Counsell and the Rebuild

[TURBO]

Baseball manager, while easiest to scrutinize, I believe is also a position that has relatively little impact on wins and losses compared to other sports.

 

I cringe every time I see comments like this one. It has been said hundreds of times on this site, probably by hundreds of different people, but I completely disagree with it.

 

I often wonder if those making this statement have ever coached the sport on a level past t-ball. Even a little league coach/manager makes several decisions per game that 100% effect the outcome of a game. High school, same thing.

 

Yes, the players play the game, but the manager makes a lot of decisions, often in the heat of the moment, just like a football coach, that dramatically effect the outcome, which in turn has a profound effect on wins and losses.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Even a little league coach/manager makes several decisions per game that 100% effect the outcome of a game.

 

Agree to disagree. Maybe I'm not qualified to comment because I'm not a baseball manager. To me, there's a reason you can project the standings fairly accurately before the season even starts based purely on player stat projections. Not saying there aren't a number of decisions to be made by a manager that matter, just that they are much less influential than having good pitchers and hitters in the lineup. If Craig was the greatest manager in history, the Brewers would still be bad this year.

[jerichoholicninja]

Baseball manager, while easiest to scrutinize, I believe is also a position that has relatively little impact on wins and losses compared to other sports.

 

I cringe every time I see comments like this one. It has been said hundreds of times on this site, probably by hundreds of different people, but I completely disagree with it.

 

I often wonder if those making this statement have ever coached the sport on a level past t-ball. Even a little league coach/manager makes several decisions per game that 100% effect the outcome of a game. High school, same thing.

 

Yes, the players play the game, but the manager makes a lot of decisions, often in the heat of the moment, just like a football coach, that dramatically effect the outcome, which in turn has a profound effect on wins and losses.

 

You can say that about baseball managers because in every other sport the head coach has their own scheme or philosophy that has a direct impact on how your team plays the game. There's an obvious difference between a Chip Kelly coached football team and one coached by Mike McCarthy. Sure, some managers bunt or steal a little more and some play their veteran players more but for the most part every manager manages the game the same way. The major difference in their relationships with the players.

 

I've coached high school for 8 years and been a head coach for 5. I don't bunt very often and really only steal with guys who can do it because I believe in letting the players play the game. I feel the most important part of my job (other than teaching the game) is to build and maintain strong relationships with my players. I've played for and coached with lots of coaches who seem to think their only job is to give signs and dictate how the game should be played. I've never liked those types of coaches.

[logan82]

Of course the manager makes many decisions, but most managers make decisions that are very similar to every other manager so a different manager would make little difference in game.

[homer]

Baseball manager, while easiest to scrutinize, I believe is also a position that has relatively little impact on wins and losses compared to other sports.

 

I cringe every time I see comments like this one. It has been said hundreds of times on this site, probably by hundreds of different people, but I completely disagree with it.

 

I often wonder if those making this statement have ever coached the sport on a level past t-ball. Even a little league coach/manager makes several decisions per game that 100% effect the outcome of a game. High school, same thing.

 

Yes, the players play the game, but the manager makes a lot of decisions, often in the heat of the moment, just like a football coach, that dramatically effect the outcome, which in turn has a profound effect on wins and losses.

 

If Joe Maddon was managing the Brewers, what would their record be?

[MadThinker88]

Record would be better with Maddon but only a few games.

 

IMHO Manager decisions do impact the games but with so many different areas and player execution being so important, the manager impact comes down to about 15 games as a plus/ minus.

 

A great manager over an average manger during the season is about a +7 while a lousy manager takes away -7 from the average manager outcome.

[brewmann04]

I am sorry but can't see the brewers moving on from CC

[adambr2]

Record would be better with Maddon but only a few games.

 

IMHO Manager decisions do impact the games but with so many different areas and player execution being so important, the manager impact comes down to about 15 games as a plus/ minus.

 

15 games? That seems really high. That's way more than the difference between the most valuable player in the league and a replacement level player. I have a hard time thinking I'd rather have Maddon than Mike Trout.

