Thurston Fluff

Guess I have to work on that. I was giving an example of why I was ok with the experiment. I did so by showing others who are unquestionably good managers who do similar things on occasion as to why I give the benefit of a doubt to Ron. I thought the part about it becoming regular was a giveaway that I am not in favor of doing it again so soon. Obviously not. Then again I should have just shut up and let people think what they may about my statement. After Kotsay's night I would look a lot smarter today.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Alright I have to ask...Are you Ron Roenicke? What about that comment defended or thought it was a good idea to play him in center last night? I was agreeing with the general populous this is becoming more regular than I like. Geez.

I've been as vocal as anyone about waiting to see. Gather information, let things play out. Heck LaRussa started Pujols at third and he is one of the most successful managers of our time so a start or two for Kotsay in center in acceptable to me. An occasional experiment is one thing. If this becomes a regular occurrence it is quite another.

All of those guys have been performing much better than Kameron, and have had significantly less stressful innings. Either way, simply because a guy like Nolan Ryan could throw 300 innings a year doesn't mean everyone can and should do it. If you're seriously trying to argue that he hasn't been overworked when he's tied for 3rd in appearances, then I don't know what to say. I'm curious how you determine the stress level of all the pitchers? Not being snarky just would like to know where to find stress level evaluations. I would go with pitches per inning as one indicator but don't know where to find that off hand. Perhaps I am missing something. Here is how he has been used this season. Please show me the pattern that shows A- he isn't capable of the workload B- how his numbers are so much worse working multiple days in a row vs not and C- how his innings are somehow more stressful than these other guys. What I see is two blow up and reasonable efforts beyond that. In one he had a couple days rest prior the other worked a couple in a row. aFter that blow up he worked the nexst day and was fine. I also see the last three days he worked in a row where he did pretty well. Zeros across the board two of three outing and one walk one K in the middle game. I'm sorry I just don't see any sort of pattern that tells me anything about his capabilities to work the way he is. Then again I don't see anything that tells me he is capable of it. That is more or less the point. People are making assertions on ridiculously small samples and extrapolating from that the manager is screwing the pooch. I'm simply saying he hasn't been used in some unthinkable way that isn't routinely done in the majors every single season. I am also saying the time to judge Loe or Ron's use of him has been to short to judge anything about either of them. Exactly. Some guys can throw a ton of innings and still be effective. That doesn't seem to be the case with Loe. But obviously nobody is going to be able to change backupcatchers mind on this. Time will change it if needed. Actual stats or information based on something tangible or remotely logical is another way to do so. Just saying something is true will not. As soon as you bring something other than everybody says he is or only apologists don't think so or there stats that say so but I'm to lazy to look it up you may find me easier to convince.

I don't think it's a change of philosophy as much as the team as a whole learning how to apply the philosophy.

In response to this, all I can say is that the number of innings is not the issue. It's the number of appearances. Most of those guys who have pitched more innings have been pitching in long relief. Pitching 4 innings and getting 3 days rest afterwards is way less stressful than pitching 1 inning in 4 straight games, and I have to believe you realize that. There are 5 others who have as many or more appearances. Of those he has the lowest number of innings by 1.1 innings. If you count those who have one less appearance there are 10 players with more innings and close enough in appearances to call it a wash. I still don't know how that is anything so out of the ordinary at this point of the season. Especially when you take into consideration the injury factor in the pen early on.

Over 6 weeks, I wouldn't really call this a predictive stats at all but it's certainly interesting to see how they've performed so far. It seems to be that the Brewers have already started to be more conservative on the base paths. Would others agree with that? I hope they do. There is a difference between aggressive and stupid. Some of them were kind of stupid. Maybe that shouldn't be a surprise. It takes time for players to find that line. I can give them some leeway going over the line early on. I would think, as time wears on, they should get less aggressive because they will stop making those really obvious bad plays. I don't know if that would be less aggressive or just smarter aggression.

