Jump to content

Petition


bryanman8

Recommended Posts

Then whether the runner is at 2nd or 3rd, a base hit is going to score him. The disadvantage of the runner at 2nd is that a sac fly won't bring him home. But with Tejada and Gibbons coming up I'll take that chance.

Aaghh! Tejada would not have batted. Why do people keep missing this point? If the bunt had been successful and first base was open, Tejada would've immediately been intentionally walked. Guaranteed.

That's what makes the bunt so insipid. Perlozzo was essentially giving away the at-bats of his two best hitters-- Markakis, by having him bunt; and Tejada, who would be walked if the bunt was successful. In a tie game in the 10th, those are the two batters I most want at the plate, regardless of which base the runner is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Aaghh! Tejada would not have batted. Why do people keep missing this point? If the bunt had been successful and first base was open, Tejada would've immediately been intentionally walked. Guaranteed.

That's what makes the bunt so insipid. Perlozzo was essentially giving away the at-bats of his two best hitters-- Markakis, by having him bunt; and Tejada, who would be walked if the bunt was successful. In a tie game in the 10th, those are the two batters I most want at the plate, regardless of which base the runner is on.

End of discussion. When you consider the specifics of the situation it was an awful, or insipid, call.

But don't fire the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is room in baseball for the sacrifice. Using it automatically "by the book" is what is maddening!

Hm-m-m.....the "Baseball Book" is about 150 years old now.....ya' ever think maybe it might be right? I'm certain that the test of time would show that doing it by the book ....the sac bunt.... to get a runner in scoring position works more often than not. Of course knowing that you have a good bunter at the plate should enter into that decision. Maybe Perlozzo made his decision because Markakis looks good in the batting cage practicing his bunting, which of course is very different from game conditions....and now he knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm-m-m.....the "Baseball Book" is about 150 years old now.....ya' ever think maybe it might be right? I'm certain that the test of time would show that doing it by the book ....the sac bunt.... to get a runner in scoring position works more often than not. Of course knowing that you have a good bunter at the plate should enter into that decision. Maybe Perlozzo made his decision because Markakis looks good in the batting cage practicing his bunting, which of course is very different from game conditions....and now he knows.

There's a new edition to your old baseball book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm-m-m.....the "Baseball Book" is about 150 years old now.....ya' ever think maybe it might be right? I'm certain that the test of time would show that doing it by the book ....the sac bunt.... to get a runner in scoring position works more often than not. Of course knowing that you have a good bunter at the plate should enter into that decision. Maybe Perlozzo made his decision because Markakis looks good in the batting cage practicing his bunting, which of course is very different from game conditions....and now he knows.

That's exactly the problem. As absolutely bizarre and illogical as it is, many baseball decisions are based on strategies that were turned into orthodoxy 100 years ago. The game has evolved and changed in countless ways since then, but the book is updated less frequently than the constitution.

Relief pitching helped teams win more often as early as the 1910s, and by the 1950s relievers were winning MVP awards. But it's still commonplace to hear "good pitchers should finish what they start." That's what The Book says. Platooning was invented in the 1880s, and had its first period of being in vogue starting in 1914, and has helped countless teams win when they otherwise wouldn't have, but we still have folks arguing that a player isn't worth crap if you have to platoon him. Because the book doesn't believe in platooning.

Bunting was reviled as a trick play when Davy Force and others invented it in the 1870s, then became beloved as the centerpiece of "scientific baseball" in the 1890s, then became an automatic thing that everyone did all the time in the deadball era 1910s when cleanup hitters often had four homers a year. It's dramatically decreased in frequency since then, and everyone knows that it's of limited use in all but the most specific, tailored, late-inning, one-run-will-win-the-game situations, but you still get folks talking about how sac bunting is a crucial skill that every single major leaguer needs to have. See, the book loves bunting, and has ever since that chapter was written by John McGraw in 1905.

It's not 1914 any more. Teams score more than three runs a game, and we know better than to bunt with your best hitter. If your book says otherwise you need to get on Amazon and find a new one, ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took the words right out my mouth. I'm tired of seeing "Fire Perlozzo!" whenever he makes an strategical decision that someone doesn't like. Yes, the bunt was an abysmal call (assuming it was Perlozzo's decision and not Nick's...do we have confirmation of this?), but calling for the guy's firing is a ridiculous overreaction. From some of the reactions, you'd think Perlozzo actually murdered a guy on the field.

