scrapiron

I think you should qualify this as "hasn't been an asset as an "in game" manger"". And I certainly would agree with it. What I'm saying is that what negativity he has done as an in game manager has been mitigated by what he does bring as a player manager. And my argument for this is there record and place to date. Which leads to the question of what, if anything, a good in-game manager actually brings to the table. I had very few complaints with Macha as compared to RR as an in game manager, but the players hated Macha and the results showed. I'm not here to question anyone's enjoyment, debating managerial moves is fun and questioning tactics is just part of being a fan, but the amount of hand wringing over specific in game decisions and general venom towards RR (not just on this forum) seems just a bit over the top. Yes, his in game management can be questioned, but the team is playing well. RR has to be given some credit for that as he is part of the team. Once again I'm objective because I'm basing my argument on results. I don't think he is "good", and I don't think he is "bad", but he has been successful and I see that. I dislike a lot of his strategy, but the players love playing for him. He should be faulted and praised for both.

It seems I've violated some language rules, this I apologize for.

And those things that he continually messes up on have done little to mess the team up at this point, and I never once implied that he hasn't done anything wrong or at least things I haven't agreed with. I'm being objective because I'm not letting my opinions on how I think he should be doing things but by the results of the team. I'm at least giving RR a chance to see how things play out before coming to any conclusion. I don't like a lot of the stuff he's done AT ALL, but I'm objective enough to know that there can be more than one way to do things and that what matters in the end is the result, not the path taken to get there. And you're fighting a bad fight because you automatically assume that he is driving over the cliff, regardless of result. That things have to be a certain way to achieve any sort of success. Sure, the straight percentage plays he's done are poor and I dislike them just as much, but again, how much does that affect anything? The team is winning, and people are upset with RR. He's had success to this point and that upsets people? the team may collapse or may not, but why not just enjoy and let the chips fall where they may. It may be proven that the RR haters were right, it may not. If they win I really don't care.

I commend Backupcatchers for fighting the good fight so far. I find it odd that I come across so many posters (not all on this forum) that think the only "good" manager/gm/other is only "good" if that manager/GM plays things like they would. I go to a Packer forum that a group of posters despise Ted Thompson with the wraith of a thousand white hot suns. To heck with the fact his teams have made the playoffs 3 of the past 4 years and in that time have one a championship. He sucks and that's all there is to it. Any success is either luck or the always wonderful "winning in spite of him". Here is another example of such irrationality. I find it odd that it happens on this forum. Up to this point there are only two conclusions you can draw. 1) That regardless of how head-scratching or incomprehensible, a mangers in game decisions have little if anything to do with the overall success of the team. They might increase or decrease a teams chances in any one particular game or instance, but over the course of the year, and heck even the playoffs, it matters little, and the teams success is primarily derived from the talent on hand and how they perform in any given instance. or 2) Ron Roenicke is actually a good manager. Now these conclusions can change over time, even this year. But from what evidence there is on hand these are are only conclusions you can draw NOW, at this point. The team is winning, in first place by 8.5 games, has improved over time and is playing up to or even exceeding expectations. Yet through all of this he sucks, and this from a forum that generally argues facts and statistics over opinion and hyperbole. Me, I'm more on the side of #1. I get that people don't like how he does things, nothing wrong with that. But just because you don't like they way he does things doesn't mean he's incompetent at what he does. Thats akin to saying that there's only one way that things can work, point blank and period. If I don't agree with it its wrong. I'm not sold on RR, the jury is still out on him as the season still has a month to go. The team may collapse, who knows. But to this point he at least hasn't [expletive deleted] anything up. Up to this point he hasn't been a "bad" manager. The whole bad managers can have good teams and do good while good managers can have bad teams and be bad may be true but also silly and pointless to argue. 1) what truth there is to it only reasserts that mangers have little to do with the outcome of games and... 2) ...makes it so there is no objective way to measure a mangers competency. What only matters is what one or a group of peoples opinions are of him and his managerial style are. Championships and record are meaningless. By that reasoning the Brewers can win the next 4 championships and RR would still be a bad manager. People don't like what RR has done in his decisions, thats fine. But he hasn't done a poor job. His players like him and are playing for him. That's probably the most important thing he done and why he's been successful to this point. (edit: language --1992)

No he doesn't. According to the link you provided 3 SS have a worse wRC+, Alcides Escobar, A Gonzalex and Ian Desmond. I

I don't disagree, but with Westbrooke and McClellan, that was going to be an issue anyway.

Call me more indiffernet than elated about the trade. Clearly Rasmus and LaRussa didn't get along. Rasmus has some upside no doubt, but he doesn't seem to the the second coming IMO. Really, in the short term this year, I think this made the Cardinals a better team. They improved both their pen and their rotation but left a problem in center. It wasn't as if Rasmus was a world beater for them (I have no idea of Rasmus as a defender). With the Berkman revival, Holliday and Pujols, short term the Cardinals won't miss Rasmus all that much. Problem is how do the Cards fix center next year and beyond.

Well, why even put Narveson in if the conditions are give up one baserunner and you're gone? If you are that nervous with him to begin with, than why not just yank him at the beginning of the inning so KRod has a clean slate to work with. You should leave Narveson in if you think he has the best chance to get you through the 8th without damage, not because he's pitching a shutout and you want to see if he can get through it. As I said, I don't think any decision that RR made was a poor one. Narveson was cruising, its reasonable that he let him out for the 8th. Then again he has shown a bad tendency to give up a big inning in a very short period of time and you just brought in a lights out 8th inning guy, its also reasonable to let your money back end pitcher pitch the 8th and protect Narveson from the big inning. I can see why people wanted Narveson out in the 8th, its a reasonable stance. But so was brining in KRod. People have their preferences. I would have brought in KRod. But just because RR chose plan B over the one you preferred and it went wrong, doesn't make that decision inherently stupid or wrong.

