So, I guess Buck's honeymoon is over?

[Remember The Alomar]

Let's face it. Something has to give before the Orioles can be competitive no matter who's running the team. Baseball needs a salary cap. Just like it was when the cowboys,49's bought all the players so does Redsox's and Yankee and St.Louis, Phi...

There's not going to be a salary cap in baseball anytime soon and there doesn't need to be one for the Orioles to be competitive. The Orioles need a new owner and an intelligent front office. God knows when that's going to happen--especially if the team remains in the Angelos family.

[Remember The Alomar]

Good post

It really summed up the emotions of the fan base better then any post I've read before.

[alaniee]

And again, Gregg has performed fine this year.

LOL really? He's near the top of the leader board for blown saves with 4. Top is 6. Not even really close to top saves, Gregg has 14 saves.

That is not a fine performance for a closer we signed for nice money. That pretty much sucks.

[primetime]

I could care less about the record.

I don't think he is using the bench or his pitching staff nearly as well as he did last year.

I posted earlier in the thread that after looking through the lineups Buck used in his 57 games last year, he didn't do anything dramatic. There appeared to be no matching up or anything to that effect, the lineup was fairly static....

BRob

Nick

Wiggy

Scott

Jones

Wieters

Pie

Bell

Izzy

Against LHs, you saw a righty in the 2 hole and Nick 3rd, but that was pretty much it. As for the bench, he occassionally pinch hit, sometimes Lugo started, sometimes Andino started, CPatt got a few ABs and Snyder saw some time in September. The backup C started about once a week. Nothing different from what we're seeing now.; ie, occassional starts from bench players and a once a week cameo by the backup C.

As for the pitching staff, it's much easier to handle a staff when you're getting quality starts in 2 out of every 3 games. Buck may not have been as in rigid in bullpen roles last year but I think that had less to do with managing style and more to do with a couple things....1) not being familiar with the pitchers.....2) not having a set closer.....3) dealing with injuries.

Which leads me to ask, what did he do "well" with the bench and pitching staff last year that he isn't doing this year?

I love what Buck brings to the table in regards to respectability, preparation and passion. Also, he seems to be a steady, calming influence and patient. Maybe a bit too patient at times, particularly with veteran players. He's good with the media, always tries to find a positive in every situation and doesn't throw any players under the bus.

Taking these character traits into consideration, how can you think that he changed his managing style for the worse in the span of an offseason?

Rather than a mythical drop off in Buck's managing ability, there are 2 factors at play in 2011 that are impacting Buck, both of which ironically doomed his predecessors in 2010....an underperforming pitching staff and no Brian Roberts at the top of the lineup.

[Pat Kelly]

Good post

Agree with everything in this post. I think post All-Star Break will tell us a great deal. Vlad probably plays less and bats lower. Roberts returns. Pitching continues to improve.

[Malike]

I see no difference other than the starting pitching stinks, as well. Someone mentioned he isn't holding players accountable and isn't making any moves on the roster. Ask Tillman, Bergy, Accardo, Rupe, Rapada, etc if they were not held accountable for not performing. Vlad is getting a pass, and rightfully so. They are playing him and hoping he gets hot and I suspect they will try to pry a prospect from a team at the deadline for him. Nothing aggravates me more than a person making a post like he's a different manager, and then when asked why, not putting any thought into their retort and resorting to a short one sentence answer. If this team had a 3.50 ERA, we'd probably be in second place right now. Its all about the pitching, and ours kinda stinks.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Average Leverage Index:

Gregg: 1.9

Johnson: 1.5

Koji: 1.2

Gregg easily has seen the highest pressure situations of the three.

Ok, I think I'm up to par on leverage index. I agree with your ali numbers per BBR.

I broke down the leverage situations down for the three pitchers as follows:

High leverage: Gregg 16, Johnson 14, Koji 11.

Med Leverage: Johnson 14, Koji 6, Gregg, 8.

Low Leverage: Koji 14, Johnson 9, Gregg 8.

Here's my issue with the stat: It heavily weighs the inning in which the pitcher enters the game. I have no problem with the other variables: number of outs, baserunners and run differential. But for the stat to be meaningful (imo) and compare apples to apples, you have to neutralzie the inning which the pitcher came into the game. A couple examples: a guy coming into the top of the 6th inning with 0 outs and a one run lead is assigned a LI of 1.4, seventh inning 1.7etc.. A closer coming into the game in the top of the 9th (same situation) is assigned a LI of 2.9. That can be a pretty huge difference when you start accumulating the "average".

http://www.insidethebook.com/li.shtml#17

The inning shouldn't make a difference. I completely understand the fact that the game is more leveraged later in the game. I just don't agree that it's a factor that should be assigned to an individual pitcher as a record of his utility. That's misleading and an unfair advantage given to the "closer" imo. The 6th/7th/8th etc. inning is just as important as the 9th inning.

