Thurston Fluff

He may have done so in the past but just watching his technique, you can tell he is a terrible bunter. He's bunted once this season and you can tell what his technique is from that? You should be a scout. You could watch a guy swing the bat once and tell if he is capable of ever hitting. And no, you do not bunt when the corners are crashing like St. Louis was. Both players were practically on top of the plate. why were the corners crashing in? Because the bunt was the best way to score and they sold out to stop it. I also wonder how Ron was supposed to know the Cards were going to crash in when he called for the bunt. Usually the corners don't start to do so until well after the the signs from the dugout are relayed. Do you think Tony told Ron before he bunted that he was going to crash in like that? Or do you think Ron should send signs when the pitcher starts to throw? Even if you think bunting on the 1st pitch and with Yuni is the right call, I don't know how any knowledgeable baseball fan can say you still bunt with Yuni with the corners crashing there. Thus if I disagree I'm not a knowledgeable baseball fan. I suppose nobody ever changed strategies ever between one pitch and another in your world knowledgeable of baseball fans. Just because they did so the first pitch doesn't mean they do so on the second. No more than batters bunt every time on the second pitch when they did on the first. The simple fact is he made a call that went with the numbers, something that even the most knowledgeable fans here didn't realize, and it didn't work because the other team made the right call in that situation. That's the randomness of baseball not bad managing. These folks have an eye to the playoffs, where every AB and every choice is magnified. These folks want the team to have the best possible shot at the World Series. These folks can't help but wonder where the team would be if RR would've played matchups, put his players in better positions earlier in the season. These folks can't help but worry that McGehee and Betancourt will be hitting 5-6 in a playoff game. As the whole -non-pitcher sac bunts are always bad- thing shows those same folks have been wrong on occasions as well. I think I'll just sit back and trust him to know his job better than we do. I'm sure it won't be Ron that cost us a world series.

So you can't say it worked for the White Sox if the best you can say is that it's possible. I am not the one making claims of universal baseball truths. I am saying there is possibilities to both sides having valid points. To not see that possibility yet decide the competency of the manager anyway is what is wrong. I also see the possibility that there is no single best way to do things. Thus the whole argument of merit based off it is off base. It more preference than substance. I can see why someone who likes the sabre approach would not like him. Liking someone and believing they are incompetent are two separate issues. I can't point you to the original study, but I can point you to a short Brewerfan thread on the article and some discussion at Baseball Think Factory. Thank you Casey. I will definitely look into it. When I find out I'm wrong I'll post my apologies to everyone on this board post haste.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif

That would go back to this idea of assuming there is a perfect answer or what it may be if there is one. Was it right not to? Maybe but to suggest studies show that specific situation was wrong is not supported by the actual studies nor even the broader concept of sac bunts in general. It is wrong to use broad based studies to decide if a specific situation was correct IMHO. I can understand why you may think that specific move was not the right one. There is room to debate that. Thing is when I did I was told to look it up and I'd find it was clearly the wrong choice. I did and found out it was not nearly as black and white as suggested. It is not inherently wrong to bunt to score one run. One study even seems to support doing so may have been the right call in that situation. It should be expected of a major league player to be able to successfully bunt. Even with runners crashing in. Hell pitchers routinely do that very thing.

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. Sorry it took so long but I did take up your challenge. I found plenty of studies that showed the relationship between runs and bunts. I found none that related to winning more games. I realize more runs are very strongly related to wins. Yet it is not a one to one relationship. There are times when perhaps going for less runs to make sure you get some runs can lead to more wins than sitting back and waiting for more runs at the risk of getting none. That was why we got Carlos Lee for Scotty Po. They wanted to get away form an all or nothing offense. Apparently it worked for the White Sox. I know it was the pitching that they won with. But good pitching is when fewer runs spread out more evenly may win more games than more runs in sporadic fashion. I am not saying it is so. I am saying it is possible. From what I can find there is nothing more to contradict it than validate it. The problem I've found with some of the studies I looked at is they don't seem to measure the likelihood of one run scoring. Instead they focus on average runs scored. I did find something about a study done by James Click, a writer for Baseballprospectus.com. that appears to address that. I did not see the original work but found reference to it here. If anyone knows where I can read this study I would like to see it. If the methodology is acceptable then the specific situation Rluz talked about a few pages back with Yuni B. appears to show Ron was not so out of line I honestly don't remember the whole situation any longer other than it was late, we were down by a run and Yuni bunted. I also don't know if there has been a study done of that specific situation if it differed for the above situation. Or if there is even enough information available to make it worthwhile. In the article linked above Bill James addresses some issues with the never sac bunt mentality. All I know is it seems there are situations where a bad hitter may help score one run more often by sac bunting. Perhaps Ron does bunt to much but the specific example of Yuni B. bunting late to try to score one run to tie a game doesn't appear to be an example of it. Keep in mind the difference in sac hits between Milwaukee and Philly for example is 19. I have no way of knowing how many either team's pitchers did so vs one or the other. Either way that is an insanely low number of times that should in no significant way reflect on the overall competence of a manager or his ability to help his team win games.

