Jump to content
weams

Per Nightengale: Dan Stays, Buck Goes.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

This is what I’d say. Duquette is ok, but I know there were some bad moves that were on him. 

I'd say that you are right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

For those people that are saying John and Lou's apparent decision to nix Showalter and keep Duquette along shows that they now have the power, what does it say that they want to promote Brady? 

The Orioles were lucky to have Buck for as long as they did. I'm going to miss him. It's going to be brutal for awhile. Maybe they're just going to throw some random, young former player as manager to take orders from Duquette...so maybe it really doesn't matter because the end product is going to absolutely suck for awhile.

My only other thought about Duquette is that I don't think he's an awful GM. I just know there are better options. But those better options probably don't want to be anywhere near this dumpster fire of an organization due to the severe talent dearth. The trades made at the trade deadline didn't net nearly the amount of talent as they should have. And that's what really irks me about Duquette. If he's supposed to have control...those trades were incredibly lackluster. Especially the Gausman debacle. He had some awesome deals early on his tenure here. But since those first few years? Not so much.

So, yeah. I think Duquette is an averagish GM. I guess we could do worse.

I am of the opinion that if I am a confident, ambitious young assistant GM, that an organization at this depth of disaster would be a plus in my eyes, not a deterrent professionally.  Any improvement at all and I am the genius.  If it fails, well, it is the Angelos, you know.  I think it is a no lose situation for the first time GM...sort if like a young Duquette going to tne Expos. 

If I am an experienced GM somewhere else, yeah, coming here would not be attractive...but, for the first time GM?  Ideal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

I am of the opinion that if I am a confident, ambitious young assistant GM, that an organization at this depth of disaster would be a plus in my eyes, not a deterrent professionally.  Any improvement at all and I am the genius.  If it fails, well, it is the Angelos, you know.  I think it is a no lose situation for the first time GM...sort if like a young Duquette going to tne Expos. 

If I am an experienced GM somewhere else, yeah, coming here would not be attractive...but, for the first time GM?  Ideal. 

Confident, ambitious , young GM's want to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

DD finally gets to hire his manager.  Of course will people actually want the job?  They only have to deal with,

- a 3-4 year rebuild (that they will likely rack up a terrible record and be fired for)

- Work with Ownership. 

- Work with DD

I have a feeling we are going to go really young and/or former player with ties to DD. Jason Varitek?  

Let's just hire Caleb Joseph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mcneck said:

Confident, ambitious , young GM's want to win.

Hey....Houston Astros were a disaster area...Milwaukee was a disaster area...Cleveland was a disaster area, etc. etc. ....GMs coming into a disaster can only go up...can’t go down.   I think young analytic GMs primarily want to build something and that the redesign, rebuild aspect has a lot if appeal. It would to me, anyways.

  If a new GM comes into an established winner like Red Sox or Yankees...well, there is not much room for error... win  immediately expectations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, weams said:

 

Right move and I love Buck but time to move on. Give the job to Buck Britton, nice guy and why does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rene88 said:

Right move and I love Buck but time to move on. Give the job to Buck Britton, nice guy and why does it matter?

I said give it to Dusty. Or his son. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • I'm multitasking.
    • I'm here too, logged in as DJ Stewart's number one fan on the board. I like the guys who don't look like athletes.
    • Here's bad news: I'm watching. 
    • Looks like it's just me and you here, @eddie83
    • So I had a grand theory all ready to explain modern baseball, based on the impact of the information revolution on defense.  According to the theory, better data has allowed teams to better measure individual defense and the contribution of defense to run prevention, which has led to increased emphasis on defensive ability in personnel decisions.  Better data has also led to shifts and other improvements in defensive positioning.  All of these factors have led in theory to improved defensive efficiency--an increase in the percentage of balls in play that are converted into outs.  In turn, this has led to a change in optimal offensive strategies.  If it's harder to get hits on balls in play, then it is less likely that you will be able to score runs by stringing a bunch of singles together, or by using small ball tactics like base stealing, the hit and run and the sacrifice.  Teams thus optimally put more emphasis on power in personnel decisions, because a home run is the one way to score runs that can't be stopped by good defense. Great theory, huh?  Then I looked at the data.  Here are the numbers for aggregate defensive efficiency for MLB since 2001: 2001:  0.691     2002:  0.695   2003:  0.694   2004:  0.691   2005:  0.693   2006:  0.687   2007:  0.686   2008:  0.689 2009:  0.690   2010:  0.691   2011:  0.694    2012:  0.691   2013:  0.692   2014:  0.690    2015:  0.689    2016: 0.688 2017:  0.688    2018:  0.691 So twenty years into the defensive revolution, we have...the same defensive efficiency that we had in 2001.  Teams on the whole are doing no better today at converting balls in play into outs than they were in 2001, despite all of the shifts and all of the zone ratings and other defensive measures that are now available.   So much for my theory.  Some earlier posts suggest another theory--improved pitch design and velocity have made it harder to hit for contact, which increases strikeouts and reduces batting average.  In turn this leads to a greater emphasis on power at the expense of contact, increasing home runs, further increasing strikeouts and further reducing batting average.  That theory may be correct, but it's less obvious to me that the correct strategic response to improved pitch design and velocity is to sacrifice contact for power. It could go the other way--in response to better pitching, it is even more important to hit for contact, to put the ball in play, to sustain an offense.  It would take a model simulation to determine whether the optimal response to power pitching is to emphasize power hitting.   Or it could just be a juiced ball!  
    • Two out walk no damage. I say Orioles win 8-2 tonight.  
    • Holy hell Soler is having himself a season.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...