Impressions of Roenicke so far (part 2)

[rluzinski]

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?

I should have been more clear. I meant the difference between the two percentages is 10%, . I great player gets on base 40% of the time. I bad one, 30%. That's a difference of 10%. What percent increase of a percent that represents doesn't really tell us anything useful I don't think.

[Raw Biz]

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?

All of this. Like I've said, most teams sit most of their starters at least once a week. And many of these players are better than Yuni and McGehee. Why should the Brewers be any different? Green should be getting at least one start a week now and Yuni should sit once a week (doesn't really matter to me who starts in his place).

[pebadger]

Why "should" a guy who has been your everyday player sit? Performance? Rest? Why? And why now? The Brewers are far from being alone in the philosophy that your starters play almost every day, and on those days when they don' t there is an easy explanation.

 

If you're saying guys should sit for performance reasons, what is the message that is being sent? Is now the right time for that message? If you're saying it's for rest, why would yesterday have been a good day to rest any of your first line guys? And if it is "rest", then who needs rest and when? Who gets input?

 

I really think there is a VAST underestimation of the importance of routine and security in your position here. Just take it in to your own work environment. Things are going well at your company and you have a chance to land a really big job/account. Everyone from management on down is doing their jobs and morale is high. Then, 4 days before the big meeting with the prospective client, the CEO call you and tell you that even though you've been the lead on the project he's going to let the guy you just hired yesterday make the final presentation? You're going to let the new associate at the firm make the closing argument in the big case you've been prepping and trying for 3 years? Happens all the time, right? I mean, the new associate really killed it in his law school mock trial program and he graduated near the top of his class. Even if everybody loves the new guy in the office, and hopes he will do well and contribute to the continued success of the organization, there is a method by which you're likely to bring the new guy along to increase the likelihood that he will in fact meet those expectations.

 

Green isn't being blackballed. He's a new guy, who just got his first major league AB. The Brewers were playing the Cardinals. At what point in the series would have been a good time to tell Casey to sit down? The very first game of an important series when all you really need is one win? Or the second game, after you've already lost the first? Or when you're looking to avoid being swept?

 

This isn't about the inmates running the asylum. It's about everyone in the clubhouse (players, coaches manager) feeling like they have a good thing going and seeing no reason to change that. And again, this isn't about sticking with a guy despite performance. It's about guys accepting the performance they are getting from a teammate they lke in a cluhouse that is working. If anybody really beleived that Yuni or Casey needed to go, they wouldn't have a problem with the change. They simply don't believe a change is necessary. They, unlike many outside the team, are willing to accept their teammates for what they can do, rather than worrying about what they can't.

 

Do you really want to gamble with what you've got going right now by rocking the boat? This is may be the only shot some of these guys have at ever having a season like this again. CM and YB aren't great, but do you want to risk a change and then end up with the relacements not making the cut and the demoted guys now out of synch with what's going on?

 

Look, I would love for TG to play some. I'd like for there to be an alternative to Yuni B. The team just isn't constructed that way right now.

[rluzinski]

Do you really want to gamble with what you've got going right now by rocking the boat? This is may be the only shot some of these guys have at ever having a season like this again. CM and YB aren't great, but do you want to risk a change and then end up with the relacements not making the cut and the demoted guys now out of synch with what's going on?

 

Yes, other REAL team sports add and subtract starters all the time. Why in baseball, do we have to treat these guys like they run the risk of falling apart emotionally? I genuinely don't understand it.

 

I think this kind of stuff is just WAY overblown in baseball. Macha was apparently the worst "player's manager" ever and Roenicke the best. That supposedly translates into some meaningful difference in player performance. Which specific players are performing better? Give me SOME evidence that it's just not something for the talking heads to talk about.

[Raw Biz]

A guy who's been the everyday player "should" sit because there is a better option. Again, he doesn't need to sit every game. All this clubhouse crap is stupid. I don't care if it's true or not (I personally think it's overblown), the point is this team is supposedly all in and the best talent should be playing. I highly doubt giving a guy like Green one start a week or sitting a terrible player like Yuni once a week will result in this horrible backlash like people are talking about. If the players are that emotional (and I don't think they are) that they would completely fall apart because one of their friends got benched once a week, they need to seek some help.

Also, the management business analogy doesn't apply here. This is a game. If there's a better player (regardless of how much experience he has), he should see some PT.

