Buck And "His Guy"

[Can_of_corn]

It's economical a sound idea. But it is not something that would win us a game.

The idea isn't to win more games in 2014, it is to have money to buy wins in 2015.

[Specman]

I am not pretending to do anything.

You obviously did not read the first line of my post, that major league managers are the "Best" in the world at what they do.

All you baseball know-it-alls are so quick to jump on anyone that has an opinion that you don't agree with. I was referring to exactly ONE aspect of the game- ALWAYS bringing in the closer regardless of how well or how many pitches the set-up man threw the previous inning.

I would rather see a manager trust his experience and instinct rather than following a script at times.

If you have to ability to remember as far back as last year which I doubt, does the name Jim Johnson ring a bell? Enough said.

[SteveA]

The sample size for a team like the Astro would be so small, that you would never know what worked and what didn't.

Maybe but couldn't you base some judgments on that stat whose name I forget they rates pitchers based on the change on win probability from when they came in to when they left. I would hope that a manager who took onto account matchups and leverage more than predefined situational roles (closer, setup, etc) might show very good #s in that metric (obviously taking into account somehow the quality of his pitchers).

Or if those numbers didn't look better that would show something too... That you should stick to defined roles.

I still cone back to nothing to lose.

Why would a bad team want to artificially raise the price of one of their players by making him a Closer? Even the Astros will won 50+ and probably have 30-35 9th inning save oops. Give all those to one guy and his salary at least doubles in his first arb year. Spread them out and you pay him half as much

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

I am not pretending to do anything.

You obviously did not read the first line of my post, that major league managers are the "Best" in the world at what they do.

All you baseball know-it-alls are so quick to jump on anyone that has an opinion that you don't agree with. I was referring to exactly ONE aspect of the game- ALWAYS bringing in the closer regardless of how well or how many pitches the set-up man threw the previous inning.

I would rather see a manager trust his experience and instinct rather than following a script at times.

If you have to ability to remember as far back as last year which I doubt, does the name Jim Johnson ring a bell? Enough said.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AfX_oDzOxsc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lots of folks here are in favor of a departure to the normal bullpen usage. In fact most of those with "know-it-all" reputations fall into that camp.

[DrungoHazewood]

The idea isn't to win more games in 2014, it is to have money to buy wins in 2015.

And there are other ways to manage that, like trading your Jim Johnson when he gets expensive.

[Can_of_corn]

And there are other ways to manage that, like trading your Jim Johnson when he gets expensive.

If they had spread out 10 of Johnson's 2012 and 2013 3 run saves then they could have saved money in 2013 and maybe got more in return since he would have had a likely arbitration number closer to 8 million instead of 10.8.

Its a simple concept.

[DrungoHazewood]

The sample size for a team like the Astro would be so small, that you would never know what worked and what didn't.

It's always been hard to innovate in baseball when the teams most likely to be desperate enough to break with convention are those bad enough to likely fail no matter the strategy. If the 2007 Orioles had used an innovative pen and it really was better they might have just gone from abysmal to really bad.

[DrungoHazewood]

If they had spread out 10 of Johnson's 2012 and 2013 3 run saves then they could have saved money in 2013 and maybe got more in return since he would have had a likely arbitration number closer to 8 million instead of 10.8.

Its a simple concept.

Yea, maybe they save 1/100th of the payroll and get a PTBNL along with Weeks. While Buck has to answer 25 extra questions a day about his weird bullpen and Johnson thinks Buck doesn't really trust him.

[Can_of_corn]

Yea, maybe they save 1/100th of the payroll and get a PTBNL along with Weeks. While Buck has to answer 25 extra questions a day about his weird bullpen and Johnson thinks Buck doesn't really trust him.

Media doesn't ask Buck tough questions.

Why would Johnson think that Buck doesn't trust him when he uses him for the one and two run saves but not for all of the three run saves?

He is giving the other guys closing experience with a gimmie save. He is keeping Johnson fresh. He is limiting his exposure against this team.

Lots of viable reasons.

[Rene88]

Wuh Woh Shaggy!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PA724_Oriole]

Still so much talk about JJ haha

[El Gordo]

Kinda missed Buck's guy tonight. No fewer nails bit with O'Day on the mound.

[Jonesy10]

Kinda missed Buck's guy tonight. No fewer nails bit with O'Day on the mound.

It's getting pretty amazing how high our opponents BABIP in the 9th is. Seems like every time any of the first 2 batters make contact in an inning it always finds a hole. Then after that point their BABIP begins to normalize and we get out of it. Today O'Day was the culprit. He gave up a shallow fly ball and 3 ground balls, yet Tampa got 2 hits. For the season in the 9th inning, teams have a BABIP of around .400 against the Orioles which is mind boggling.

[TakebackOPACY]

Keep in mind that the bottom of the 9th often doesn't get played.

That should not really have an impact on the graph, since it is average runs per innings. Less innings should just be a lower denominator. This of course assumes they treated each team's at bat as an inning to properly normalize the data.

He didn't do so, and he pointed it out as a flaw in the original article, which is why I thought it was odd to use that graph to reference 9th inning performance. The article was more about the 1st inning and 2nd inning data. He also somehow lumped extra innings into the 9th inning data or something like that. I'll try to find the article tomorrow, or maybe the poster who posted the graph can find it?

[BarclaySouthway]

Why would a bad team want to artificially raise the price of one of their players by making him a Closer? Even the Astros will won 50+ and probably have 30-35 9th inning save oops. Give all those to one guy and his salary at least doubles in his first arb year. Spread them out and you pay him half as much

It's not just the bad teams that might want to consider this line of reasoning.

I wonder if the arbitrators will ever get a clue about the real value of saves. I think GMs, by and large, have pretty much figured it out.