Jump to content

I can't believe Buck pushed Chen that far again


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Because I don't have a better term to describe you people, honestly. I don't know why you are so concerned over it? Would defenders be better? Buck defenders? I wasn't trying to insult you all just trying to find a way to put you together.

By the way, it's your opinion that his move was defensible. I find it only defensible if it were 1970 again and the Orioles had a 10-man pitching staff. Other than that , the only "wacky" thing around here is that some of you rush to Buck's aid no matter how unconventional his decisions may have been. I like Buck, but I'm able to be critical at times without feeling like I'm calling for him to be fired.

Buck is not perfect. The sooner some of you understand that the better this place will be.

I've said as much in this exact thread. He's not perfect, neither is any Manager for any team. He's the best Manager we've had since Davey, and the results speak for themselves. If you feel that Chen, or Gonzo, or any other pitcher needs to be on a hard pitch limit then thats one thing. The whole 1970 talk is hogwash, too. There are plenty of guys who are capable of throwing 100+ pitches without hurting themselves. It just wasn't a big deal against the Astros. I don't think he leaves him in there against a good hitting team, in fact, he probably yanks him in the 7th after the double. All season long there have been discussions of pulling pitchers too early, or leaving them in too long, you have to trust that the Manager of the baseball team, whoever it may be, knows his players better then we do sitting at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No, I don't think so. I think it's quite a bit more nuanced than this. It looks to me that Chen is very capable of going 7/100 and maybe more (and being effective) rather than the 6/90 most people were stating earlier. i've seen the same/similar case stated for Gonzo as well. In addition to that we've had several other starters this year show they haven't been able to go deep into games. If your goal is 6/90, you're probably going to average less than that. I don't care how good your BP is, if that's your philosophy, you're heading for trouble. There are a lot of questions here: How long does it take to build a starter up? What's the cost of that? What's the marginal rate of effectiveness in the later innings once he is built up? What's the residual impact on innings/effectiveness of the BP? What's the quality and depth of the BP? etc, etc.

I think it's a little ironic that some people (not necessarily you) are harping on the importance of PPA in order to knock out the starter and get to teams weak BP's and at the same time advocating (or at least were advocating) 6/90 for a couple of our better SP's. In reality most teams are fairly strong at the back end of the BP, but a lot of teams are weak or vulnerable in the middle. Many of these guys aren't starters for a reason. Some have poor splits and managers routinely stagger lineups for this purpose.

Overall, I don't think we have a very strong BP, particularly in the middle and the difference between a starter going into the 7/8 innings vice the 5/6 innings could be as many as 2-3 extra relievers per game. That has a huge impact if you continue to repeat it.

All that said, this is a balancing act and I probably wouldn't have brought Chen out for the 8th of yesterday's game. I'm probably a bit more concerned about getting him hurt. I'll also say I'm not overly impressed with what I've seen of KRod and I'm fine if Buck wants to take things a little slow with him for right now.

This is a good post. I think the balancing act for yesterday should have taken into consideration that:

1. The O's didn't play on Monday, and hadn't used O'Day, KRod, Patton or Matusz on Sunday (O'Day wasn't used on Satuday, either).

2. Use of the bullpen is way down since Chen's return on July 10. Since then, starters have averaged 6.47 IP/start, plus there was a four-day All-Star Break in the middle of that.

3. Looking ahead, the O's have five off-days in August, so keeping the bullpen fresh shouldn't be as challenging in August as it was in April-June.

In short, our bullpen should be very fresh right now, and should remain much fresher going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said as much in this exact thread. He's not perfect, neither is any Manager for any team. He's the best Manager we've had since Davey, and the results speak for themselves. If you feel that Chen, or Gonzo, or any other pitcher needs to be on a hard pitch limit then thats one thing. The whole 1970 talk is hogwash, too. There are plenty of guys who are capable of throwing 100+ pitches without hurting themselves. It just wasn't a big deal against the Astros. I don't think he leaves him in there against a good hitting team, in fact, he probably yanks him in the 7th after the double. All season long there have been discussions of pulling pitchers too early, or leaving them in too long, you have to trust that the Manager of the baseball team, whoever it may be, knows his players better then we do sitting at home.

This makes no sense at all in a one run game. You keep talking about the Astros like they are a little league team. They are a bad team, but they get paid too. So if I understand you correctly, you don't care what the score is in the game or that O'day hadn't pitched in a week and F-rod since Saturday, or that Chen gets hit a .500 clip this year after 100 pitches, as long as it's the Astros you are ok with him starting that inning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why not bring out O'day to start the 8th? He hadn't pitched since last Wednesday? What you and few other Buck apologists are apparently not taking into consideration is the score. If the Orioles are up 6-3 or more and you want to see how your starter goes up to 120 pitches than great, but Buck took an unnecessary risk in a 4-3 game. It cost us in KC and if O'day doesn't get that last out it would have cost us in Houston.

The bullpens are put together the way they are for a reason. I would have perfectly happy with O'day, Hunter, or F-Rod in the 8th and if any of them would have blown the game it would not have been on buck, but rather that pitcher.

Well, like I already said I wouldn't have brought Chen for the eight, but it's unlikely that Altuve would have hit a HR and I kind of understand why he left him in for Castro (based on the splits (even though I thought the was fatigued). If you do bring in O'Day he's going to get Castro (very good against RHP and with power) and maybe another LH pinch hitter.