Gomez is really starting to win me over. He's what I expected Escobar to be at short last season. I hope he does relax and take a few more pitches in the 8 hole. As far as what took so long. I think this was enough time for Gomez to show he is a viable 2 hole guy. It's baseball everything takes time. In baseball terms this was a short experiment. Cutting the experiment too soon can be as bad as too late. As the Posada/Girardi thing shows, players aren't numbers. Same could probably be said of Braun and Macha's relationship.

Pujols is starting at 3B tonight. First time since 2002. LaRussa must think we are idiots.

Ok, I should have said there is evidence out there but I just don't feel like looking it up. I don't know how someone couldn't tell that Loe was being overused. I think anyone too lazy to look it up to show evidence was too lazy to look it up in the first place. That is if it exists. BJ just posted his stats and there isn't enough to show anything let alone his effectiveness vs the other specific pitchers on the list. But I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong. All you have to do is post the evidence. Then we can forward it to the Brewers and stop the insanity. Just about everyone on this board (except the Roenicke apologists) have mentioned that point this year. Are you really going to start this? I have stated several times I haven't made up my mind. I also see this sort of thing happen every year on pretty much every manager since the beginning of time. There was a cave man team whose fans that said it about one of their rock throwers. Some pitcher gets used a lot early and everyone is in a tither. "The manager is and idiot the manager is an idiot." - "He cost us at least 20 games so far." yada yada wake me when something new comes up with the unapologists.

The issue isn't that Roenicke is pitching some random pitcher so many innings. The issue is that it's Loe and he generally hasn't been as effective when used multiple days in a row (I don't have any specific stats, just from what I remember). Some pitchers are able to throw a lot of innings and still be effective but that doesn't seem to be the case with Loe. I think you need some evidence other than what I remember to back this up.

NO effort at all to hate the Cubs. Seems natural to me.

If Gomez does hit second all season then that could be used as a reason to bash Ron.

I don't see how someone can grow up in Wisconsin and not hate the Cubs. I assume you messed up what you meant in your post so I fixed it.

If you really think there is some magical stat, or magical idea that makes hitting Gomez second, playing Kotsay over Morgan when both were healthy, throwing Kameron Loe 2 of every 3 games, and playing Kotsay over Boggs in CF the wiser choice.... I'm not sure what to tell you. nOt a single magical anyhting. A combination of things. Rluz would tell you the batting order is pretty inconsequential so I don't know why it's even being brought up as some sort of magical reason to show manager is incompetent. Especially when the choice isn't where to bat one bad batter out of 9. The choice of where to bat one of three black holes on offense is to put them all together and create on giant black hole or to spread them out. If you can't see why one choice has as many merits as the other I don't know what to tell you. You're exaggerating Loe's use as well. Here is a list of teams along with the number of pitchers who have more innings pitched than Loe. Cincinnati 2 Atlanta 3 Houston 1 KC 1 San Diego 4 Florida 2 Washington 2 Arizona 1 Boston 1 Colorado 1 New York Yankees 2 New york Mets 2 Pittsburgh 2 LA Dodgers 1 La angels 1 Minnesota 1 Oakland 1 Tampa Bay 1 St Louis 1 That isn't even a complete list. I quit after one page on Yahoo stats. There could be more but I think its enough top make my point. Are all those managers idiots as well? Even Tony LaRussa, Joe Maddon, Joe Giradi, Ron Gardenhire, Mike Scioscia and Terry Francona? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, it just isn't a valid evaluation point on that point in the season?

Cain was the guy I was most disappointed in losing in that deal. As it stands I think Morgan has the best chance of being the starter with maybe a 40% chance next years starter isn't on the team at this point. Gomez had to turn it around quite a bit to be more than a backup at this point.

I hate everybody ahead of the Brewers in the standings. After that it takes a special type of jerkness to make me hate a team. Tony Larussa does that for me. What sucks even more is I know he's a dang good manager which only makes it worse.

It's been kind of nice seeing JJ Hardy making some noise again. Same goes for Yost both because I always liked him and because I want to see KC do well again.

