Buck And "His Guy"

[MrOrange82]

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.

I think there are few, if any, industries that operate optimally...but there are many that have embraced innovation more swiftly than MLB. Regardless, IMO, Buck is a very, very good manager (which obviously entails much more than simply posting lineups and choosing pitchers), but I certainly count hanging onto a "closer" among his weaknesses.

[weams]

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".

I think you have simplified everything about this. Good starters pitch about six and 1/3 innings, they have given up three runs or less.

If the team is leading, two or three relievers fill the remaining innings. If a tough lefthanded batter appears in a leveraged situation, a specialist faces him. One that has good statistics against lefthanded batters. Over a large enough sample size to be reliable. Many times based on the matchups or the remaining players on the bench. If the lead has held, a designated pitcher tries to hold that lead in the ninth inning. If he is successful 87 percent of the time and he has not pitched too many times that week, he gets to keep doing it. It has been a successful strategy. Most managers do this because it works.

[orioles119]

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

Exactly... it's a system thing. The way he posted it though made it look like he was singling out Showalter.

[weams]

Exactly... it's a system thing. The way he posted it though made it look like he was singling out Showalter.

I did not really see it that way. But there is usually a reason that conventions exist in the first place.

[Barnfather]

We often moan following football (soccer) when defending a slender lead, the manager substitutes a forward for a defender. Thing is - it's one of those things thats damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it maintains the lead for the win, the manager is a master tactician, if we concede late by inviting the other team onto us, he is a fool. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In my limited baseball knowledge, the shakiness Hunter is showing as a closer may or may not continue but my concern would be the boost it could have psychologically with teams entering the 9th inning. What (I guess) you want is to wheel the closer out and there to be collective groans from the chasing side as they realise they chance of winning is all but extinguished. If you have a closer with a reputation of *almost* blowing the save and giving away cheap hits or walks, then when that guy appears the other team start to feel they may be in with a chance, and confidence - in all sports - is everything.

I suspect it's too early to be panicking about this anyway and with the bullpen being utilised as much as it has been recently, it makes sense to not go too gung-ho and wear out your options.

[PA724_Oriole]

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.

How I feel towards umps.

Who has the Stash? Jim Joyce?

Not only did the guy blow a obvious call. He altered the history of the game. They are the zombies.

And to get back to the point, if Buck was just following a script, he would have followed the scripts left behind from other recent Os managers and this team would still be searching for a winning season.

[weams]

We often moan following football (soccer) when defending a slender lead, the manager substitutes a forward for a defender. Thing is - it's one of those things thats damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it maintains the lead for the win, the manager is a master tactician, if we concede late by inviting the other team onto us, he is a fool. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In my limited baseball knowledge, the shakiness Hunter is showing as a closer may or may not continue but my concern would be the boost it could have psychologically with teams entering the 9th inning. What (I guess) you want is to wheel the closer out and there to be collective groans from the chasing side as they realise they chance of winning is all but extinguished. If you have a closer with a reputation of *almost* blowing the save and giving away cheap hits or walks, then when that guy appears the other team start to feel they may be in with a chance, and confidence - in all sports - is everything.

I suspect it's too early to be panicking about this anyway and with the bullpen being utilised as much as it has been recently, it makes sense to not go too gung-ho and wear out your options.

Much of what you have said here makes good sense. One of the things that Tommy does bring to the table is superior velocity, a good braking pitch that he can throw for strikes and the ability to use his 73 percent advantage over the batting players. It is a good thing o not have to depend on your fellow travelers in the ninth inning, and of the guys we had available, he is one of the most fielding independent. I'd take a better closer if we had one, but Tommy has been pretty good.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think there are few, if any, industries that operate optimally...but there are many that have embraced innovation more swiftly than MLB. Regardless, IMO, Buck is a very, very good manager (which obviously entails much more than simply posting lineups and choosing pitchers), but I certainly count hanging onto a "closer" among his weaknesses.

Baseball has been slow to change, no doubt. But I find it impossible to believe that a team could can a significant advantage through some kind of non-traditional bullpen arrangement and all 30 teams either don't know about it, or they refuse to do it. I think a large number of teams have analyzed bullpen optimization through simulations and similar tools and have decided that it has a very small ROI. Lots of effort for minimal gain.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

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.