I resent and am mildly disappointed that you think I'm a "Buck apologist", but whatever Tony. Individual managerial decisions are always going to be controversial to some degree. I was downplaying Buck's aptitude all last year when it was popular. While I didn't agree with the specific move here, I also took the time to write a pretty detailed post/analysis on some of the broader issues at play. If it were up to some of the simpletons, Chen and Gonzo would be done at 90 pitches every game and no i don't think BP's are designed to work that way especially when you consider our overall picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I don't have a better term to describe you people, honestly. I don't know why you are so concerned over it? Would defenders be better? Buck defenders? I wasn't trying to insult you all just trying to find a way to put you together.

I'm a Chargers fan, have been since late 70's. On the Chargers board, people were put into 2 catagories depending on whether you we for Brees or Rivers. Then it became the AJ Smith followers or the Anti-AJ camps. It seems to me that if two sides differ in opinion someone labels the opposite side and the fan base gets divided. As if that makes one side better then the other. Which I totally disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Chargers fan, have been since late 70's. On the Chargers board, people were put into 2 catagories depending on whether you we for Brees or Rivers. Then it became the AJ Smith followers or the Anti-AJ camps. It seems to me that if two sides differ in opinion someone labels the opposite side and the fan base gets divided. As if that makes one side better then the other. Which I totally disagree with.

Or it's just a quick way for people group others of like opinions into a category when discussing things on the internet. I've never understood the issue but I do realize there are some sensitive people out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it's just a quick way for people group others of like opinions into a category when discussing things on the internet. I've never understood the issue but I do realize there are some sensitive people out there.

So either I agree with your opinion or I get labeled as a Buck apologist who's overly sensitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Malike's "it just wasn't a big deal against the Astros" may have been short-hand for letting Chen pitch to Villar to end the 7th and Castro in the 8th when he had his strike-out mojo working.

Villar is a 22-year-old thrown into the breech as the Astros' fourth SS this season and had struck out exactly half of his paltry 28 lifetime major-league at-bats. Castro is a more challenging hitter, for sure, but has performed horribly against southpaws: this year, for example, hitting only .183 and, at that point, showing a K/AB ratio of 27/70 (38.6%). As Buck probably hoped, he K'd again. Of course, we could have brought in Matusz or Patton to do the deed, but I'll assume that Buck isn't prevaricating when he said that Chen was allowed to pitch more because he had an extra day's rest.

Just be grateful, I guess, that, despite just striking out Castro (probably the most dangerous hitter in the lineup), Buck went out and pulled Chen to have O'Day pitch to Chris Carter, even though he had been fooled badly in his previous at-bats. Chen to Carter would have really caused some heart attacks on the game thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I tend to lean toward the managers and pitchers who think we worry too much about the pitch count. If it was 150+ I would start to worry....

-Don

I'm pretty sure no one would care about 100 pitches if a lot of pitchers were going strong at 130 or 150. But since most pitchers are pretty well done by ~100 that's why it's become a rule of thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure no one would care about 100 pitches if a lot of pitchers were going strong at 130 or 150. But since most pitchers are pretty well done by ~100 that's why it's become a rule of thumb.

I understand the trend, but I also think when we put the number in people's heads it gets to be as much prophecy as it is probability. I know the Braves of the 90's were not real big believers in the 100 barrier -- but I am not voting to push all pitchers until they drop, I am just suggesting some pitchers are fine into the 130 area. Ironically, I don't think Chen is one of them.

-Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the trend, but I also think when we put the number in people's heads it gets to be as much prophecy as it is probability. I know the Braves of the 90's were not real big believers in the 100 barrier -- but I am not voting to push all pitchers until they drop, I am just suggesting some pitchers are fine into the 130 area. Ironically, I don't think Chen is one of them.

-Don

I agree with this. I believe that at least to some degree, pitchers over the last 10-20 years have been taught this, and it has (generally) become ingrained in their psyches (a self-fulfilling prophecy.) If you continually tell pitchers time and again, year after year that they will be tired at or near 100 pitches, then it's highly likely that they will ....... be tired at or near 100 pitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I believe that at least to some degree, pitchers over the last 10-20 years have been taught this, and it has (generally) become ingrained in their psyches (a self-fulfilling prophecy.) If you continually tell pitchers time and again, year after year that they will be tired at or near 100 pitches, then it's highly likely that they will ....... be tired at or near 100 pitches.

Or they'll pace themselves less than earlier pitchers so that they really are tired around that mark, which raises the overall quality of pitching in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the trend, but I also think when we put the number in people's heads it gets to be as much prophecy as it is probability. I know the Braves of the 90's were not real big believers in the 100 barrier -- but I am not voting to push all pitchers until they drop, I am just suggesting some pitchers are fine into the 130 area. Ironically, I don't think Chen is one of them.

-Don

I agree with this. I believe that at least to some degree, pitchers over the last 10-20 years have been taught this, and it has (generally) become ingrained in their psyches (a self-fulfilling prophecy.) If you continually tell pitchers time and again, year after year that they will be tired at or near 100 pitches, then it's highly likely that they will ....... be tired at or near 100 pitches.
Or they'll pace themselves less than earlier pitchers so that they really are tired around that mark, which raises the overall quality of pitching in the league.

Whether or not that is the case, it's still at least to some degree a self-fulfulling prophecy. You're still telling all pitchers over and again that he/they will be tried at or near 100 pitches.

Pitchers such as Justin Verlander, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and C.C. Sabathia are exceptions to the general (modern day) rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...