I don't think that a pattern has been established with a full roster though. I don't think any pattern can be established at all no matter how healthy the roster is. I takes time to know the full effect of his moves. Quite frankly as long as there is a reasoned argument for what he's doing I am willing to let it play out before I decide he good or bad. I may have an opinion on whether it will or won't but only after it happens will I know who was right. Funny thing is the same guys who seem to always preach large sample and let time pass before judging players are the ones who jump all over a manager five weeks into his first season without even allowing there might be a reason or that it might pan out in the long run. Just because the most comprehensive stats we have access to show someone sucks overall doesn't mean those numbers are all that useful in determining how good a manager is by his use of those fan stats. I think it's entirely conceivable there might be situations the manager can be correct in a move even when fan stats say it isn't. I think that way not because I don't believe the stats but because I think we have limited analysis of those stats. Then again I don't think it's unbelievable a professional baseball team, in a multi-billion dollar industry, might just have spent some time/money breaking down all the tape and stats to get a more comprehensive database to work from than fangraphs does. (not a bash on them but they are a fan site so we can be more informed about players overall. That should not be confused with inside analysis done for teams to judge how to use a roster.) If his moves work out I will be fine with him. If they don't over the coarse of a season then will be the time to make a judgement on his ineptitude. Can't wait until we get the Nieves and Almonte threads where people rush in and defend those terrible players as well. I can't wait until we fire yet another manager so some people can start bashing the next manager four weeks into the job as well.

Let's not act like Kotsay went 5-5 with the cycle yesterday. He was 0-2 with 3 walks. So the only way Ron could have been right is if Kotsay had a career day? Since when has getting on base over 50% of the time not a good day? I was just amazed that RR seemed CONVINCED that Gomez magically became a new batter because he had decent numbers in spring training. And now here we are in mid May and he's still trying to convince himself he was right. Personally I thought the whole "he's changed his approach," thing was the usual spring fluff stuff. I want my manger to be upbeat and positive about players then. Judging from some comments he made I think Ron was ready to play Morgan in center quite a bit when he got back. That doesn't' sound to me like he was still convinced. Now that Morgan isn't available he's back to saying that. My guess would be he's doing so because that is the best way to handle the situation. I certainly don't want him to bash the dude although he did mention Gomez needs to get back to that approach. I want him to keep working with Gomez to get better. There is no benefit to just deciding he sucks and give up and wait until someone better comes along. Keep working with him to get the most out of him until that time. What exactly is a SP with "good breaking stuff"? I wouldn't know but nobody said good or bad. He just said he hits righties with breaking stuff. Then he went out and got on base 3 times. One party said he sucks based on general stats and one party said he hits a certain type of pitcher well based on more specific stats. The party who never looked at the break down of pitcher type is the one who thinks the party who did is an idiot based on less comprehensive stats. Doesn't that sound odd to you? Perhaps you believe the stats you use tell you everything you need to know. That's fine overall. They do quite well in the broader perspective. I just don't happen to agree with being married to them in light of contrary evidence that appears to be more comprehensive and turned out to work like predicted. Has Kotsay really hit well against righties with good breaking stuff in the last 3+ years? Was the sample statistically significant? Because of sample size issues, it really has no chance to be, so did the Brewers do a comprehensive league wide study based on multiple years of data? If they did and know the magnitude of the average platoon split, what was their projection for Kotsay hitting against Tim Stauffer? Does it really make up for his projected performance in CF? These are all great questions. Ones that should be answered before making assessments of how bad of decisions one thinks someone is making. For myself I would think they do have all of the above. I also seriously doubt they will share much of that information with us. It is not wise to give out information that will lead to a competitive disadvantage just to keep fans from thinking you're an idiot. Overall I think baseball teams use far more complete stats than we do. Doug Melvin commissioned a study to evaluate what type of pitcher and mechanics leads to injuries. Ron uses defensive shifts based on spray charts of every player. Does that sound like an organization that doesn't take statistical analysis into account? Perhaps even more comprehensive ones than we do? I realize fans could break down each and every player, evaluate how well they do in any given situation, and come up with as comprehensive an evaluation as they have in the majors. I just don't think anyone has. I do not know of any information, for example, of what type of pitcher Kotsay does the best against. When I hear a manager say he does well against a certain type of pitcher I assume he is saying such based on evidence. Perhaps that assumption is wrong but when I see it work I tend to think maybe there is something to it. To be clear I have not made up my mind on him yet. I just think there is way too much decided already about him. If someone wants to hate on him they will find any and every reason to justify that. Which is fine until the reasoning for said move is provided, it makes some amount of sense and actually worked and they still get hammered. After that point it seems a little like a person is only interested in verifying a predisposed idea of him vs evaluation of him. Then I'll say something simply to inject some objectivity into it if nothing else.