These teams would make the same hundreds of millions of dollars no matter who the manager was. So you are saying that anyone in charge of a large asset or company with large revenues is brilliant? The cruise ship Captain that ran a ground in a couple hundred million dollar cruise ship says hi. I have been in meetings with guys that run fortune 500 companies and I wonder how some of them tie their shoes.

[MrOrange82]

Much of what you have said here makes good sense. One of the things that Tommy does bring to the table is superior velocity, a good braking pitch that he can throw for strikes and the ability to use his 73 percent advantage over the batting players. It is a good thing o not have to depend on your fellow travelers in the ninth inning, and of the guys we had available, he is one of the most fielding independent. I'd take a better closer if we had one, but Tommy has been pretty good.

Oh sure...you say that from a distance, but try getting stuck behind one during rush hour.

:wedge:

[NJ BIRD FAN]

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.

All true. However, I think the OP's position is that most managers are moving all in with QQ no matter the situation. Sometimes you have to lay it down. I think most managers take the easy way out and throw the closer out there because that is what everyone does. It is a bit zombie like. I think the point is if there were 3 lefties coming up, Buck still would have went to Hunter and that is the issue. then He is going to be sitting in the lounge saying " well I had QQ, it was a cooler " No it wasn't, it was obvious the guy had AA. Bring in the lefty.

[MrOrange82]

Baseball has been slow to change, no doubt. But I find it impossible to believe that a team could can a significant advantage through some kind of non-traditional bullpen arrangement and all 30 teams either don't know about it, or they refuse to do it. I think a large number of teams have analyzed bullpen optimization through simulations and similar tools and have decided that it has a very small ROI. Lots of effort for minimal gain.

If such materials exist, I'd be very interested to read about how team's collect/analyze data and make those determinations when it comes to bullpen management (particularly back-end leveraging) (snicker).

I just did a quick search for "closer," "modern bullpen," and "antiquated," and I turned up a couple of articles from 2012 (i.e., slightly out of date) either directly or indirectly talking about this subject. One is from Tom Verducci, and the other is from Baseball Prospectus.

Verducci's article is more focused on the tendencies of closers to break down, and how having one, designated guy who racks up "saves" seems to be a poor investment. The BP article more directly attacks the wisdom of the "modern bullpen." Neither article makes it sound like teams have done very much to really, truly optimize their bullpens.

Not saying those articles are in any way definitive, but I could easily be convinced that the "closer" role is A-OK if there's information floating out there in which teams just...explain themselves.

[weams]

Oh sure...you say that from a distance, but try getting stuck behind one during rush hour.

:wedge:

Thank you!

[weams]

If such materials exist, I'd be very interested to read about how team's collect/analyze data and make those determinations when it comes to bullpen management (particularly back-end leveraging) (snicker).

I just did a quick search for "closer," "modern bullpen," and "antiquated," and I turned up a couple of articles from 2012 (i.e., slightly out of date) either directly or indirectly talking about this subject. One is from Tom Verducci, and the other is from Baseball Prospectus.

Verducci's article is more focused on the tendencies of closers to break down, and how having one, designated guy who racks up "saves" seems to be a poor investment. The BP article more directly attacks the wisdom of the "modern bullpen." Neither article makes it sound like teams have done very much to really, truly optimize their bullpens.

Not saying those articles are in any way definitive, but I could easily be convinced that the "closer" role is A-OK if there's information floating out there in which teams just...explain themselves.

I think that it is as simple as saying that it works. I don't think it is economically wise, I don't think that the same relievers are good year to year, but I think with modern rosters, it works well enough. And I do not think that it is something that you can experiment with. Koji is only a closer because of attrition, not investigation.

[DrungoHazewood]

These teams would make the same hundreds of millions of dollars no matter who the manager was. So you are saying that anyone in charge of a large asset or company with large revenues is brilliant? The cruise ship Captain that ran a ground in a couple hundred million dollar cruise ship says hi. I have been in meetings with guys that run fortune 500 companies and I wonder how some of them tie their shoes.

So you're saying success is largely a result of blind luck?