[thebruce44]

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.

How ironic that you want to give him a pass for being a rookie and needing time to adjust when RR himself won't allow the same for players who would probably be outperforming the gritty vets at this point.

[yount19.u]

thebruce44 wrote:

How ironic that you want to give him a pass for being a rookie and needing time to adjust when RR himself won't allow the same for players who would probably be outperforming the gritty vets at this point.

I'm not giving him a pass, I'm simply reserving some judgement given it's his first year as a manager. And there is no evidence that the Brewers have any options on the current roster, or in the minors that are clearly better than Yuni and Casey. Those options simply offer a change and the potential for some more production, but are no guarantee. They could just as easily backfire on the team.

I think RRR has done a nice job throughout the year of getting our bench players enough playing time to stay fresh, while letting the starters work themselves out of slumps. Adjusting does not mean making knee jerk reactions to every negative that shows up. It's a marathon right now. Let the sprinting happen in the playoffs when the finish line is in sight.

 

[pebadger]

Who are these better players? TG is better than Casey? We might THINK he is, but we don't know that. In the middle infield, if we look at the two positions together, is some combination of Hairston/CC/Wilson better than Yuni? If so, probably only marginally at best. Just because all us wise folks outside the team like to think that someone is better doesn't make it so.

 

Just because some folks like to play things on the fly and make ad hoc decisions about everything at a moment's notice doesn't mean the Brewers front office operates in the same manner. It's pretty clear they had a plan for the season. They stuck with guys for the season. There were probably discussions had at various points about alternatives to some guys. But those discussions were held within context of the plan for the season. They made theri decisions and them lived with them. Next season there will be a new plan.

 

I don't see how the idea that this is "just sports" negates the realities of interpersonal realtionships and performance in the workplace. If everything has been running well a certain way and then changes are made, it creates uncertainty. If changes are made at the expense of one person, and those changes are percieived to be unfair or unwarranted, it creates uncertainty and mistrust. Not just for the people directly involved in the change, but for everyone around them. If changes are made and they prove to make the situation worse, all these things are exacerbated by diminished confidence in the leadership that took a good thing and made it worse. Managing change is difficult. Why create a difficult situation for yourself by initiating changes that need to be managed if you don't have to, especially when you are dealing with a tough situation already? The time for experimentation and dabbling with change was in June and July. (I posted plenty on this issue in the TG thread.) It's water under the bridge at this point. I'm not completely advocating for what the Brewers have done this season, just saying I think I understand where they are coming from, and not without good reason. This isn't to say that there is only one way to handle this; there are plenty of "right" ways to manage the team, so long as you get results. What they are doing seems to have worked so far. If you are of the view that nobody this team has on the roster, or could have picked up along the way, was going to appreciably change their odds of winning a championship (as seems to be the view within the organization), then there is simply no point in stirring the pot at this late date.

 

I'm expecting people to really lose it when Weeks get back and Hairston isn't playing at least half of the games at SS, despite all the evidence so far this season that such a change simply isn't going to happen.

[Baldkin]

Do you really want to gamble with what you've got going right now by rocking the boat? This is may be the only shot some of these guys have at ever having a season like this again. CM and YB aren't great, but do you want to risk a change and then end up with the relacements not making the cut and the demoted guys now out of synch with what's going on?

1) These guys are professional athletes, comparing them to people making $50,000 a year doing the grind is just lunacy. Them giving up, or simply not trying because they don't like their manager, their teammates or they think they are getting shafted could cost them MILLIONS down the line.

2) In 2007, should the team have just left Braun on the bench because it might've upset things with the current 3B? Current clubhouse "situation"?

3) In one case, the replacement is a proven commodity, JHJ. NOW is the time to play him at SS (vs RHP) and let Green get his ABs and reps in at 2B while Weeks is out. If Green rakes, then he can take some ABs away from McGehee.

4) Can you PLEASE tell me why Hairston sitting the bench won't effect chemistry, but YuniB sitting the bench will.

[Raw Biz]

I'm expecting people to really lose it when Weeks get back and Hairston isn't playing at least half of the games at SS, despite all the evidence so far this season that such a change simply isn't going to happen.