i just think it's amazing Roenicke has gone from Godsent to Idiot in a matter of only a month. i don't think a human being exists where we'd say he's doing ok as manager. I have no idea how good he's going to be. It takes time to know if he is or not. Will his playing bench players more early pay off down the road? Seems to be something many managers think does but time will tell. Will his use of certain pitchers ruin the pen? Time will tell. When time has told us then we can make the assessment. Doing so now is a bit early. not to mention unnecessary. At this point why not take some time to see if his reasoning pans out before labeling him good or bad? What's the rush to judgement do to help? Hell what good is rushing to judge? All it does is taint an objective view when there is enough information to go on. If I was forced to judge today I would be one of them who says he is doing ok. Not great, not terrible, just ok. But I wouldn't be basing that on anything close to enough information to be comfortable with.

Really? Reality and what actually happened doesn't matter at all? Not even when someone accurately predicted it. Do the numbers you use take into account things like what pitches a guy has or what types of pitchers a hitter does well against? The dude says he put him in because he has done well against a certain type of pitcher. He then goes out and does well. Who is stupid? The guy who predicted something based on specific information about a specific type of pitcher or fans who rely on broader, less specific, ones that does not take into account things like type of pitcher or field? This wasn't even a- he hit this dude well in the past- type of small sample argument. This is he hits well against right handed pitchers with breaking stuff. I would expect that to be a much larger sample size to work from. What does your statistical analysis tell you Kotsay does against that type of pitcher? Do you even take that sort of information into account? What would be stupider? A person who takes in depth analysis into account or someone who uses general stats in a one size fits all approach?

Apparently the reason he did it yesterday was because he knew the places Kotsay's speed wouldn't be as problematic in Miller park vs the other fields they played on lately. That and he said Kotsay matched up well against right handers with breaking stuff. He didn't screw the pooch in centerfield and got three walks. Perhaps that was just luck. Perhaps it was a manager who did something based on reasoning founded in knowledge. Either way wouldn't it be better to argue the merits of his decision based on knowing the reasoning vs just assuming he's an idiot and does it just to do it? I agree he seems to be leaning on Loe too much. Even there though it is far from a fluke in the league. I looked and found plenty of guys with more innings pitched and 5 others with as many appearances or more. Of those six Loe had the least number of innings pitched.

I haven't seen anything to say that Betancourt's range isn't as bad as everyone has said. His arm has been better than advertised so far, though. He moves the ball from the glove to the throwing hand pretty nicely as well. Really his only issues are footwork and range. I guess "only" isn't the right choice of words but you get what I mean.

There was no reason for Kotsay to take 40 ABs away from Morgan, though. That's where the fault lies. Saying there is no reason is different than not knowing the reason. It's not just semantics either. If we just assume anyhting that we don't get is the manager doing somethign stupid then it stands to reason we will get a very skewed view of him. If we can figure out why he's doing it then we can make better assessments about his ability. The reason to take 40ab's away at this point could be because Morgan isn't a bench player anymore. Or any of the other reason's I listed and some I'm sure I never thought of. Morgan well get his and more. Kotsay will only ever be a bench player here and is used accordingly.