So, What Exactly Makes Craig Counsell So Much Better Than David Ross?

Well put, Matt!

Expectations! It takes a Special Guy to put this tiny, cash strapped mom and pop shop in the suburb of Chicago onto the map like this hire has

I think the most compelling reason to think of Counsell as a significant upgrade is the self-evident one.  Multiple organizations were aggressively pursuing him despite him wanting to set the salary scale at the position, and in particular a (presumably) progressive org like the Cubs was willing to momentarily pause preparation for a very important offseason and risk their relationship with the current manager to sell him on coming to Chicago.

The rest, I find a lot less persuasive.  Saying the difference in Ross and Counsell is a ten win (!) gap is a sensational claim, and were it close to true I think you'd have seen a lot different behavior from otherwise educated front offices across the league in how they treat managers(firing them quicker, paying them much more, etc).  Citing 1 run record as proof of manager competence feels very convenient given what we know about baseball and how we talk about the variability in those games.  Doubly so when a big chunk of that is not manager dependent but a function of more specific components of the roster.  Counsell's 1 run record was below .500 until he started having at least one and then often two top of the scale elite relievers in his bullpens, and in the same way, with Alzolay installed as a closer this year the Cubs 1 run record went through the roof.  Maybe Counsell took a little bit to find his managerial legs, maybe Ross simply got lucky and Alzolay's role as pen anchor was unrelated, maybe Counsell would've taken that step sooner and found a way to keep Alzolay healthy(I'm skeptical, especially of the latter).  But I don't think you can manage your way out of a poor or tired pitching staff, especially in the pen, and I struggle to see how anyone could have reasonably avoided that outcome and/or stacked up more wins for the Cubs in 2023 with those personnel and circumstances.

The other bits seem to just be anecdotes of perception cited as fact.  Just saying Counsell's teams stay hot longer and cold for shorter periods and that they play sloppy baseball less often than Ross led teams, absent something that might even tangentially serve as proof of that phenomenon, feels like backwards justification of prior beliefs. 

Again, I'm excited for Counsell because Jed Hoyer is excited for Counsell.  While Jed isn't infallible, he took a very large(and for him uncharacteristic) risk and made a statement investment to make sure he got Counsell as manager.  In that light I'm not gonna try to claim that managers don't matter because an exec that I otherwise understand and agree with their outlook on the game in most facets clearly feels differently.  But I also think that Counsell's development of younger players and what he and his staffs have done with catchers are probably a lot bigger component than marginal lineup or bullpen decisions.  And I think we should careful to not ascribe everything a team does as a reflection of manager quality, especially when we have a predisposition for or against a particular manager.

I'm not a Ross fan, but I think that is a little to harsh of an assessment of Ross. Ross did the dugout culture thing pretty well. His teams played hard even when they didn't have to play hard. However, I think due to his experiences as a player, his in-game decisions weren't always good and sometimes awful. He let starters pitch to failure. He overused a few guys in the pen. He probably contributed to some arm injuries. He also had little patience with rookies. All and all, I'd put him squarely in the middle range of managers. Not terrible, but not a guy you want when you are trying to win a championship. 

14 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think the most compelling reason to think of Counsell as a significant upgrade is the self-evident one.  Multiple organizations were aggressively pursuing him despite him wanting to set the salary scale at the position, and in particular a (presumably) progressive org like the Cubs was willing to momentarily pause preparation for a very important offseason and risk their relationship with the current manager to sell him on coming to Chicago.

The rest, I find a lot less persuasive.  Saying the difference in Ross and Counsell is a ten win (!) gap is a sensational claim, and were it close to true I think you'd have seen a lot different behavior from otherwise educated front offices across the league in how they treat managers(firing them quicker, paying them much more, etc).  Citing 1 run record as proof of manager competence feels very convenient given what we know about baseball and how we talk about the variability in those games.  Doubly so when a big chunk of that is not manager dependent but a function of more specific components of the roster.  Counsell's 1 run record was below .500 until he started having at least one and then often two top of the scale elite relievers in his bullpens, and in the same way, with Alzolay installed as a closer this year the Cubs 1 run record went through the roof.  Maybe Counsell took a little bit to find his managerial legs, maybe Ross simply got lucky and Alzolay's role as pen anchor was unrelated, maybe Counsell would've taken that step sooner and found a way to keep Alzolay healthy(I'm skeptical, especially of the latter).  But I don't think you can manage your way out of a poor or tired pitching staff, especially in the pen, and I struggle to see how anyone could have reasonably avoided that outcome and/or stacked up more wins for the Cubs in 2023 with those personnel and circumstances.