I think we understand that it isn't going to happen. We're not debating whether it not it will but whether or not it should. And yes, it definitely should happen. Going off your logic, Hairston was brought into a starting role and once Weeks comes back, if he's benched, shouldn't he have some beef? Obviously the answer is no because Hairston is a professional. He understands that he was brought in to hold down the fort while Weeks recovered from injury. He understands that this team is trying to win and in doing so, Weeks should be starting once he's healthy.

Similarly, Yuni/McGehee are also professionals. They should understand that a spot start once a week for other guys isn't a demotion. It's just meant to keep these other players fresh while also giving them some time to rest for the playoffs. I could maybe get behind your argument that handing the starting job to Green and Hairston/Wilson/Counsell (or even platooning) would throw off the clubhouse. However, and this has been beaten to death, one start a week SHOULDN'T be so big of a deal that they can't handle it and they freak out.

 

[monty57]

We're not debating whether it not it will but whether or not it should. And yes, it definitely should happen.

 

I know this is just one incidence, but it's not an isolated incidence. Tonight, on a seemingly routine weak-hit grounder to the left side of second, the kind most SS make, Yuni wasn't within five feet of the ball. That's not news to most Brewers fans, but Hairston was able to get to the ball. I don't think there's a question that Hairston has far more range than Yuni, and he should certainly play some SS when Weeks is back, but I doubt he will.

 

Roenicke's logic for not playing Green tonight was "we've lost three in a row, so I want to go with the starters." Prior to that, it was "we're playing well, so we don't want to rock the boat and destroy team chemistry." Basically, whatever the convenient excuse, Roenicke is going to play his guys, and Yuni and McGehee are his guys.

[tigerbrew]

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

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As the season goes by, you learn more and more about rookie manager Ron Roenicke. This week I learnt that RR has absolutely no trust in a rookie that had an OPS over 1.000 the last 3 months in AAA and pretty much rake all year. RR lives and dies by his veterans even if they had sucked for much of the season.

 

It is somewhat ironic that while the Brewers placed their trust in a rookie manager who had absolutely no prior experience as a big league manager, The rookie manager has placed absolutely no trust in his rookie player who had no prior experience as a big league hitter.

 

Free Taylor Green, let him start regularly please. Please give him an opportunity to prove himself.

[rluzinski]

Well, Roenicke gave Green a PH in a relatively important situation, so there is hope.

[logan82]

Well, Roenicke gave Green a PH in a relatively important situation, so there is hope.

Ahead of Kotsay even. I like the move. A lot.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Well, Roenicke gave Green a PH in a relatively important situation, so there is hope.

I was both surprised and pleased to see him give Green a shot in that situation tonight. And Green, I'm sure to Roenicke's complete surprise, didn't poop the bed in fear, and delivered with a fly ball single to the opposite field that kicked off a nice 3 run, 2 out rally.

[pebadger]

I never said anyone would give up or not try. But when you don't know your situation, it can affect your performance. It just can. Some guys it helps. Some guys it hurts. It's the unknown that matters.

 

JHJ knows he's just holding down the fort. That's his role. Everyone knows Weeks is the second baseman. He has been all season.

 

With Yuni, eveeryone knows he's the starting SS. He has been all season. Hairston hasn't played a single game at short, even to give Yuni a break. You'd think if they were going to start going to some sort of a platoon they would have done so already. They haven't. But then you're just going to start up with that 2 weeks before the season ends, in teh middle of a pennat race? You can't see the difference between the two?

 

I agree that spot starting certain guys and giveng guys rest is a good idea. That's the kind of situation that is very manageable. But you're also not going to see it happen in a series like they just finished with the Cards.

 

Tonight was a perfect example of how to get the new guys involved, IMO. They were put in in situations where they could succeed and contribute in a big way, but without too much pressure on them. Green and Schaefer earned some stripes tonight. It paves the way to them playing more.

 

The bottom line is that this is a team in which everyone seems to be involved, they like what they are doing and they don't see a reason to really make big changes. So why would you? What is there to gain?

[DuWayne Steurer]

With Yuni, eveeryone knows he's the starting SS. He has been all season. Hairston hasn't played a single game at short, even to give Yuni a break. You'd think if they were going to start going to some sort of a platoon they would have done so already. They haven't. But then you're just going to start up with that 2 weeks before the season ends, in teh middle of a pennat race? You can't see the difference between the two?

In 2008 they changed managers with 2 weeks to go, in the middle of a pennant race.

