Buck And "His Guy"

[weams]

Cojones. Otherwise, Big Kahuna would mean something completely different.

Both unusual approaches to the issue.

[DrungoHazewood]

If you read the message boards of the various ML teams you might say the same thing about fans. They all say the same things about the manager. FWIW if Buck uses Zach two innings then he can't use him tonight. And as for Buck being old school, if that were true how come he picked up the shift so readily. They still don't use it in STL. Buck is smart and will adopt innovation when he judges it effective. Most baseball managers have their jobs because they have earned them. Most fans are fans because they don't know any better.

I used to think the guys put in charge of teams generating hundreds of millions in annual revenues were idiots. Then I thought about it for a while.

[Phantom]

I always assumed that this was so that the players knew their roles and what to expect (and when). I personally think "rhythm" is overrated, but players will swear up and down that things like having a consistent lineup, or not playing every day, affect them.

I personally think that is complete crap, but then again, I don't believe in the clutch gene or even that closing takes a particular mindset.

[EagleOriole]

Major league managers are supposed to be the "BEST" in the world at what they do, yet the way I see it they are just "Zombies" following a set script.

Last night was the latest example.

The eighth inning Zach Britton had an easy 1-2-3 inning throwing maybe 12 pitches, yet again Showalter brings in Tommy Hunter who is reminding more and more of Jim Johnson or Two Pack Don Stanhouse. Tampa was one wild pitch away from tying the game and one swing away from winning it. He is very scary. Hunter allowed 3 hits and 1 run in the 9th.

Some reporter with kahunas needs to get Bucks thinking. You could see Showalter in the dugout thinking , "maybe I should have let Britton finish out the game".

I am not an astute baseball guy by any stretch, but this "MUST-BRING-IN-THE-CLOSER" (To spoken like Homer Simpson saying "Must- have-

donuts") is just getting ridiculous. Any average Joe could manage like this.

Don't even pretend to know what it takes to manage 25 grown men who are very, very good at their job and know it. Buck is great at it.

[weams]

Age of the manager has nothing to do with if they use a closer or not. Everyone of the 30 has a closer. Unless their closer has failed and they are in flux. Until they get a new closer. Just because Brian Kenny wants a relief ace to be used at the highest leverage moment does not make the prospect of it happening soon any more likely.

[cacavolante]

Showalter is not alone in this behavior. Don't pretend that it's limited just to him.

I got the impression that he was talking about all of them.

[weams]

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/1/27/5344580/the-closer-mentality-part-1-closers-in-non-save-situations

In this article, we showed that, over multiple seasons, closers pitch about the same in save situations as they do in non-save situations. Those arguing in favor of the closer mentality might counter that the difference can be found in how poorly non-closers perform in save situations. But that's another article for another day.

[weams]

I got the impression that he was talking about all of them.

I got the impression that he thought he had a better way of doing things. And that he especially prefers someone other than Tommy Hunter to close. Whether anyone likes it or not, Hunter was the correct choice with three righhanders scheduled to bat. Now, it can be argued that a different righty have the Orioles closing job, but last night was matter of playing a pair of Kings. You can get beat playing it correctly, but it's not a donkey hand.

[weams]

I think that Tommy Hunter is very aware of his home run tendencies. And is attempting to limit the damage with what he has to work with. Some folks are mad that he did not work on a pitch to help him with lefties, some folks think he is too fly ball friendly. Some folks just don't like saves. Some would prefer Balfour. Some morn the absence of Koji. I can tell you, somethings Buck does make me scratch my head. Achieving 10 saves in the first 11 opportunities in not one of them. You don't get rid of your closer, until after he blows multiple saves in a row. And last year, not even them.

[cacavolante]

I got the impression that he thought he had a better way of doing things. And that he especially prefers someone other than Tommy Hunter to close. Whether anyone likes it or not, Hunter was the correct choice with three righhanders scheduled to bat. Now, it can be argued that a different righty have the Orioles closing job, but last night was matter of playing a pair of Kings. You can get beat playing it correctly, but it's not a donkey hand.

