Tommy Hunter AGAIN!

[Morgan423]

Fun fact: in any game in which our offense scores ZERO runs, we only have to give up one to lose... making pretty much everything else irrelevant.

[InsideCoroner]

It's a moot point in a 4-0 loss. No game is winnable if you don't score.

[fastball]

I realize this has been said before,but enough with Hunter before he gets tagged with a lost.

[Can_of_corn]

Someone needs to pitch the innings.

[DrungoHazewood]

C. It was still a very winnable game at that point.

Why the need to stretch tommy out an extra inning? By all means, I'd love an explanation since no one in the media would ever dare ask Buck a question like that.

A team down two in the 8th will go on to lose 80-90% of the time. Buck had to weigh the odds of coming back against the Blue Jays best relievers with the decision of whether to stretch Hunter a little vs burning another reliever or two. There is a game today. And tomorrow. What would your commentary have been if the pen had an extra few relievers unavailable or tired for tonight when they might have a late lead, and they'd still lost last night?

[DrungoHazewood]

Your question is a good one. After a rain delay, that does seem a but odd, particularly since he just got off the DL.

We all love Buck but some feel you aren't a fan if you ever question the guy, silliness.

I think the more common response is kind of a quizzical head shaking when a defensible decision by Buck, where reasonable people can disagree on the best course of action and cases can be made for multiple "correct" decisions, is treated like a firing offense.

[El Gordo]

Most of a managers decision's fall in the 50/50 or 60/40, either/or category. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. The key word is reason. I can't think of a single decision Buck has made that didn't have a good rationale. If he does something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, the odds are much higher that you lack the information, haven't made the effort to look into things, or are just incapable of understanding the reasons behind it, than it is he has something to learn about baseball from a message board couch potato.

[OFFNY]

A. He's only had a single 1-2-3 inning all season long.

B. He's just coming back from an injury.

C. It was still a very winnable game at that point.

Why the need to stretch tommy out an extra inning? By all means, I'd love an explanation since no one in the media would ever dare ask Buck a question like that.

Two.

He had one last night in the 7th inning.

[weams]

I think the more common response is kind of a quizzical head shaking when a defensible decision by Buck, where reasonable people can disagree on the best course of action and cases can be made for multiple "correct" decisions, is treated like a firing offense.

Most of a managers decision's fall in the 50/50 or 60/40, either/or category. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. The key word is reason. I can't think of a single decision Buck has made that didn't have a good rationale. If he does something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, the odds are much higher that you lack the information, haven't made the effort to look into things, or are just incapable of understanding the reasons behind it, than it is he has something to learn about baseball from a message board couch potato.

He doesn't walk on water that's for certain. He does a better job of the totality of his job than all of us together probably could. Could someone do it better? Possibly. Is that person available? Probably not. Or we could switch him out for Bud Black. I hear he is highly regarded.

[bobmc]

Most of a managers decision's fall in the 50/50 or 60/40, either/or category. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. The key word is reason. I can't think of a single decision Buck has made that didn't have a good rationale. If he does something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, the odds are much higher that you lack the information, haven't made the effort to look into things, or are just incapable of understanding the reasons behind it, than it is he has something to learn about baseball from a message board couch potato.

Yes as in last night's decision, he knew we would fail to score and getting Tommy some work was more important in the long run. Tommy now understands that Zach is the closer for a reason... :thumbsup1: Sarcasm but I agree....

[Guest]

I don't blame Hunter for last night that was on Buck.

[Norfolk orioles]

I'm sorry, I still disagree with the decision to bring a player just back from the dl, who has struggled all season long, back on for a second inning after a fairly significant rain delay.

I may be a no nothing message board couch potato, but that was a bad decision. Period. Regardless of the poor offense.

[weams]

I don't blame Hunter for last night that was on Buck.

I'm sorry, I still disagree with the decision to bring a player just back from the dl, who has struggled all season long, back on for a second inning after a fairly significant rain delay.

I may be a no nothing message board couch potato, but that was a bad decision. Period. Regardless of the poor offense.

Yeah. Well. Buck position was defensible. It doesn't really have much to do with how much you know or where you sit.

[OFFNY]

I don't blame Hunter for last night that was on Buck.

I blame yesterday's win on Buck.

I'm tired of his crap.

[LoyalBirdFan]

Here's the deal, there are 30 managers and I seriously doubt that all 30 managers would have made the same exact decision regarding Hunter.

I'm fairly sure there is no right or wrong.

I criticize managers all the time, it's my right as a fan. But, I don't know what goes on in the clubhouse.

I make 'my fan decisions' based upon an assumed set of facts. The bottom line is, I don't have the same set of facts that the manager has. The availability and status of every bullpen arm isn't always pubic knowledge.

I don't always agree with Buck, but if there is one area he is really good at it, it's bullpen management.

The bottom line is, I think Buck had his reasons.