[ccbird]

Frobby isn't the only one who sees almost no difference. The main difference I see is the starters are performing worse so the record is worse so folks are now complaining about the exact same things he did last year when he walked on water. The thread is comical to me. I really think folks would honestly just keep firing managers, GM, and coaches every 2-3 years from now until the end of time without ever once considering if they were reacting to the result rather than the process. The lack of depth in the analysis from so many folks is just staggering to me. And that's fine. Fans don't have to justify their stances or pet peeves. But the revisionist history that so many folks have on here is really something to witness.

Look, I realize that this isn't of any use. The folks clamoring for change have been doing so for years and years and will continue to do so until the Orioles finally win. Whatever, hope they have fun. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the unintended comedy of the belief that Buck was the man last year when we went 34-23 and suddenly became stupid over the winter.

Wow. I have to fall into the camp that I don't see a lot different in Buck. Yes, there was a point this year where I hoped he would be more flexible in whom he used as a closer, when Gregg struggled some early. But he stuck with him, and it's hard to second guess that decision now.

I think that there are a lot of factors going on now. My 83 year old mother complains about the heat in the summer and about the cold in the winter. When you are sweating and hot and muggy, it's hard to forget how miserable it was standing on the corner waiting for a bus back in the winter. Today's suffering always grabs your attention more than the memory of previous suffering.

This team is playing way, way better than it was a year ago. We are 6 games under .500. A year ago today we were 30 games under. That is a HUGE difference. We were doing things that were nearly historical in terms of badness last year, like going 40 games without a multi-run home run or going several weeks without scoring more than two runs in an inning. We feel terrible now, probably as bad as we did last year. Because losing is losing.

Do we still do some stupid things on the bases or in the field? Yes. But I believe they are far fewer now than they were over the past several years, pre-Buck. One problem now is that we are in most every game. In the past 33 games,. we have only lost 6 games by more than 3 runs, and only TWO games by more than 4 runs. We lost 25 of our first 99 games last year by more than 4 runs, over a quarter of them, and over a third by at least 4. So last year when we did something stupid on the field or on the bases, it probably didn't cost us the game. We were already out of it. And the team was so bad you couldn't do much else but have a sort of gallows humor about it.

This year, when we make a stupid mistake as players will occasionally do, it means the difference between winning and losing a series vs the Nationals or Pirates.

We've had some significant injuires. We definitely have some players who have underperformed. You watch this team hit, especially now when the hitting is really coming together, and you know they can score runs. We know what some of our young pitchers are capable of even if they are going through injuries or slumps at the moment. There IS enough talent here to be .500, and so every loss is frustrating. And emotionally we feel as bad now as we did watching a team last year that was far, far inferior to this, that was 30 games under .500.

Despite everything, this team will likely put up the most wins in the past 6 years, maybe even the best in the past 13 years. But the mood of the fan base right now, because we are burdened with those years of losing and had hopes of a winning season, is probably as low now as it was last year when we were 30 under, and lower than other seasons when we had comparable records to this. In other words, our mood does not correlate with our record the way you would think. We feel ****tier being 6 under than we have in years past when we might have been 15 under at this point.

This is emotion, not fact. The fact is, it's a long season, we still have a shot at a .500 season despite being predicted to win about 78 games by most experts, and despite having some important injuries. I don't necessarily agree with every move Buck has made, but I believe he has brought a level of accountability that has been lacking in past years. Sending down Tillman and Bergeson, DFA'ing Accardo and Rapada and Fox -- this sends a message. Produce or you are gone. I like that, and I think it will make a difference in the long run.

Excellent posts. All things considered, I think Buck is doing a good job this year. The complaints directed at Buck have either been countered or completely debunked. But you can't counter or debunk the key injuries we have had or how bad the pitching has been.

Here is something that I've learned since I've started to coach the game at a competitive level. Everybody thinks they know baseball and can do a better job than you as a coach. Granted, people Monday Morning QB in all sports but for whatever reason, whether it's because it's America's pastime or because the game is relatively simple, people truly love to put themselves in the manager's role and manage the game of baseball. Now, I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm also a fan who sits in my chair every night watching the TV and manages the game too but I also understand that there is a dynamic that none of us have access to and that is being in that clubhouse every night. You have to manage 25 egos and you have to know your players. When is the right time to yell and when is the right time to pat someone on the butt. That's stuff that goes on even at the HS level. Obviously, when you are dealing with pampered athletes, who make millions of dollars a year and are answering to a GM and owner there are many more issues and they are infinitely more difficult. Buck knows what he is doing and he has the respect of not only his players but others around baseball. No, he isn't a baseball god that is going to get this O's team in the playoffs but he is very good at what he does.