The other bits seem to just be anecdotes of perception cited as fact.  Just saying Counsell's teams stay hot longer and cold for shorter periods and that they play sloppy baseball less often than Ross led teams, absent something that might even tangentially serve as proof of that phenomenon, feels like backwards justification of prior beliefs. 

Again, I'm excited for Counsell because Jed Hoyer is excited for Counsell.  While Jed isn't infallible, he took a very large(and for him uncharacteristic) risk and made a statement investment to make sure he got Counsell as manager.  In that light I'm not gonna try to claim that managers don't matter because an exec that I otherwise understand and agree with their outlook on the game in most facets clearly feels differently.  But I also think that Counsell's development of younger players and what he and his staffs have done with catchers are probably a lot bigger component than marginal lineup or bullpen decisions.  And I think we should careful to not ascribe everything a team does as a reflection of manager quality, especially when we have a predisposition for or against a particular manager.

I agree with a lot of what you said. However Counsell doesn’t have to be 10 wins better than Ross. If Ross is a baseline average manager and Counsell adds 5 wins to a baseline manager the same would go for rhe Brewers. If you believe Counsell adds 5 wins over an average manager that means if the Brewers had Ross managing them they would have won 5 less. 5 less wins for them and 5 more wins from the Cubs means the Cubs win the division. 
I am not suggesting it is that simple. I am just saying he wouldn’t have needed to add 10 wins to the Cubs. 
I am excited to have him because to me this means the Cubs are committed to winning in 24’. I don’t see the  ins doing this unless they plan on going for it in 24’, and beyond. 

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

 He let starters pitch to failure. He overused a few guys in the pen. 

He let the starters pitch too long for their ability and then also used the few good relievers he had too much. Maybe, just maybe, the issue didn't lie with David Ross. It was a middle of the pack pitching staff on a team that was designed to be middle of the pack, and it didn't get fixed during the year. The Brewers had 5 relievers pitch over 55 innings this year and the highest ERA among the 5 of them was 3.38. If you want to call that some sort of Counsell magic, go for it. But to me that's just hitting on talent when putting the roster together in a way that Hoyer very much didn't. 

Otherwise, what TT said. I don't think this manager swap really matters really matters on its own but it's not my additional $4m. Outside of this being a situation where Counsell fell in love with Wrigley as a kid, every team came in and pitched him on their future and he picked us.  It is the definition of signaling that you're ready to win and compete and make the tough decisions sometimes required to do so. It's reminding everyone else in the Central that the Cubs are the lone big fish in an otherwise small pond. Looking forward to seeing what happens the next couple months. 

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with a lot of what you said. However Counsell doesn’t have to be 10 wins better than Ross. If Ross is a baseline average manager and Counsell adds 5 wins to a baseline manager the same would go for rhe Brewers. If you believe Counsell adds 5 wins over an average manager that means if the Brewers had Ross managing them they would have won 5 less. 5 less wins for them and 5 more wins from the Cubs means the Cubs win the division. 
I am not suggesting it is that simple. I am just saying he wouldn’t have needed to add 10 wins to the Cubs. 
I am excited to have him because to me this means the Cubs are committed to winning in 24’. I don’t see the  ins doing this unless they plan on going for it in 24’, and beyond. 

If Counsell is worth 5 wins over an average manager and we got him for $8m a year, roughly the cost of 1 win in the free agent market, for 5 years, that's the biggest steal in baseball history.

Alternatively, he could just not be worth that. 

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

He let the starters pitch too long for their ability and then also used the few good relievers he had too much. Maybe, just maybe, the issue didn't lie with David Ross. It was a middle of the pack pitching staff on a team that was designed to be middle of the pack, and it didn't get fixed during the year. The Brewers had 5 relievers pitch over 55 innings this year and the highest ERA among the 5 of them was 3.38. If you want to call that some sort of Counsell magic, go for it. But to me that's just hitting on talent when putting the roster together in a way that Hoyer very much didn't. 