You must have some sort of culinary death wish. Or a lot stronger constitution than I have.

If you're considering one of the new Burger King California Whoppers. . .with guacamole, swiss & bacon--Please let my abdominal discomfort & frequent trips to the bathroom serve as an advisory to make another selection. I fixed it for you.

I think its official that the Brewers have the most backup catchers hitting for the cycle in MLB history. I hit a cycle once. Actually it hit me. Does that count?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because who knows exactly what that level of ability is? You mentioned earlier about this team exceeding expectations right now because they were only predicted to get something like 87 wins and they were on pace for 93 (just made those up for argument). Well that number really doesn't mean much to me because it is created by formulas, stats, etc. All the arguments I've seen against him are based on stats and analysis of what should happen that are supposed to effect the team negatively. If the projections are based on stats wouldn't it be reasonable to think going by the stats would result in the stats based projections? If we somehow do better than that how can you use stats to say we should be doing still better yet? Somewhere there is a disconnect between what is really happening and what should happen on paper. On paper we are not quite as good as it appears. Paper also says his moves should make us worse than what paper says it should be. Yet we are doing better than what the paper says we should. Isn't it about time to start questioning your suppositions instead of the manager's moves. What people are arguing is that the team has won despite bad decisions from Roenicke and that the fact that this team has a lot of talent and many people could probably have done almost as well (i.e. team wins) just by letting them play It appears to me you start with what you think is absolute fact and refuse to see it isn't true. You know his managerial decisions are bad. Yet when the team succeeds when he does it you don't admit it might be you who is wrong. You say something fantastical happened instead. That the team magically performed as well or better than expected despite this huge liability they suffer with. I call bull pucky. That just seems far fetched. Or an unwillingness to accept the obvious. If the team was projected to win X amount of games and they do then you better have pretty strong evidence to say they did so with a lead weight on their legs. The point is that just because this team has played better than expected does not mean that he is a good manager. Just exactly what does then? Your ideas of when he should play someone, call a bunt or which place in a lineup someone should play? The time to teach YuniB how to bunt is during practice. The time to set an example is during spring training, or during April when you're up 5 against the Astros. The time to NOT do these things is in late August against the team in 2nd place in your division in a 1 run game. I think you're putting a lot of unnecessary emphasis on that game. It was a one run game with a ten game lead and a month of games left to go and a favorable schedule ahead. The time to teach everyone what they need to be capable of is ask them to do it when the situation dictates. Bunting is no more an exclusive spring training thing than batting is. They have batting practice almost everyday. It's a simple skill any major leaguer should know. If they are not accomplished then practice. It is obvious it is a requirement. If they can't do it then blame the player not the manager. It's like blaming an manager of accountants for screwing up because the accountants don't know how to add.

I was referring to RR making the pronouncement of what his players SHOULD be able to do. If he assumes everyone is equally a good bunter, he's blinding himself of reality. I think you could equally argue he's setting a precedent so others work at all facets of their game. He's established the way he's going to play. Then he set a minimal level of expectations for each player. If he gets the other players to play to those levels because of it then it offsets what you already claim is minimal damage. And I do my best to not use anecdotal evidence to strengthen my arguments in general. When a bad choice in baseball still succeeds 40+% of the time, the result of a handful of decisions is largely irrelevant. You know the kind of evidence I try to employ. Yes I do know what you use for evidence. Which is why I picked on you.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif You usually don't use cliche's "like best position to win." When you do I tend to think there is factual meaning behind it. Since you did I thought it fair to ask what that was. As far as the working 40% of the time part, if you accept it is trivial why do you care? Especially if that might conflict with getting them all to play to their best of abilities. If it just bothers you I get it. It's just not the way you like. That shouldn't be confused with good or bad. If you don't it compelling, so be it. It isn't whether I find it compelling or not. It's whether maybe there is another way of seeing things that might be equally compelling. How can you judge two trails when you only traveled one? My way is to ask questions. Whether you find it compelling enough to answer is up to you.