[MadThinker88]

Record would be better with Maddon but only a few games.

 

IMHO Manager decisions do impact the games but with so many different areas and player execution being so important, the manager impact comes down to about 15 games as a plus/ minus.

 

15 games? That seems really high. That's way more than the difference between the most valuable player in the league and a replacement level player. I have a hard time thinking I'd rather have Maddon than Mike Trout.

 

No I was not suggesting Maddon over CC was equal to 15 games.

 

From very worst manager to very best manager yes 15 games is a possible range (going -7 to 0 to +7)

 

Consider the impacts of setting a lineup, the order, who is in or out, setting of roles, clubhouse impact (setting motivation, creating culture for people to succeed) handling of the pitching staff, when to use the pen or stay with starter, which reliever comes in, bunt vs not bunting, green light vs red on certain pitch counts or stealing while on the bases, to challenge or not challenge calls, arguing (or not) to support or defend his players....

 

The manager has his fingers and impact in many many things..

[logan82]

No that is a fairly ridiculous amount of games. The best to the absolute worst manager is probably 5ish games at most. Lineup optimization yields a few games but most managers are going to construct basically similar lineups given the same players so that's a wash. Most managers use the same bullpen decisions.

 

Bottom line is a manager can make a difference with game decisions, but none really optimize things enough to set themselves apart. The only thing that really sets one manager apart from another is timing. Getting hired at the right time so they can manage a winning team instead of a dumpster fire.

[homer]

I would say if you have the worst manager in the league and replaced him with the best manager you'd get an extra five wins tops.

[1992casey]

The final year that Yost was here, our gurus said that he was at about -6 games, and they qualified that amount by saying that it was an exceptionally high number.

 

As Logan said, there's a lot of similarity in how different people manage. In game situations, they tend to choose from among a handful of reasonable choices — or at least from options that don't surprise anyone. Nedly ventured into the bizarre on a fairly regular basis.

 

I think that Craig's in-game decisions have been pretty reasonable overall. Like others, I'd like to see Keon start more. But I'd guess that he and Stearns are likely pretty much on the same page as far as player usage.

[Sixto]

Considering the roster includes no less than 20 guys looking to stick around at the big league level, any lack of motivation would have to be an individual flaw, not managerial.

Counsell is the manager, not unlike an NFL head coach, you have assistant coaches who teach on a daily basis. Don't know how much he participates in that aspect, but if he doesn't, teaching still happens.

[MrTPlush]

I think managers have a huge effect, but when we pool them all together I don't think their performance is that big of a difference. There are possibly a couple incredible ones and possibly a few really bad ones, but I think most are pretty comparable. Counsell is nothing special and is really neutral across the board...though that may not be the worst thing to have. I don't know what Stearns plans to do with him. I personally think he will appoint his own guy and the only reason Counsell is still here is because he just started and who cares during a rebuild. Maybe Stearns has an open mind and Counsell is still managing for a job.

[logan82]

I will also add that, generally, losing teams look flat and winning teams look like they are trying hard. We see this fairly often. The team seems to mirror how a person feels about the team at any given time.

[Ennder]

Record would be better with Maddon but only a few games.

 

IMHO Manager decisions do impact the games but with so many different areas and player execution being so important, the manager impact comes down to about 15 games as a plus/ minus.

 

15 games? That seems really high. That's way more than the difference between the most valuable player in the league and a replacement level player. I have a hard time thinking I'd rather have Maddon than Mike Trout.

 

 

It is like 5 games or so at best.

[danzig6767]

Baseball manager, while easiest to scrutinize, I believe is also a position that has relatively little impact on wins and losses compared to other sports.

I cringe every time I see comments like this one. It has been said hundreds of times on this site, probably by hundreds of different people, but I completely disagree with it.

 

I often wonder if those making this statement have ever coached the sport on a level past t-ball. Even a little league coach/manager makes several decisions per game that 100% effect the outcome of a game. High school, same thing.