Otherwise, what TT said. I don't think this manager swap really matters really matters on its own but it's not my additional $4m. Outside of this being a situation where Counsell fell in love with Wrigley as a kid, every team came in and pitched him on their future and he picked us.  It is the definition of signaling that you're ready to win and compete and make the tough decisions sometimes required to do so. It's reminding everyone else in the Central that the Cubs are the lone big fish in an otherwise small pond. Looking forward to seeing what happens the next couple months. 

You're certainly entitled to an opinion.  They didn't hire Counsell as a message to other teams. 

I am very unconvinced that record in close games is something that should all or even mostly ascribed to the manager.  It's primarily luck/variance and what isn't variance is mostly bullpen.  Craig Counsell had six relievers with an ERA under 3.5 this year, including three guys with an ERA under 2.  David Ross...did not have that to put it lightly.  So like blaming the Cubs record on Patrick Wisdom bunting or whatever the perceived slight of the day is misses the forest for the trees pretty badly.

That said, David Ross wasn't perfect and some of the things Counsell does helps him make his own luck.  Ross's circle of trust was surprisingly hard to penetrate.  Julian Merryweather, after his disaster first outing of the year, was clearly in the doghouse.  He only had 2 high leverage outings in April/May, and the second of those was May 30th.  So it took 2 months for Ross to give Merryweather the rock when it mattered even as the bullpen was immolating in May.  Watching from afar, the Brewers Counsell appears to make those changes in weeks, not months. 

For another example look at Abner Uribe.  He is remarkably similar to Daniel Palencia.  Whether In terms of the quality of the stuff (140 Stuff+ for Palencia, 139 for Uribe), the spottiness of the command (15.7% walk rate for Uribe, 11.8% for Palencia), or the timeline (Palencia debuted very memorably on July 4th, Uribe was a few days later on July 8th) the guys are very similar.  Yet Uribe was part of the late inning rotation for Counsell while Palencia was very much a "if I have to" option for Ross.

There's another thing Counsell does that I think helps his cause, but the fans are going to horsefeathering HATE it.  Counsell is more willing than most managers to punt games that are not totally out of reach.  He's not bringing his setup man into a game his team is losing 5-3 in the 9th.  He's going to like the 6th or 7th guy on the totem pole and hoping for the best.  Cubs fans (Matt Clapp on Twitter being the most notable in my experience) throw coniptions when Ross does the same (or when he doesn't bring a guy in for the 3rd day in a row, but don't get me started on how that dumb horsefeathers is).

I'm excited for Counsell, he's currently the best around, but Ross was fine.  Counsell will make a number of different decisions that give the Cubs a 60/40 edge over more of a 50/50 one, but that's going to ultimately be like maybe 2-3 wins.

43 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

If Counsell is worth 5 wins over an average manager and we got him for $8m a year, roughly the cost of 1 win in the free agent market, for 5 years, that's the biggest steal in baseball history.

Alternatively, he could just not be worth that. 

I don’t think Counsell is worth 5 wins per season. That really wasn’t what I was saying. All I said was in order for the Cubs to gain 9 games in the standings if Counsell and Ross switched teams, Counsell would have to be 5 games better than Ross. Cubs would have 5 more wins and the brewers 5 less wins. 

50 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I am very unconvinced that record in close games is something that should all or even mostly ascribed to the manager.  It's primarily luck/variance and what isn't variance is mostly bullpen.  Craig Counsell had six relievers with an ERA under 3.5 this year, including three guys with an ERA under 2.  David Ross...did not have that to put it lightly.  So like blaming the Cubs record on Patrick Wisdom bunting or whatever the perceived slight of the day is misses the forest for the trees pretty badly.

That said, David Ross wasn't perfect and some of the things Counsell does helps him make his own luck.  Ross's circle of trust was surprisingly hard to penetrate.  Julian Merryweather, after his disaster first outing of the year, was clearly in the doghouse.  He only had 2 high leverage outings in April/May, and the second of those was May 30th.  So it took 2 months for Ross to give Merryweather the rock when it mattered even as the bullpen was immolating in May.  Watching from afar, the Brewers Counsell appears to make those changes in weeks, not months. 