[Raw Biz]

With Yuni, eveeryone knows he's the starting SS. He has been all season. Hairston hasn't played a single game at short, even to give Yuni a break. You'd think if they were going to start going to some sort of a platoon they would have done so already. They haven't. But then you're just going to start up with that 2 weeks before the season ends, in teh middle of a pennat race? You can't see the difference between the two?

 

I agree that spot starting certain guys and giveng guys rest is a good idea. That's the kind of situation that is very manageable. But you're also not going to see it happen in a series like they just finished with the Cards.

 

The bottom line is that this is a team in which everyone seems to be involved, they like what they are doing and they don't see a reason to really make big changes. So why would you? What is there to gain?

Again, we aren't talking about what we expect to happen. Rather we're talking about what should happen. Resting McGehee/Yuni once a week down the stretch are not big changes. And if you honestly think that they shouldn't rest once a week (i.e. you think they are good enough that they should start every game), then I don't know what to tell you.

[danzig6767]

The bottom line is that this is a team in which everyone seems to be involved, they like what they are doing and they don't see a reason to really make big changes. So why would you? What is there to gain?

Hopefully better production both at the plate and in the field at the shortstop position, instead of the mostly bad production from Yuni except for one hot stretch at the plate after the All-Star break.

 

While i'd like to see Green get at least 2-3 starts week in place of Casey vs righthanded starters, i no longer feel total dread when McGehee comes up with runners on base and am reasonably confident that he can continue this roughly .800 OPS pace through the rest of the year as he's done since August 1st. Betancourt on the other hand was near certain to regress big time from his hot stretch at the plate and his range at SS was certain to remain non-existent.

 

We are only a month away from the playoffs starting and Arizona is only three games back for the second best record in the NL. Not only don't i want Arizona catching the Brewers, i definitely don't want to be in a playoff series and say in a close game with runners on base, see a ball sneak past Betancourt into an outfield for a crucial "hit" that Hairston or 95% of other shortstops very well could have the range instead to get to. Every play in a close game in the playoffs gets magnified, and all these balls that Yuni is barely unable to get to which result in hits could instead be a killer when talking about 5 or 7 games series.

[DougJones43]

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

 

I also find it odd how in this thread:

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

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

[DougJones43]

Green and Schaefer earned some stripes tonight. It paves the way to them playing more.

This is the exactly the kind of thinking that keeps baseball (and guys like Roenicke) in the stone age. So, if Taylor Green had flied out instead of having his ball go for a hit, he wouldn't have "proven himself" and "earned" more chances? And if the pitcher hadn't thrown a wild pitch that allowed Schaefer to score, then we could all say he hadn't taken advantage of his opportunity?

 

You're putting way too much meaning into one pinch hitting and one pinch running play.

 

What is there to gain?

It should be fairly obvious what the upside is of playing more talented players with better projected numbers.

[MJLiverock]

Hairston has barely played SS in the last 4 years and has had a negative defensive rating in 2 of the last 3 not counting this year where he has all of one appearance at SS . I don't think he's viewed as a SS anywhere but here. If he were to play SS, I don't any reason to assume he will be an upgrade to make a difference and offset having Counsell or Wilson at 2nd.

[logan82]

Hairston has barely played SS in the last 4 years and has had a negative defensive rating in 2 of the last 3 not counting this year where he has all of one appearance at SS . I don't think he's viewed as a SS anywhere but here. If he were to play SS, I don't any reason to assume he will be an upgrade to make a difference and offset having Counsell or Wilson at 2nd.

We have Betancourt. Of course Hairston would be an upgrade at SS.

[Bernman23]

Hairston has barely played SS in the last 4 years and has had a negative defensive rating in 2 of the last 3 not counting this year where he has all of one appearance at SS . I don't think he's viewed as a SS anywhere but here. If he were to play SS, I don't any reason to assume he will be an upgrade to make a difference and offset having Counsell or Wilson at 2nd.

In 2010 Hairston had the major league average zone rating and range factor at SS. In 2009 he was slightly below average in those categories. He'd be replacing a guy who was 2nd last in both categories, in addition to being an inferior hitter.

 

And an alternative at 2nd base is Taylor Green, who would be a VAST improvement over Betancourt offensively, and his knock defensively at the position was his range, which is different from Betancourt at shortstop how?

 

This team would be discernibly improved if Green was utilized at 2nd base and Hairston at short, until Weeks returns.

 

-----

Continued here:

 

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=30544