[CA-ORIOLE]

LOL really? He's near the top of the leader board for blown saves with 4. Top is 6. Not even really close to top saves, Gregg has 14 saves. That is not a fine performance for a closer we signed for nice money. That pretty much sucks.

I don't think you're going to get an argument from anybody on here that Gregg is a top closer or even that he's the best relief pitcher on the team (he's clearly not). Considering how marginal he is, I'd say he's been better than expected. That after a pretty rough start. In that respect, "fine" seams like an adequate descriptor to me. A 77% close rate for a closer is probably below average, but not bottom of the barrell.

[Blizzard1090]

I won't fault BUck for how we're doing this year. Yes he made some poor choices in some games (the one where we blew a 5-0 lead to the Yankees comes to mind) but there is only so much you can do when most of your starting pitchers can't make it past the 4th or 5th inning,your bullpen can't be trusted to hold a lead,your defense is awful and your offense can't produce with RISP.

[DrungoHazewood]

You seem like a nice fella, but you've now justified your preference for Reimold in this thread by using his two homer game as some kind of decisive data point and concluded Gregg sucks by counting number of blown saves (you didn't even go to the step of using a blown save percentage which is still a puddle shallow analysis, but at least isn't a straight counting tool). I can't counter points like these, because they don't mean much. We might as well be discussing what beverage a player had with their morning eggs as discuss the things you're using to define success. They're just about equally important.

As another poster pointed out, Gregg has been fine this year. Not exceptional, not very good, just fine. If it makes you feel better, pretend he blew one less save which would make save percentage pretty good. Would you feel a lot better if we were 6 games under instead of 8? LOL, silliness pervades...

This all comes back to the save rule driving usage patterns instead of the details of the individuals and the situations. People get upset when Buck says he wants a new paradigm in how he uses your relievers ("I don't believe in the save rule, I believe in the win rule") then goes ahead and uses him as a 100% orthodox LaRussian one-inning, all-the-save-situations closer.

There's a case to be made that the O's record wouldn't be substantially different if the saves were split in thirds among Koji, JJ, and Gregg. But it's more the appearance of the thing. Maybe Buck would be taking less flak if he just came out and said, in Buck's don't mess with me attitiude, "Gregg is the closer, I think that wins the most games, The End".

[Frobby]

I just think Buck's "win rule" comment has been blown way out of proportion. As I said, it came after a game where he allowed Michael Gonzalez to get five outs with a three run lead, then brought in Simon for the final out. He thought Gonzo was getting tired, so he brought in Simon because he didn't want to leave the game to chance just to get Gonzo a save. The decision was a reasonable one, and I think every manager would say that he cares more about winning the game than getting a pitcher a save. Buck is doing what he thinks will win the team the most games. He's not doing it to pad Gregg's save totals.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree with this 100%. His words haven't matched his actual practice on this issue, but they didn't last year either. People just liked the choice last year so they suddenly acted like he was being unconventional. He wasn't. I don't blame him. Humans do tend to like patterns and they tend to perform better when they are allowed to stay within those patterns. Change upsets most people, few embrace it. Uncertainty is even worse for most people. I'll bet JJ, Koji, and Gregg love knowing their role day-to-day even if they initially preferred a different role. Juggling them depending on the game sounds great in theory, but I bet it would work less great in practice simply due to the basic human preference for patterns and being comfortable.

You may well be right, and there's strong consensus in baseball that you're right. It's hard to find any relevant data on the subject since usage patterns change quickly, and don't cross eras very much. Without data you almost have to accept there is at least some value in consistent, if theoretically inefficient, use of pitchers.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just think Buck's "win rule" comment has been blown way out of proportion. As I said, it came after a game where he allowed Michael Gonzalez to get five outs with a three run lead, then brought in Simon for the final out. He thought Gonzo was getting tired, so he brought in Simon because he didn't want to leave the game to chance just to get Gonzo a save. The decision was a reasonable one, and I think every manager would say that he cares more about winning the game than getting a pitcher a save. Buck is doing what he thinks will win the team the most games. He's not doing it to pad Gregg's save totals.

Most of us look for the new guy to come in and make changes, and many of us hope for radical change that might turn around a bad team. So, yea, we grab onto little bits like Buck's win rule comment and probably give it more weight than was intended.

[SteveA]

Most of us look for the new guy to come in and make changes, and many of us hope for radical change that might turn around a bad team. So, yea, we grab onto little bits like Buck's win rule comment and probably give it more weight than was intended.

Well, the Orioles did choose to showcase it in a commercial too. So it's not just us fans putting weight on it.