For another example look at Abner Uribe.  He is remarkably similar to Daniel Palencia.  Whether In terms of the quality of the stuff (140 Stuff+ for Palencia, 139 for Uribe), the spottiness of the command (15.7% walk rate for Uribe, 11.8% for Palencia), or the timeline (Palencia debuted very memorably on July 4th, Uribe was a few days later on July 8th) the guys are very similar.  Yet Uribe was part of the late inning rotation for Counsell while Palencia was very much a "if I have to" option for Ross.

There's another thing Counsell does that I think helps his cause, but the fans are going to horsefeathering HATE it.  Counsell is more willing than most managers to punt games that are not totally out of reach.  He's not bringing his setup man into a game his team is losing 5-3 in the 9th.  He's going to like the 6th or 7th guy on the totem pole and hoping for the best.  Cubs fans (Matt Clapp on Twitter being the most notable in my experience) throw coniptions when Ross does the same (or when he doesn't bring a guy in for the 3rd day in a row, but don't get me started on how that dumb horsefeathers is).

I'm excited for Counsell, he's currently the best around, but Ross was fine.  Counsell will make a number of different decisions that give the Cubs a 60/40 edge over more of a 50/50 one, but that's going to ultimately be like maybe 2-3 wins.

I think we could attribute some of those ERAs staying low to the fact that Counsell would yank them when he didn't feel they were gonna get the job done and wouldn't let them pass the 3rd hitter. He also preserves his SP in a similar fashion. He is acutely aware of the 3rd time through penalty and would pull the rug out right when he felt like the opposing team was getting acclimated. We saw this many times vs the Cubs. Right when it felt like we were gonna snatch the momentum he would call to the pen. Ross, contrariliy, really counted on his guys to escape the jams and too frequently it would backfire. 

11 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I think we could attribute some of those ERAs staying low to the fact that Counsell would yank them when he didn't feel they were gonna get the job done and wouldn't let them pass the 3rd hitter. He also preserves his SP in a similar fashion. He is acutely aware of the 3rd time through penalty and would pull the rug out right when he felt like the opposing team was getting acclimated. We saw this many times vs the Cubs. Right when it felt like we were gonna snatch the momentum he would call to the pen. Ross, contrariliy, really counted on his guys to escape the jams and too frequently it would backfire. 

Is that because Ross couldn't see what was coming or because Ross had fewer alternatives available?  Maybe at times the former but IMO generally it's the latter.  I don't want to diminish Counsell but having twice as many "circle of trust" caliber arms is going to make any manager look smarter.

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

That said, David Ross wasn't perfect and some of the things Counsell does helps him make his own luck.  Ross's circle of trust was surprisingly hard to penetrate.  Julian Merryweather, after his disaster first outing of the year, was clearly in the doghouse.  He only had 2 high leverage outings in April/May, and the second of those was May 30th.  So it took 2 months for Ross to give Merryweather the rock when it mattered even as the bullpen was immolating in May.  Watching from afar, the Brewers Counsell appears to make those changes in weeks, not months. 

For another example look at Abner Uribe.  He is remarkably similar to Daniel Palencia.  Whether In terms of the quality of the stuff (140 Stuff+ for Palencia, 139 for Uribe), the spottiness of the command (15.7% walk rate for Uribe, 11.8% for Palencia), or the timeline (Palencia debuted very memorably on July 4th, Uribe was a few days later on July 8th) the guys are very similar.  Yet Uribe was part of the late inning rotation for Counsell while Palencia was very much a "if I have to" option for Ross.

I might refine this a bit to say it's more about what they have a risk tolerance for.  The way to get into Ross's good graces is to not only get people out, but to throw strikes.  I think he was fairly flexible with his pen hierarchy when you account for that.  Merryweather was a waiver castoff who also wasn't all that good right after his disaster opener(4 ERA with 2 HR in 9 IP between then and the end of April) but started getting greater leverage looks when he consistently threw strikes.  Leiter was a fringe roster guy who became a primary setup man and Alzolay got thrust into the closer role more or less immediately because he showed the mentality but more importantly, did not walk anyone.  And the guys that Ross kept on the fringes despite greater potential are at the other end of this spectrum.  You mentioned Palencia, he had 12 BB in 16 IP on September 1st before finding his control.  This also explains the hesitancy with Little, how Estrada didn't get as much extended run, and probably plays small roles in Keegan's banishment and Burdi's lack of use.  I also don't think that approach is necessarily *wrong*, the front office has had a preference for command/control in building the roster, and if you've got the 2023 Cubs defense behind you I'd want my middle relievers in the zone too.  But that also probably increases the variance compared to talent level on the margins.