 

Yes, the players play the game, but the manager makes a lot of decisions, often in the heat of the moment, just like a football coach, that dramatically effect the outcome, which in turn has a profound effect on wins and losses.

The problem with your argument is that over a 162 game season, these things tend to roughly even out from manager to manager. So many fans though love to over-analyze and criticize decisions in the moment which go bad, but largely say nothing when very similar decisions work out well. That leads to consistent X manager is an idiot type of posts on forums of most teams in baseball from year to year.

 

You spent years blaming nearly anything that went wrong for the Brewers on Reonicke and then a lot of the same bad things happen also under Counsell. It's been a long time since the Brewers had a manager who wasn't constantly criticized. Many Cardinals fans think Matheny is one of the worst managers in baseball. Royals fans mostly hated Yost until their team made the World Series.

 

It would be very rare to find baseball forums which don't have vastly more negative posts about a manager than positive ones because it's so much easier to play armchair manager behind a computer where fans don't have to make countless decisions to be picked apart.

[adambr2]

I didn't care for Roenicke, but that was mainly because of his small ball addiction. Macha....whatever. I don't recall hating his strategies, but he didn't seem to connect with his players, which is kind of important.

 

Yost. .I don't know. It's been awhile, and he seemed to be pretty hated by the time he was canned, I recall him having some pretty questionable bullpen management. But he's obviously doing very well for himself now, and it's possible he's adapted and learned from mistakes, I don't know.

 

I don't know if Counsell is the long-term guy or not, but I really have no issue with him. I don't like how much Nieuwenhuis plays, but if that's my biggest issue with him, it's not a big one. He's been doing better about playing Broxton lately anyway.

 

I don't see any indication that the players have quit on him, which is crucial, to have the respect of your players. I also appreciate his ability to manage games with his head and not a book, as evidenced by him bringing in his closer early in extras on the road when the matchup calls for it. I've disagreed with some moves, but you'll have that with anyone.

 

I'd also add that everyone seems to want a manager that screams, gets in his player's faces, and spits fire. Do those guys even exist anymore in today's game? Furthermore are there any of those type that are just sitting at home right now?

[tmwiese55]

I can't believe this thread is going on. The team has greatly overachieved as it was pegged to be the worst team in the league and to lose 100 games. With a tougher schedule coming and the deadline trades they still might get close but aren't really near that pace now and only 8th worst. The team has been greatly entertaining to watch and for the most competitive.

 

The team and Craig knew this year and next were rebuilds and the team was built knowing it would lose. Can't then blame the team for losing, especially when it's won way more than expected. I agree the only thing going against him is that he wasn't hired by Stearns. But what should he do, fire him and then hire a new guy only to fire him next year when they lose 100 games. That's not the way to build a winning organization.

 

To me the only criticisms would be too much swinging 3-0 and the reckless outs on the bases have persisted. Everyone should love the increase in quality ABs and patience at the plate. Huge change from previous coaches.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I can't see a scenario where Joe Maddon is +15 wins over a Craig Counsell. What that is basically saying is if given equal teams, Maddon somehow ekes his team to a +150 run differential (given equal talent!) than Craig Counsell. That just doesn't happen. There's a possibility that a guy like Maddon is 5 to 7 wins better over the course of a season, but even that is stretching it.

 

Right now the Cubs record is 73-43. Their Pythag is 78 - 38. They're -5 from where they should be (within shouting distance. If anything, one could argue that some of the goofy crap Maddon does has cost them a few wins. (not saying that's the case, just saying it's an argument one could make)

 

The Brewers are 52 - 64. Their Pythag is 51 - 65. They're pretty much exactly where they "should" be, according to run differential or any other formula you want to toss out there. Unless you think guys "play harder" for Maddon (something that can never be proven), the idea that Maddon is 15 (or even 10) wins better than a "bad" manager is a tough pill to swallow.

 

I'd venture 3 to 5....... at best. Counsell makes some frustrating moves, to be sure, but players play the games. Most of these managers (as many many others have said) manage pretty much "by the book". Even Maddon, for all his goofy "I can't believe he just did that" stuff, manages by the standards 97% of the time.