Every manager in baseball will make an awful strategic decision at some point. Whether it's bunting at the wrong time, bringing in the wrong pitcher, or whatever else, any manager in the bigs can be second-guessed.

As other posters have mentioned, as long as Perlozzo is doing a good job of handling the team and carries the respect of his players-- which he does-- then doing something like bunting with Nick Markakis can be forgiven.

I'm tired of seeing "Don't put Bruce Chen in our rotation for next year!" whenever his DIPS stinks. Yes, Bruce Chen really does stink (and anyone with any background in statistical analysis knew this all along), but calling for the guy's removal from our pitching plans is a ridiculous overreaction. From some of the reactions, you'd think Chen actually murdered a guy on the field.

Every pitcher in baseball will have poor peripherals at some point. Whether it's not striking out enough batters, walking too many, giving up too many homers, or whatever else, any pitcher in the bigs can be called for his removal from the rotation.

As other posters have mentioned, as long as Chen is doing a good job in the clubhouse and carries the respect of his coaches and teammates--which he does--then doing something like having an awful DIPS can be forgiven.

Bruce Chen this year: 93 IP, 6.68 ERA.

I'm tired of your insistence that things that relate to clubhouse affairs and the dugout are more important than performance. That's your opinion. This is mine. Mine is meant to prevent things that are statistically detrimental, like sacrifice bunting and giving 93 innings to a pitcher with a DIPS over 5 last year. Yours is meant to prevent bad public relations and such. I disagree vehemently with yours, you disagree vehemently with mine, but can you please stop trying to pass mine off as ridiculous every time?

If we're ever going to make the playoffs, it's going to be in an extremely close race. We cannot afford idiotic measures of inefficiency like these. If I took over as GM today, I would say "Thank you very much, Sam, for all you've done for the fans and your great relationship with the players and all you've done for baseball, but you need to get with the program--you make awful tactical decisions every day, and if you combined some wisdom in your decision-making with your already terrific player relationships, you'd be a terrific manager. You have to adapt to what we know is smarter, or we'll have to find a new manager."

It's not that hard. In truth, I'm extremely upset at Flanagan and the FO for failing to sell him on this despite their supposed understanding of sabermetrics.

What's undervalued now is measures of efficiency on the field--not sacrifice bunting, using DIPS and related peripheral-based pitching statistics to evaluate all possible acquisitions and the team's players in relationship to next season, using leverage charts to determine when to bring in your best reliever and 2nd best and so on, using smart platoons, constructing a lineup in the most logical way (although even this doesn't mean very much), knowing when to pull the plug on a guy's season before it becomes an absolute disaster, cutting down on wasteful hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts with guys who can't steal--some of these even sabermetric-based teams like the A's don't do. Even doing all of these things correctly may not get you much--some of the things like sac bunting and bullpen usage may only increase your win total a game or two each--but those are games we DESPERATELY NEED in the division we're in.

We can't have these amazingly bad decisions and complete ignorance of what makes sense in baseball nowadays. I understand your feelings on the importance of relationships and all that--in truth, if I'm a team like the White Sox, I may even be able to overlook Ozzie Guillen's deficiencies in the sacrifice bunt area due to his success (and although this may seem like an obvious statement, it's not for me). Even though sac bunting is horribly stupid and it's astounding why anyone still does it, it's like refusing to take your coin change for all purchases in a year. Even though, on an individual scale, it's not that costly and doesn't have a big impact, on a national scale, it's huge and people are wasting billions of dollars a year.

Baseball teams are wasting the opportunity to score many more runs each year. Sam's had a long list of faults this year, and combined, I'm quite sure he's cost us a few games in the standings. If he cannot adapt and refuses to change, this is unacceptable for a team that needs each and every win so badly.

Change, or leave. Being a good clubhouse manager and a smart decision-maker are not exclusive from each-other. It's entirely possible to be both and keep people from all circles happy. Right now, he's not keeping my circle happy--at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of seeing "Don't put Bruce Chen in our rotation for next year!" whenever his DIPS stinks. Yes, Bruce Chen really does stink (and anyone with any background in statistical analysis knew this all along), but calling for the guy's removal from our pitching plans is a ridiculous overreaction. From some of the reactions, you'd think Chen actually murdered a guy on the field.