5 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Is that because Ross couldn't see what was coming or because Ross had fewer alternatives available?  Maybe at times the former but IMO generally it's the latter.  I don't want to diminish Counsell but having twice as many "circle of trust" caliber arms is going to make any manager look smarter.

But maybe his circle of trust was larger because he gave guys chances. Of the relievers who all has era’s under 3.38 how many were home grown talent? The brewers brought guys  up and he used them. If Counsell had Little, as an example, he would have used him. And how much of the pitchers success could be attributed to Counsell and his staff for having the best system in place for pitch framing. Does he and his coaching staff get any credit for that. I would say they should. Framing make those pitchers better. If he does the same here there is a chance the Cubs then have 5 or 6 guys in the pen with low 3 era’s, just like the Brewers had. 

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

But maybe his circle of trust was larger because he gave guys chances. Of the relievers who all has era’s under 3.38 how many were home grown talent? The brewers brought guys  up and he used them. If Counsell had Little, as an example, he would have used him. And how much of the pitchers success could be attributed to Counsell and his staff for having the best system in place for pitch framing. Does he and his coaching staff get any credit for that. I would say they should. Framing make those pitchers better. If he does the same here there is a chance the Cubs then have 5 or 6 guys in the pen with low 3 era’s, just like the Brewers had. 

Honestly attributing the success of their relievers to the coaching staff seems very backwards to me. Devin Williams has been elite for years. Joel Payamps was 29 years old, in his 5th MLB season, and has a career 2.6 BB/9 rate. Hoby MIlber was 32, had 150 career innings already, and has a career 2.57 BB/9 rate. Trevor McGill was 29, third season, 3.22 career BB/9 rate. That's the top 4 fWAR producers in their pen, all with major league experience and either elite, elite stuff or above average control. We had one of those guys.  

9 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Of the relievers who all has era’s under 3.38 how many were home grown talent? The brewers brought guys  up and he used them. 

• Devin Williams, yes.
• Joel Payamps, no.
• Hoby Milner, no.
• Trevor McGill, no.
• Elvis Peguero, no.
• Abner Uribe, yes.
• Bryce Wilson, no.

Does Craig Counsell have a history of benching a guy for weeks that just hit a grand slam simply because he was just called up and didn't get us here?

9 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Is that because Ross couldn't see what was coming or because Ross had fewer alternatives available?  Maybe at times the former but IMO generally it's the latter.  I don't want to diminish Counsell but having twice as many "circle of trust" caliber arms is going to make any manager look smarter.

I think there were many times where Ross would have helped the team by getting his guy out of there sooner. I think a lot of runs scored that shouldn't have, I think in particular Counsell handles the "in the balance" moments better, specifically when the order is rounding a 3rd time, and when a RP comes in and doesn't have his command from the outset. I think he's better at recognizing that and minimizing the damage.

I'm not one who genuinely thinks there's much separation in most managers now a days. Most of the really bad, old school, nonsense has been generally weeded out of baseball. Even more so in the NL with the removal of the pitcher hitting, a manager's in game job is one that kind of writes itself many times. Unless you're just actively trying to sabotage yourself, it's pretty easy to determine which players of yours are the best, where they should generally play, and how much. That's not taking away from some in-game situational things, just talking the overall. Keep your team in a good mental place by establishing a good culture, make the easy lineup calls, and I think you're well on your way to being one of the many "fine" managers. Within there, there are some calls that go your way, others that you make right and backfire, and others that the manager just makes that I find a bit baffling. As a manager you should expect little by the ways of credit when you do most of your job, and blame falling upon you when you don't. David Ross is this type of a manager. Most of the MLB is run by these types. 

It does appear as though Counsell may be in the group above this, who have progressive, generally strong ideas, and are able to consistently surround themselves with smart people. I can't say I've watched a ton of Brewers games when they're not playing Chicago, and even then, I'm rarely paying attention to the Brewers in-game managerial moves in a critical manner like I would the Cubs. Industry belief, however, puts Counsell in this group, and I'm inclined to believe that some of the better run orgs in baseball going after him this hard probably means that's not an oversight by all.