I wasn't responding to any particular point other than that he wasn't singling Buck out. However, as I stated in a different thread what about two nights ago? David Dejesus coming up, TB has no LH hitters on the bench. Why did Buck not send Britton back out to the mound to start the 9th? Dejesus has not faced a LH pitcher all year. Maddon would have pinch hit with a RH hitter and Buck could ve still gone right to Hunter for his precious save except he would have been guaranteed to start the inning against a RH hitter. I think that the positives Buck brings to the table as a manager far outweigh the negatives and I'm happy to have him, but I do think its fair to ask questions about some of his decision making.

[weams]

I wasn't responding to any particular point other than that he wasn't singling Buck out. However, as I stated in a different thread what about two nights ago? David Dejesus coming up, TB has no LH hitters on the bench. Why did Buck not send Britton back out to the mound to start the 9th? Dejesus has not faced a LH pitcher all year. Maddon would have pinch hit with a RH hitter and Buck could ve still gone right to Hunter for his precious save except he would have been guaranteed to start the inning against a RH hitter. I think that the positives Buck brings to the table as a manager far outweigh the negatives and I'm happy to have him, but I do think its fair to ask questions about some of his decision making.

Very good. I like the viewpoint.

[Old#5fan]

Look, when it comes to Buck and some of the older managers, you take what they bring to the organization behind the scenes and you live with stuff like this.

Eventually, the designated closer thing will be used less and less (but will not go away completely - let's be honest, you DO need the mindset to pitch in the 9th inning). But for now, it's still here. The game changes, but it does so very slowly. Shifting is a relatively recent development, for example, as is replay, obviously.

It's pointless to keep getting mad about this because it's not going to change this year. Hunter will close games until/unless he's unable to do so effectively, then it will be someone else. And so it goes for most every team in baseball.

I agree with you but shifting isn't a recent development, that first started with Ted Williams years ago. What is different though now is the extent of it. When you see a shift on Ryan Flaherty that is sort of amazing to me.. I also think that a closer earns that role and the pay that goes with it. So if you use a bullpen to close by comittee, it sort of takes a higher paid job away from what is usually your top one inning bullpen guy, AKA the closer.

[MrOrange82]

I used to think the guys put in charge of teams generating hundreds of millions in annual revenues were idiots. Then I thought about it for a while.

[Specman]

Showalter is not alone in this behavior. Don't pretend that it's limited just to him.

If you actually read the Post I said Major League managers are the best in the world at what they do. I also don't claim to be an expert as I have only been watching baseball for 55+ years.

They all follow the same script. Starter, Middle man, set-up guy and "CLOSER"

I wish they would rely on their experience and intuition as a "baseball person".

[DrungoHazewood]

In 1980 essentially everyone in a position of power in baseball was just making it up as they went along, following tradition that was based on what seemed to work from anecdotal evidence and stories and the like. There basically wasn't any smart path, based on logic and controlled evidence, to follow for the first 110ish years of MLB.

But by 2010 they'd swung the other way. Not 180 degrees, but to the point where almost every team (actually, I'll say every team) had people whose job it was to validate what they were doing through actual evidence and analysis. In 2000 you'd still find an occasional Syd Thrift who really had no idea what was going on in a position of power. Now there are almost no teams, or maybe none at all, left who follow the pre-1980 model.

So it seems to me a bit ridiculous to think that teams are throwing away a half a dozen or a dozen wins a year by refusing to hire managers who aren't stupid. It doesn't make sense that a corporation with $9B in annual revenues has engaged in an internal conspiracy among every single one of its franchisees to keep old school inefficiency strongly in power. But just with managers. And just with some of the things managers do. They'll move the third baseman to right field on a regular basis, but they're too dumb to implement a scheme to theoretically maximize the leverage of their best reliever and win a ton more games. I don't think so.