Every pitcher in baseball will have poor peripherals at some point. Whether it's not striking out enough batters, walking too many, giving up too many homers, or whatever else, any pitcher in the bigs can be called for his removal from the rotation.

As other posters have mentioned, as long as Chen is doing a good job in the clubhouse and carries the respect of his coaches and teammates--which he does--then doing something like having an awful DIPS can be forgiven.

Bruce Chen this year: 93 IP, 6.68 ERA.

I'm tired of your insistence that things that relate to clubhouse affairs and the dugout are more important than performance. That's your opinion. This is mine. Mine is meant to prevent things that are statistically detrimental, like sacrifice bunting and giving 93 innings to a pitcher with a DIPS over 5 last year. Yours is meant to prevent bad public relations and such. I disagree vehemently with yours, you disagree vehemently with mine, but can you please stop trying to pass mine off as ridiculous every time?

If we're ever going to make the playoffs, it's going to be in an extremely close race. We cannot afford idiotic measures of inefficiency like these. If I took over as GM today, I would say "Thank you very much, Sam, for all you've done for the fans and your great relationship with the players and all you've done for baseball, but you need to get with the program--you make awful tactical decisions every day, and if you combined some wisdom in your decision-making with your already terrific player relationships, you'd be a terrific manager. You have to adapt to what we know is smarter, or we'll have to find a new manager."

It's not that hard. In truth, I'm extremely upset at Flanagan and the FO for failing to sell him on this despite their supposed understanding of sabermetrics.

What's undervalued now is measures of efficiency on the field--not sacrifice bunting, using DIPS and related peripheral-based pitching statistics to evaluate all possible acquisitions and the team's players in relationship to next season, using leverage charts to determine when to bring in your best reliever and 2nd best and so on, using smart platoons, constructing a lineup in the most logical way (although even this doesn't mean very much), knowing when to pull the plug on a guy's season before it becomes an absolute disaster, cutting down on wasteful hit-and-runs and stolen base attempts with guys who can't steal--some of these even sabermetric-based teams like the A's don't do. Even doing all of these things correctly may not get you much--some of the things like sac bunting and bullpen usage may only increase your win total a game or two each--but those are games we DESPERATELY NEED in the division we're in.

We can't have these amazingly bad decisions and complete ignorance of what makes sense in baseball nowadays. I understand your feelings on the importance of relationships and all that--in truth, if I'm a team like the White Sox, I may even be able to overlook Ozzie Guillen's deficiencies in the sacrifice bunt area due to his success (and although this may seem like an obvious statement, it's not for me). Even though sac bunting is horribly stupid and it's astounding why anyone still does it, it's like refusing to take your coin change for all purchases in a year. Even though, on an individual scale, it's not that costly and doesn't have a big impact, on a national scale, it's huge and people are wasting billions of dollars a year.

Baseball teams are wasting the opportunity to score many more runs each year. Sam's had a long list of faults this year, and combined, I'm quite sure he's cost us a few games in the standings. If he cannot adapt and refuses to change, this is unacceptable for a team that needs each and every win so badly.

Change, or leave. Being a good clubhouse manager and a smart decision-maker are not exclusive from each-other. It's entirely possible to be both and keep people from all circles happy. Right now, he's not keeping my circle happy--at all.

What you are saying makes no sense. Bruce Chen was our BEST pitcher last season. No FO in there right mind would ever take him out of the Rotation unless for a trade. He was 13- 10 3.83 ERA. Oh and "your manager" would have never let Markakis struggle for so long in the MLB. Nick would be in the minors trying to get back into the MLB. BECAUSE OF SAMMY Nick is now the 2nd best hitter on this team. You guys are getting ridiculous that want Sammy fired. It is his first season and he has made mistakes. He has also created a team. This team never gives up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying makes no sense. Bruce Chen was our BEST pitcher last season. No FO in there right mind would ever take him out of the Rotation unless for a trade. He was 13- 10 3.83 ERA. Oh and "your manager" would have never let Markakis struggle for so long in the MLB. Nick would be in the minors trying to get back into the MLB. BECAUSE OF SAMMY Nick is now the 2nd best hitter on this team. You guys are getting ridiculous that want Sammy fired. It is his first season and he has made mistakes. He has also created a team. This team never gives up.