You know as well as the rest of us that it isn't black and white. There are degrees of winning. And here I thought you either won or lost. What kind of fool am I? Joking aside I know what you mean. Everything contributes. It's to what degree. On this I think you over estimate those moves importance when weighted against other factors. I've said this early in this thread and it seems to be coming true. How the manager handles the players early matters later. If playing Kotsay in center early for example gets all your players playing their best later then it offsets any minor deficiencies in that particular game. That could be as easily defined as putting the players in the best position to win as whether he makes them hit second in the order. There is really no way of telling which is more important. They often conflict with each other so the manger makes a choice in which direction he feels puts them in the best postion to win. The way to tell if he got it right is if the team is playing up to expectations. If you can't accept results as proof then you made up your mind too early. Now you refuse to accept the evidence for what it is. You are asking for something that doesn't exist. I'm glad you agree the idea of putting someone in the position to win doesn't exist. I have been saying all along it doesn't exist. Or at the very least is worthless. I am perfectly willing to accept I am wrong. Hell I even gave you a path to follow to prove I am. Number 2 above. Look elsewhere for this trait. I will even go so far as to suggest looking at what he does right instead of what he does wrong. It seems to be working. What evidence do you see that shows RR is putting the Brewers in the best chance to win? Their record. The lead in the division. Their bullpen is not depleted, Their starters aren't looking in the dugout every time they get in a jam after the 4th inning. The players are focused and playing hard yet relaxed enough to ride the wave. They have steadily improved since the beginning of the season. This is a team that is winning at the high end of projections. You claim the team is being held back by managerial decisions that don't put the player in the best potion to win. Your burden of proof for me to show it isn't true is to prove he does something above and beyond what anyone thought was possible. Yet you tell me I 'm supposed to accept what you say does exist on faith alone in return. For heaven's sake be reasonable. All I'm asking for is to show me why a manager who manages his team to it's level of ability is somehow not putting them in the position to succeed to their level of ability.

Brewers record when Gomez was the primary 2 hole hitter (Opening day - May 16): 19-21, averaging 4.17 runs/game... You cant put that all on Gomez but that is one way RRR was not putting the team in the best position to win and they didn't score as many runs as they should have. That is pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. I would suggest not having Greinke or Hart had more to do with the record and runs scored than where GoGo batted in the lineup. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence to show your second hypothesis is actually true. In fact I think the opposite has been shown to be true. Wasn't there a study that showed batting order has very little to do with runs produced. Given the state of this team and where it was projected to be I believe there are three ways position to win could be applicable here. 1- They are winning despite not being put into the best position to win. If they are then I suggest to you it doesn't matter to actually winning. 2- They are being put in the best position to win and you simply don't see it because you are looking at the wrong things that effect it. 3-There is no such thing as best position to win. The player either has enough talent to succeed or they don't. And when one of these moves loses us a game vs the Braves or the Phillies in the playoffs, what happens then? More hypotheticals? If the players play up to their talent level it won't matter in the least. Our players will win it or lose it not the manger putting someone in the mythical position to win. The odd thing about the position to win myth is I see a lot of the sabre guys espouse it as though it is real. Shouldn't you be measuring it to see if it is real or if it matters before claiming it as truth? Maybe it's not real at all or maybe it's more like wins and batting average? No measure of anything that matters to winning at all.

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

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

Kind of makes you wonder what else wasn't accurate doesn't it? Last time I took my temperature I couldn't read the numbers. Shortly after I got my eyes checked and I had to get bifocals. Definitely an I feel old moment. They seem to come more often now days.

Personally, I could go for that because I'm not an NFL fan Well there goes my cyber fantasy girl. It all seemed so right until now. We are about the same age. We started following the brewers the same year. I bet you even remember who sang "Fantasy Girl." Now all my dreams come tumbling down. If I wasn't happily married this would have been traumatic.

I just looked at the standings on Yahoo and the Brewers are the first team to have a magic number next to it. Appropriately enough it started at 19.

Man they already named his successor? Guess I don't need to send them my resume. I'm gonna anyway. Maybe they'll change their minds.

15 years and a chance to be with her best friend at the end is all any dog can ask for. RIP.

Players only started making more when they got teams to compete for their services through free agency. There are also fewer good players in relation to the amount needed than there are capable management types so the supply and demand factors have some effect. However, a great GM alone does not really make a great front office either, as there needs to be good scouting and statistical analysis going on to actually give that GM good information to work with. I think the entire organization has to be able to work together so they all pull in the same direction. Everyone knowing their roles and what is expected of them is part of that. Probably starts with the ownership and expands from that. Whatever it is it's nice to have it all working at the moment. Honestly though if RRR doesn't get some run for manager of the year something is wrong. Even if a person thinks he's terrible it's hard to deny results and results have always been a major factor in that award.

I don't think baseball players get the money in college. Wrestling is a brings in more revenue than baseball does so the financial incentive to look the other way isn't there. Also the players have an alternate route to go if they want to get paid. All the more reason to set up a minor league football system.

Today out of the blue we got a letter with a check from the department of corrections for $11.68 along with a statement that it was an payment on a $2450 restitution bill. My wife called the department of corrections to ask what was going on. It was from an Easter Sunday of 1996 break in of our storage unit. At the time they notified us and we gave a statement about what was missing. We later found out they caught the guys who did it but had heard nothing since. It took us an hour or so to even remember the incident. Apparently the dude has been slowly paying everyone off ever since and we are next on the list. Ouch. Guess crime doesn't pay.