How much does a person like Counsell effect the W-L record of a team over someone in the "everyone else" group? If it's even a single game per year in the win column, the Cubs come out on the other end. I had issues with Ross, and I'm sure Counsell is imperfect, too. I'd have been fine with David Ross ultimately, as I don't think he was really actively causing the Cubs much more trouble than most anyone else the Cubs could have had in the position. Maybe someone else makes a move in one game that turns out better, but they'd likely throw it away with another move.  But like I said, if the Cubs are right, and Counsell can improve the team even by a win, then good on them for getting better as an organization.

10 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Honestly attributing the success of their relievers to the coaching staff seems very backwards to me. Devin Williams has been elite for years. Joel Payamps was 29 years old, in his 5th MLB season, and has a career 2.6 BB/9 rate. Hoby MIlber was 32, had 150 career innings already, and has a career 2.57 BB/9 rate. Trevor McGill was 29, third season, 3.22 career BB/9 rate. That's the top 4 fWAR producers in their pen, all with major league experience and either elite, elite stuff or above average control. We had one of those guys.  

Just seems to me guys get better when they come to the Breewers. McGill bounced around a bit before coming to the Brewers. Payamps took a few years to develop but he got better. Wilson had his best year with the Brewers. Milner as well. So whatever the reason the Brewers always seem to get the most from their pitchers. Maybe it isn’t coaching or pitch framing, but it is something. Not like they spend big dollars on pen arms. But somehow they get it done. Should Counsell get some credit? 

48 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Just seems to me guys get better when they come to the Breewers. McGill bounced around a bit before coming to the Brewers. Payamps took a few years to develop but he got better. Wilson had his best year with the Brewers. Milner as well. So whatever the reason the Brewers always seem to get the most from their pitchers. Maybe it isn’t coaching or pitch framing, but it is something. Not like they spend big dollars on pen arms. But somehow they get it done. Should Counsell get some credit? 

I mean, maybe? Does he get dinged for the fact that they were 22nd in wRC this year? Their three best offensive players (Contreras, Yelich, Adames) were either savvy trades or predate Counsell. No one else above 1.4 fWAR. Should we expect our offense to take a step back next year?

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, maybe? Does he get dinged for the fact that they were 22nd in wRC this year? Their three best offensive players (Contreras, Yelich, Adames) were either savvy trades or predate Counsell. No one else above 1.4 fWAR. Should we expect our offense to take a step back next year?

I think the take away would be that is the limitation of a small market team and the Cubs can offer to take him to the next level. The Cubs were 9th in both position and pitching WAR, both higher finishes than the Brewers, yet the Cubs finished 9 games back.

4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I think the take away would be that is the limitation of a small market team and the Cubs can offer to take him to the next level. The Cubs were 9th in both position and pitching WAR, both higher finishes than the Brewers, yet the Cubs finished 9 games back.

So, to be clear, we're crediting Counsell for some players playing well as a Brewer, and when other players play poorly, we're assigning blame to them being a small market team.

15 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

So, to be clear, we're crediting Counsell for some players playing well as a Brewer, and when other players play poorly, we're assigning blame to them being a small market team.

To be clear, I'm crediting Counsell for getting 9 more wins out of a team that was measurably worse than the Cubs.

Everyone wants to talk about the Cubs RD and how close the team is to being a contender. The Cubs and Brewers had the exact same expected W/L of 90-72. The Brewers won 92 games and the Cubs won 83 games. Which team would you say was managed better?

21 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, maybe? Does he get dinged for the fact that they were 22nd in wRC this year? Their three best offensive players (Contreras, Yelich, Adames) were either savvy trades or predate Counsell. No one else above 1.4 fWAR. Should we expect our offense to take a step back next year?

How many of the guys who were under 1.4fWAR were any good anywhere else? Not like they come to the brewers with great numbers before getting there and then suck? All I am saying is, IMO, he gets the most out of a very ordinary group of players he is given. And, generally pitchers seem to thrive in Milw. Of all those pitchers with those great era’s none of them were big names prior to Milw. So they either got results from journeyman pen arms or system guys. I expect the Cubs pen will be better next year, even if they acquire journeyman arms, as they have done in the past.