What you are saying makes no sense. Bruce Chen was one of our WORST PITCHERS last season. No FO with any statistical background would ever let him start the year in the Rotation unless they didn't care at all about performance and only cared about clubhouse-ness. He had a freaking DIPS over 5. Oh and 'my manager' would have let Markakis struggle for so long in the MLB because how long he struggled even was not close to a big enough sample size and I never once advocated for him to be sent down. BECAUSE HE'S GOOD Nick is now the 2nd best hitter on this team. You guys are getting ridiculous that put all these words in my mouth and call performance-based analysis over teamwork analysis stupid. It is his first season and I'll gladly let him stay on if he agrees to stop making mistakes next season. (It's not like it's just an innocent little mistake--it's a PHILOSOPHY! His decisions have been way too old-school on the baseball field for what it'll take for the Orioles to ever be a real winning team.)

The last two lines, you sound like Joe Morgan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't have these amazingly bad decisions and complete ignorance of what makes sense in baseball nowadays. I understand your feelings on the importance of relationships and all that--in truth, if I'm a team like the White Sox, I may even be able to overlook Ozzie Guillen's deficiencies in the sacrifice bunt area due to his success (and although this may seem like an obvious statement, it's not for me). Even though sac bunting is horribly stupid and it's astounding why anyone still does it, it's like refusing to take your coin change for all purchases in a year. Even though, on an individual scale, it's not that costly and doesn't have a big impact, on a national scale, it's huge and people are wasting billions of dollars a year.

Baseball teams are wasting the opportunity to score many more runs each year. Sam's had a long list of faults this year, and combined, I'm quite sure he's cost us a few games in the standings. If he cannot adapt and refuses to change, this is unacceptable for a team that needs each and every win so badly.

Change, or leave. Being a good clubhouse manager and a smart decision-maker are not exclusive from each-other. It's entirely possible to be both and keep people from all circles happy. Right now, he's not keeping my circle happy--at all.

A issue I take with your statement in that in baseball the game decisions only effect at most one game, so the opportunity to score many more runs over the season is irrelavant. There are times when a sac bunt is appropiate and I would bet your stats would back that up if they are not too Macro oriented. In a simulation you are going to score more runs if you do not sac bunt, but in a real game it very well may make you score the winning run at the appropiate time. So the total runs scored to an extend is not what leads to wins, it is scoring more runs than your opposition in that one game, which will be done differrently in different situations.

I think any time you deal in absolutes you are not maximizing effieciency. Last night if widger was batting in front of Nick I think it would have been a decent plan to sac bunt him, but not Nick. If anything that is the problem I see in Sam that is he typically plays it by his book and sometime it appears without consideration of the true situation. Which is just as bad as saying never sac bunt. I would think being flexible and using statistical models is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bunting in that situation would have advanced a runner to scoring position with less than 2 outs and 2 guys up that could easily get a base hit without the threat of grounding into a double play.
There would be threat of the double play, because Texas would have walked Tejada. The guy you quoted said that would be "stupid" but Texas did it to us twice in one game earlier in the year, and guess who won that game?

Who do you think Texas would want to pitch to? Tejada with a man on second and one down after Tejada had already gone 3-3 or Gibbons who still has a bum leg and is basically a guaranteed DP if he puts the ball in play towards one of your infielders. Even if Jay DIDN'T GIDP the weakest part of the order was coming up. It would be idiotic for Texas to pitch to Tejada if the bunt were successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying makes no sense. Bruce Chen was one of our WORST PITCHERS last season. No FO with any statistical background would ever let him start the year in the Rotation unless they didn't care at all about performance and only cared about clubhouse-ness. He had a freaking DIPS over 5.

Sorry, but that's just crazytalk. I don't care if you're the Oakland A's or a mythical team that only has Bill James clones running things, you don't dump a pitcher was 13-8 with a 3.86 last year, and with a career ERA of just over 4.00. Especially not because of a hunch based on his DIPS ERA. No one in the history of baseball would do that. No one.

You simply can't crucify a team's management for keeping Bruce Chen around for 2006.