[FVBrewerFan]

I suppose this topic is bound to come up on any fan site for any sport every year. But I'm a little surprised CC is being questioned.

 

He may or may not be the answer long term, but he has done nothing this season for anyone to believe he's not a good manager. Look at the rotation, that should be end of story. Then you have Santana out most of the year, and four major pieces traded away. They actually have more wins than I would have thought, I'm guessing more than they "should."

 

Given those circumstances, CC has kept the troops together, and they keep fighting. Not sure what else he's supposed to do, my guess is if he had a better stance as a player it wouldn't have resulted in any more wins this year.

 

Also, It's not always as simple as being a good/bad manager. I firmly believe in having the right manager for a team at the right time. Some teams have more leadership from within. Some are very young, others are vet loaded. And we can go on and on. I'm sure there a few great managers who transcend all that, but there's no way to prove any of this.

[rickh150]

I really believe that next season is THE season for CC. The Brewers will be expected to improve on this year. If they lose 90 plus games (in 2016 and 2017), he'll be gone for DS guy. It's not fair, sure. But if I'm DS, I really don't care. This is my ship and I want my hand-picked guy. CC really has to impress ( flirt with .500) to stay.

[FVBrewerFan]

I really believe that next season is THE season for CC. The Brewers will be expected to improve on this year. If they lose 90 plus games (in 2016 and 2017), he'll be gone for DS guy. It's not fair, sure. But if I'm DS, I really don't care. This is my ship and I want my hand-picked guy. CC really has to impress ( flirt with .500) to stay.

 

I don't expect them to improve next year, at least not W/L record. Bullpen won't be as good as this year, and rotation (at best) will be marginally better.

[reillymcshane]

Will Counsell survive this off season?

Yes. He's been the manager for a year and a half. His winning % is pretty much the same as last year (.448 vs .445), and he's lost a lot of good players.

 

It is pretty clear Milwaukee is nose diving and the players seem to lack motivation.

I guess I don't see this. We are 14-15 since the all-star break. That doesn't seem like nose diving. And when I watch games I don't see players dogging it. I see some foolish plays at times (Villar), but it doesn't at all look like people are mailing it in.

 

Lots of moves leave me scratching my head (Maldonado over Piña, not starting Broxton daily, running out the same struggling starters).

I would like to see Broxton more, but I think the club is keeping him mostly to face lefties at this time. Maybe it's a strategy to build some success, then ultimately expose him to more right handers. Just a thought.

 

As for the starting pitchers, we've sent two guys to the minors already. So the guys we are running out there are Garza and Anderson. But the team can let that happen for a while. If Anderson or Wily or Garza or whomever can get their game together, they can perhaps be a valuable player or trade chip. It's not like we are missing the playoffs because of them.

 

Seems to me like they need a butt kicker, not a "student of the game." Boy, I thought Dale Sveum was the man for the job and still believe it. At least he has a little fire.

I think we need a person that relates to players well, puts them in good situations and helps them develop. I think the worst thing we can have is a guy who creates a toxic situation. I'm thrilled we don't have a manager obsessed with small ball (bunt and bunt and more bunts).

 

Counsel's job is to shepherd the team during a rebuild. It's his job to help the players grow into their potential. It's a fine line, but I think you need a smart and creative guy to do that. He seems like he makes decisions based on sound research and judgement - that's a great plus.

 

I think the club knew exactly what they were doing when Counsel became manager. They knew it would be a several year project. I'm betting Mark A. said to Counsel that he had his back and he would let him grow with the young talent. I don't think there's been any reason to make a move after the season. Ownership and management will ride out the rebuild rough phase at least another year or two before they make any dramatic moves.

[sveumrules]

I agree with FVBrewerFan that the W/L record is unlikely to improve next year. We got off to a better than expected start this year plus we traded away positive contributors in Lucroy, Jeffress & Smith at the deadline. Braun has also had his best season since 2012 so I would expect some regression from him next year as well.