of outs saved vs outs given up based on whether the defense was instead in a traditional alignment on the infield. Roenicke stated that the team was way ahead in outs saved and just watching the games over this season i'd be inclined to believe that he was correct, but with the insane amount of data out there today, i was curious if anything tracked what Roenicke does by shifting defenders on pretty much every hitter? More so than i notice other teams doing.

UZR is a player specific stat that ignores positioning. Of course, you should be able to add together all the infielder's UZR to see how they've performed as a team. UZR tries to take into account ball location and speed):

1B: -3.5 (no surprise)

2B: 6.1 (no surprise)

SS: -7.7 (no surprise)

3B: 7.5 (???)

---------------------------

+2.4

You can dig into that curious 3B total here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Brewers&pos=3b&stats=fld&qual=0&type=1&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011

McGehee has a negative UZR from errors (no surprise) but has a a very good "range UZR" Since he's obviously not fast, perhaps this is a result of poitioning? I don't recall him making a bunch of plays against lefties shaded towards SS. Has he?

Anyway, 2.4 runs is around 3 extra outs over average. If that is true (and this is a small sample for defensive metrics), that would be very good considering Betancourt and Fielder have proven to be way below average.

I suspect that the Brewers are simply subjectively deciding which plays would have been outs with normal positioning. I would be surprised if a Brewer employee could be unbiased doing so and it would be hard to determine even if bias isn't a concern. Of course, I am just speculating.

As for my personal opinion just from watching? I have absolutely no idea. I can remember many, many plays going both ways. How can anyone claim to keep track of the results of thousands of balls in play?

 

[1992casey]

A great hitter gets on base only 10% more than a terrible one.

 

A player with a .400 OBP gets on base 33% more often than a player with a

.300 OBP. A player with a .300 OBP would get on base 25% less often

than a player with a .400 OBP. Am I missing something about the point you're making?

 

Roenicke's sub-optimal strategies might only be 2 games below average (and no I don't pretend to know) but 2 wins is worth a lot! A franchise pays around $5 mil a win on the open market after all.

 

I have no trouble with this part. A couple of wins could make a huge difference.

[danzig6767]

For the very stat minded folks here, has anyone/any site looked into the effects of Roenicke's very aggressive approach at shifting his infielders per each batter?

 

I ask because Roenicke was on Homer about a week ago and he was asked about his aggressive defensive shifting compared to most other teams. Homer later asked Roenicke if the team tracked the estimated number of outs saved vs outs given up based on whether the defense was instead in a traditional alignment on the infield. Roenicke stated that the team was way ahead in outs saved and just watching the games over this season i'd be inclined to believe that he was correct, but with the insane amount of data out there today, i was curious if anything tracked what Roenicke does by shifting defenders on pretty much every hitter? More so than i notice other teams doing.

I suspect that the Brewers are simply subjectively deciding which plays would have been outs with normal positioning. I would be surprised if a Brewer employee could be unbiased doing so and it would be hard to determine even if bias isn't a concern. Of course, I am just speculating.

As for my personal opinion just from watching? I have absolutely no idea. I can remember many, many plays going both ways. How can anyone claim to keep track of the results of thousands of balls in play?

I would sure hope and assume that the coaching staff working with the numbers crunchers and/or video staff which break down film of everything would be unbiased among themselves at least when it comes to evaluating all the shifting they do among the infielders. Without questioning themselves, they would be harming themselves in regards to deciding whether to continue doing all the shifting that they do.

 

Of course on many of these type of plays, it won't be near as black or white as other plays in trying to decide whether the shift on a given play likely helped create an out or a hit, or had no impact. Still, even with many ground balls on defensive shifts being vague to varying degrees as to the impact of the shift, i would think that they could determine with quite a bit of certainty as to whether the shifts have helped more, harmed more, or was fairly neutral.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I simply don't understand some of these arguments.

 

Players get benched, they lose playing time, they get demoted.

 

Young guys come up, they get spot starts, they get pinch hit at bats, so on and so forth.

 

I don't ever remember hearing about some young buck like Green being given a start or 2 a week and such a happenstance tearing a clubhouse apart.

 

If Roenicke is basically blackballing Green because "the guys" want a .640 OPS 3B hitting 5th and playing crappy defense, well, that can only be described as the old 'inmates running the asylum'.

 

This kind of idiocy makes me long for the days of 'iron fisted' Ken Macha, who knew how to make a double switch, and didn't burn his entire bench in a 3 at bat span.

 

I guess in 2009, when Casey McGehee got his shot mid-season, 'the guys' didn't stick up too much for Bill Hall?

[Ennder]

I can't imagine any reason to replace McGehee at this point, he has a .790 OPS over the last 51 games and is far from the 'problem' on the team. Giving Green a start or two doesn't bother me but I won't lose any sleep over him sitting on the bench either. I doubt he improves the clubs chances to win very much compared to the other players.