And ranting about stuff like this casts all of us numbers-oriented folks in a bad light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying makes no sense. Bruce Chen was one of our WORST PITCHERS last season. No FO with any statistical background would ever let him start the year in the Rotation unless they didn't care at all about performance and only cared about clubhouse-ness. He had a freaking DIPS over 5. Oh and 'my manager' would have let Markakis struggle for so long in the MLB because how long he struggled even was not close to a big enough sample size and I never once advocated for him to be sent down. BECAUSE HE'S GOOD Nick is now the 2nd best hitter on this team. You guys are getting ridiculous that put all these words in my mouth and call performance-based analysis over teamwork analysis stupid. It is his first season and I'll gladly let him stay on if he agrees to stop making mistakes next season. (It's not like it's just an innocent little mistake--it's a PHILOSOPHY! His decisions have been way too old-school on the baseball field for what it'll take for the Orioles to ever be a real winning team.)

The last two lines, you sound like Joe Morgan.

There is no way Chen doesn't get on a rotation. He had a 3.83 ERA our next best was Lopez with a 4.90. So why in hell would anyone want to take Chen out of a starters jobs. There is no stat that is 100% going to tell you how a pitcher is going to be in the next season. You look at stats that support your cause and say the other stats don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's just crazytalk. I don't care if you're the Oakland A's or a mythical team that only has Bill James clones running things, you don't dump a pitcher was 13-8 with a 3.86 last year, and with a career ERA of just over 4.00. Especially not because of a hunch based on his DIPS ERA. No one in the history of baseball would do that. No one.

You simply can't crucify a team's management for keeping Bruce Chen around for 2006.

I know. That's why the people who make up the 'history of baseball' aren't always right. I'm sure you know that.

Proposal on what's undervalued in baseball today:

The insistance on sending out a pitcher who you know is going to have an ERA above 5 because he improves the clubhouse is making teams give up way more than they should. It's stupid and outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I’m a little surprised Tony is in the field today, looked dinged up towards the end of the game yesterday getting up slowly from both his slide into second and his diving catch. 
    • I'm not opposed to trading Kjerstad (assuming Santander is then re-signed), but trading him for a reliever of any stripe seems like a waste of resources. There should be more economical ways of building a strong bullpen, and Kjerstad is a big enough talent to be the centerpiece in a trade for a cost-controlled starter. That seems like the more impactful move to me. 
    • Sure service time factors in. But it also seems to me you and a few others like you, think the grass is always greener on the other side based on the constant overrating of other team's players, but totally act like our own prospects are worth pennies. The Orioles don't have the best farm system in MLB if all their prospects are all low rank and low value. I do agree with Moose's comment about the fetishization of some prospects around here, but then there's the other extreme of that with some of these ridiculous trade offers of giving away the farm for a brown paper bag. You're not giving what's really possible enough of an opportunity or enough thought.
    • You're right, context does matter. I get it, we love our prospects but some of them are going to have to be traded.  Trading Ortiz and Hall didn't hurt much because of 1.  the return and 2. they weren't, like, a member of the inner circle of prospects we've grown to fawn over on here. IMO, that group is Holliday, Cowser (although I'm gonna remind everyone here once again that a lot of you were ready to part with him this past offseason) Kjerstad, Basallo and Mayo.  IMO, Hall had enough time for the shine to wash off him and while he had his defenders here, Ortiz was a guy that would have a hard time finding a full time spot.  Those two guys were on the outside looking in...didn't know if Hall was a starter or a reliever and Ortiz wasn't Jackson Holliday or Jordan Westburg. People on here like fantasizing about filling out lineups 1-9 of completely home grown talent, first round picks that'll all pan out, that'll all be great players...and it's just not going to work out that way.  It's coming close, but not all of these guys are going to be studs, not all of these guys are going to be as great as we seem to think they'll be.   So, yeah, I'd be open to trading Kjerstad for an elite, cost controlled bullpen arm because we'd be dealing from a position of strength in order to address a big need.   
    • Not actually expecting it but would be a very baseball thing to happen.
    • Yeah I agree with your thought process on position players vs pitchers. But that’s also why the young cheap guys like Skenes are worth so much. Yeah, he may break, but he’s cheap and you don’t have to give him a ton of money like you would for a free agent pitcher. With our current situation, I’d definitely do Holliday for Skenes straight up. It’s very likely Holliday provides more value during their controlled years, but he’s more easily replaced. If we’re lucky and Skenes and Grayson can have a few healthy years together, I think that gives us a better chance at a world series than 6 healthy years of Holliday. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...