This game is all on Buck

[OrioleMagic79]

I think the point is getting lost here...by saying Buck is responsible for this loss I don't think anyone is claiming Buck is any less of a manager...the guys is one of the best game managers I've ever seen...

That said, this game was on his shoulders for the way he handled MG...I saw it, the announcers commented on it over and over...I'm pretty sure Buck would even admit that. Matusz and Strop did not do their jobs all that well either, but leaving MG in with two runners on after giving up 2 runs and not even getting a guy up in the pen is a bad move...

It's OK to say Buck didn't have a good game people...that doesn't make you a bad fan or someone who doesn't acknowledge Buck's amazing job with this team overall...it is just in reference to one situation in one game...

If in a random game sometime I say "boy, Adam Jones just had a really bad AB there..." - that doesn't mean I believe AJ is a hack and a worthless player...it doesn't mean that his other three ABs where he had big hits and multiple RBIs were not amazing...it's just an observation about a single performance...

Buck didn't make the right decision with how to handle MG who was wild and couldn't get the ball over the plate (or even near it) without floating it up there to be crushed...I'm sure he'll handle it the right way 20 more times before he messes it up again...but that doesn't mean that it wasn't handled poorly...

I understand when people never say anything positive how that can get annoying...I try to be on both sides of the fence...appreciative but critical as well...but getting up in arms and making someone feel under attack for commenting on their opinions, even if the comment is only mildly negative, is WAY worse as far as message board etiquette is concerned IMO...

[Satyr3206]

In my opinion the strike zone has shrunk significantly in the last 20 years. Read the rulebook, it's letters to knees. It's hard to throw complete games aiming for a postage stamp every night.

And I find it so funny that people say today's athletes are superior but they can't go 8 or 9 because they'll get hurt. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

And finally, I disagreed with Buck's management of the bullpen in the playoffs last year and was shouted down. Interesting.

[crissfan172]

In my opinion the strike zone has shrunk significantly in the last 20 years. Read the rulebook, it's letters to knees. It's hard to throw complete games aiming for a postage stamp every night.

And I find it so funny that people say today's athletes are superior but they can't go 8 or 9 because they'll get hurt. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

And finally, I disagreed with Buck's management of the bullpen in the playoffs last year and was shouted down. Interesting.

The strike zone has literally shrunk. It's from the midriff to the hollows of the knees now. Now...umps usually call the belt, but it's not like pitches at the letters are strikes by the rulebook either.

1996 - The Strike Zone is expanded on the lower end, moving from the top of the knees to the bottom of the knees.

1988 - "The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

1969 - "The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the batter's armpits and the top of his knees when he assumes a natural stance. The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch."

1963 - "The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the top of the batter's shoulders and his knees when he assumes his natural stance. The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch."

1957 - "A strike is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire which (a) is struck at by the batter and is missed; (b) enters the Strike Zone in flight and is not struck at; © is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes at it; (d) is bunted foul; (e) touches the batter as he strikes at it; (f) touches the batter in flight in the Strike Zone; or (g) becomes a foul tip. Note: (f) was added to the former rule and definition."

1950 - "The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the batter's armpits and the top of his knees when he assumes his natural stance."

Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

[Satyr3206]

The strike zone has literally shrunk. It's from the midriff to the hollows of the knees now. Now...umps usually call the belt, but it's not like pitches at the letters are strikes by the rulebook either.

Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

What's the issue? Almost all mention shoulders, armpits, etc.

When is the last time you saw a pitch above the belt called a strike?

[crissfan172]

What's the issue? Almost all mention shoulders, armpits, etc.

When is the last time you saw a pitch above the belt called a strike?

I wasn't disagreeing that the strike zone has shrunk, just that the strike zone in the rulebook isn't as high as people believe it is.

[DrungoHazewood]

In my opinion the strike zone has shrunk significantly in the last 20 years. Read the rulebook, it's letters to knees. It's hard to throw complete games aiming for a postage stamp every night.

It has. And the way it's called changed pretty dramatically when umps went to inside chest protectors in the 80s.

And I find it so funny that people say today's athletes are superior but they can't go 8 or 9 because they'll get hurt. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

If everything else had been held constant you'd have a point. But the per-pitch requirements on a starter are far higher than they used to be. First, hitters are much better than in the 60s and 70s. Stronger, more data, better bats. Most significantly, the expansion of bullpens has almost eliminated the practice of pacing. A starter no longer has any at bats he can take off, except maybe when he's facing a pitcher in interleague 15 or 20 at bats a year. Used to be someone in Palmer's era faced a pitcher 2-3 times a game, an Oyler/Belanger type "hitter" three times a game, and there were a lot more Duane Kuiper types who rarely if ever hit one out of the park. Today almost every batter is a home run threat, and most batters work the count.

So the end result is a starter works almost as hard per-pitch as a closer, throwing with 100% effort all the time. That just wasn't the case 30 or 40+ years ago. Back in the deadball era guys like Mathewson and Johnson would only bring out their good stuff when the other team's #3 or #4 hitter was up in a tight situation. Today's starters throw like that on every at bat.

Also... oldtime starters used to be regularly pulled if they gave up 3-4 runs in the first inning or two. Now you almost never see a starter pulled after 30-40 pitches no matter the results.

And finally, I disagreed with Buck's management of the bullpen in the playoffs last year and was shouted down. Interesting.

I'm not sure what your disagrement was, so whatever.

What's the issue? Almost all mention shoulders, armpits, etc.

When is the last time you saw a pitch above the belt called a strike?

Sporadically. Tillman had a curve called a strike the other day on that Smith guy on Oakland, it just dropped into the top of the zone. But you'd have to look at the Pitch F/x data - I would agree from observation that the top 6" of the rulebook zone is not called nearly as often as the rest of it.