Considering Narveson's recent history of this year to suddenly implode and give up a bunch of runs in a millisecond, I don't think how anybody can question his decision to bring in KRod considering as it was only a 2 run lead. To bring in KRod or stick with Narveson could both be defended reasonably. I'd rather have RR yank Narveson an inning to early than to late in this one. KRod was brought in to be your lights out 8th inning guy, Narveson has shown a disturbing ability to suddenly implode, tight game late, I can see RR reasoning.

Actually going over the game log the count is 8, with three of those losses he's been tagged with being two 2-1 losses and one 1-0 loss. I blame the offense in those contests more than Loe. Sometime Loe has been REALLY bad this year, but 10 losses is extreme beyond belief.

@ MIN: 1-2AZ: 2-1CIN: 2-2@ COL: 1-3@ AZ: 1-3@ SF: 0-3CHC: 2-1HOU: 2-111-16 Doom and gloom, doom and gloom.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/frown.gif

"How was it a great trade? Koskie was coming off a bad year, was injury prone, and was just average for us. He wasn"t better than Branyan, had a higher salary, and we had to give up a prospect coming off a strong AFL stint. Wolfe has a 3.33 career ERA. Branyan was awesome late in the season when he got regular ABs, and put the Padres in the Playoffs. Bad, pointless trade" Branyan better than Koskie? I don't think so, especially at the time. I think you are letting Branyan's numbers this year cloud your judgement. Branyan should be proud of what he has done this year, but the dude is having a career year. And even with his numbers this year, his career OPS is .823, Koskie's at the time of his retirement .825. And I don't think Koskie's .833 OPS and 0.365 OBP when he got hurt in Milwaukee "average" either, plus Koskie was a better defender than Branyan IMO. At the time the Brewers needed a stopgap at third. Koskie seemed to be the type of guy that would have been a perfect fit. He was up until the injury. I certainly wouldn't call the trade great taking everything into account. But up until Koskie's injury it certainly was. He was a valuable player in the line-up, one that was sorely missed when he went down. Fault Melvin if you want for bringing in a player with an injury history. Yes, it was a risk and maybe it WAS bound to happen. But Koskie had over 250 Abs with the Brewers that year, and played well enough to show that as a player, he was what the Brewers needed at the time and you could certainly see Melvin's thought process. Outside of the injury history, I don't think you can disparage Koskie too much as a ball player. He wasn't great, but he always hit the ball well, was a solid defender, and carried a fine 0.360+ OBP over his career, and if healthy, I'd certainly take he over Branyan.

I don't get the consternation over the move. Up until last year CV was a fine starting pitcher when called upon. If I crunched the numbers right he had a 3.02 ERA in 71.2 innings as a starter over 2006 & 2007. His numbers have never been overly terrible and they even have been very good, even this year his ERA is skewed a bit. And he's only 25 I believe. He's young, more than serviceable, why not give him a shot. I would want them to exhaust all possibilities with CV before just lumping him in with the likes of Burns or thinking of him as trade bait. While I think he is getting set up to fail a bit here, I still think CV is, and at worse can be, a quality MLB pitcher, even a starter. I'm happier with this move than bringing up Cody, Wright or even Dillard to start.

Would it be so bad to ask JJ to kind of "take one for the team" and move him over to 2B while Escobar plays SS for at least a bit to see if it works. Hardy is still a fine SS and him moving over to 2B isn't going to change that in the minds of the Brewers or any other club that might want to pursue him IMO. Granted he may not want to and that is a different story, but I sure like the middle infield combo of Escobar/Hardy better than anything the Brewers are putting out now. With all due respect to Counsell who's been great, he isn't going to keep this up. That may not be the best solution in terms of hurt feelings, but at least we get to see what Escobar can do at the MLB level without trading Hardy at such a low. It may also show clubs that my be interested in Hardy that the Brewers are in the mindset to work him in no matter where, and that they are going to have to offer something fantastic to get the Brewers to move him. Honestly, right now in my opinion Hardy/Escobar > Hardy/Counsell:McGehee. Not only will the move make the Brewers that much more interesting to watch, IMO it will make them better.

People complain of the Brewer's atrocious defense all the time, but when he plays their best defensive player, he gets ripped. You can't have it both ways. Is it all glove and no bat, or all bat and no glove? Pick one. With Branyan/Hall/Counsell you can't have both, pick a poison, learn to live with the downside, and quit complaining. While I don't necessarily agree, it seems Yost is thinking that Counsell's defense is more valuable than what Hall and Branyan can do with their bat. Is that flawed? Well, I dunno, but people scream just as loud when Hall or Branyan screw up in the field or K just as much as when Counsell comes up and doesn't produce. It seems to me Yost is in a no win situation at 3rd right now. How does the game unfold if Hall/Branyan CAN'T make that play in the 1st on Tuesday that Counsell made? I don't much care for Counsell, but Ned is in between a rock an a hard place. As far as fan relations goes, the best option for Ned is to play Branyan all the time, until of course he begins to hit around his usual .225 clip. Just remember, Branyan's exile to the bench pretty much came after is HORRIBLE defensive showing in the San Fransisco series' last game. A game where he committed one brutal error, OLAY-ED another ball in the ninth, and forgot to touch third in a critical situation, one which would have cost the Brewers dearly had the umpire NOT had his head up his butt. He hasn't seen the field much since then. By that reasoning, you can see why Ned is playing Counsell at third.