Interesting Article: It's Okay To Be Critical

[MrOrange82]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

So the question remains: what has Buck built? What player/personnel decisions has he been responsible for that turned the tide? What on-field decisions has he made that his predecessors either did not, or would not, make that changed the O's into a "winning" franchise? Why is Buck responsible for the O's recent track record of relative (and I do mean relative) success?

If we can't articulate facts that establish Buck's superiority to past, and possible future, managers, then why are we so convinced of his excellence? Is it because he's actually excellent, or is it because he took the reins of the team at the right time (i.e., just after it had finally acquired enough talent, and given that talent enough developmental time, to be respectable, regardless of Buck's hiring)?

Y'all can go on quoting the O's recent records, and you can wave pages of horrors concerning the (almost) decade and a half prior to Buck's arrival...but if you can't explain why he's so good, then you shouldn't be so unflinchingly certain that he is.

[Burg]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

So the question remains: what has Buck built? What player/personnel decisions has he been responsible for that turned the tide? What on-field decisions has he made that his predecessors either did not, or would not, make that changed the O's into a "winning" franchise? Why is Buck responsible for the O's recent track record of relative (and I do mean relative) success?

If we can't articulate facts that establish Buck's superiority to past, and possible future, managers, then why are we so convinced of his excellence? Is it because he's actually excellent, or is it because he took the reins of the team at the right time (i.e., just after it had finally acquired enough talent, and given that talent enough developmental time, to be respectable, regardless of Buck's hiring)?

Y'all can go on quoting the O's recent records, and you can wave pages of horrors concerning the (almost) decade and a half prior to Buck's arrival...but if you can't explain why he's so good, then you shouldn't be so unflinchingly certain that he is.

Won/loss percentage is not a platitude. Nor are the other factors posted in response to your absurd point.

[DrungoHazewood]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

So the question remains: what has Buck built? What player/personnel decisions has he been responsible for that turned the tide? What on-field decisions has he made that his predecessors either did not, or would not, make that changed the O's into a "winning" franchise? Why is Buck responsible for the O's recent track record of relative (and I do mean relative) success?

If we can't articulate facts that establish Buck's superiority to past, and possible future, managers, then why are we so convinced of his excellence? Is it because he's actually excellent, or is it because he took the reins of the team at the right time (i.e., just after it had finally acquired enough talent, and given that talent enough developmental time, to be respectable, regardless of Buck's hiring)?

Y'all can go on quoting the O's recent records, and you can wave pages of horrors concerning the (almost) decade and a half prior to Buck's arrival...but if you can't explain why he's so good, then you shouldn't be so unflinchingly certain that he is.

I think it's fairly well established that he has an almost unwavering dedication from his players, who're nearly unanimous in buying into his plan. And he's quite good at handling the press. Those two things are about 80% of a manager's job description, if not more. Managers don't build anything by themselves, they're the major league execution part of the GM and the organization's higher-level plan.

[wildcard]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

So the question remains: what has Buck built? What player/personnel decisions has he been responsible for that turned the tide? What on-field decisions has he made that his predecessors either did not, or would not, make that changed the O's into a "winning" franchise? Why is Buck responsible for the O's recent track record of relative (and I do mean relative) success?

If we can't articulate facts that establish Buck's superiority to past, and possible future, managers, then why are we so convinced of his excellence? Is it because he's actually excellent, or is it because he took the reins of the team at the right time (i.e., just after it had finally acquired enough talent, and given that talent enough developmental time, to be respectable, regardless of Buck's hiring)?

Y'all can go on quoting the O's recent records, and you can wave pages of horrors concerning the (almost) decade and a half prior to Buck's arrival...but if you can't explain why he's so good, then you shouldn't be so unflinchingly certain that he is.

Its one thing to articulate what Buck has built and another for you to comprehend and accept it. I have done the former. You have not done the latter

[MrOrange82]

Won/loss percentage is not a platitude. Nor are the other factors posted in response to your absurd point.

I guess you skipped the correlation does not always equal causation section in school?

Regardless, you're making an "absurd" point for me. I didn't call names or speak in absolutes. If you can't make an argument that connects Buck's presence to the Orioles' recent W/L records, that's your problem. And all wildcard did was demonstrate that he assumes Buck had a hand in player acquisitions (i.e., nothing concrete there). But there's no need to get fussy just because I've pointed all that out.

Buck's made enough mistakes/omissions over the last few years (e.g., Jim Johnson and "the save rule", batting Hardy 2nd for all of 2012, Cruz in LF, failing to change the O's "culture" of "swing at freakin' everything," etc.) that I think it's fair to think about these questions.

And after you've thought about it, point out where in my posts I said he definitely wasn't responsible, or where I said he was a bad manager.

[MrOrange82]

I think it's fairly well established that he has an almost unwavering dedication from his players, who're nearly unanimous in buying into his plan. And he's quite good at handling the press. Those two things are about 80% of a manager's job description, if not more. Managers don't build anything by themselves, they're the major league execution part of the GM and the organization's higher-level plan.

You won't get much argument from me on those points, particularly the bolded. That said, if Buck is executing a higher level plan, doesn't that imply that he's the beneficiary of a better-organized and managed FO, rather than the primary source of the Orioles' recent successes? (and I'm phrasing it in that way because citing the Orioles' W/L records, as several people have done, implies that Buck is responsible for those records. Personally, I've always felt that a manager is more "responsible" for losses than wins, on average).

[weams]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

I'm sorry you feel the need to tilt at that windmill. The players are here because Buck weeded through them, found them a role to play and made the team cohesive and functional. Every "star" that you see on our blue collar team was crafted by his care. We are a winner because of Buck, and we have Dan, because we had Buck.

[weams]

Personally, I've always felt that a manager is more "responsible" for losses than wins, on average).

We are not talking about in game strategies, who even the godfather of it all, the great Earl Weaver, said were only responsible for the outcomes of three games a year. He also said pennants are won or lost in the off season. Like Buck or not. Pick on his foibles or not. We don't get to hold our heads high as a winning organization over the last three season if not for that wonderful man.

[Frobby]

Right now, the O's are 20-22, and fangraphs has them projected to go 58-62 the rest of the way, finishing 80-82 overall.

I'm not saying I agree with the last calculation, necessarily, as I doubt that first place in the AL East will wind up being a tie between the Red Sox and Blue Jays at 84-78 apiece. But what has Buck built? What has he done that we can articulate and defend with statistics? Are the Orioles evolving and becoming better under his leadership, or are they regressing?

First of all, the O's are 22-20, not 20-22, and what BP projects for the rest of the season is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not saying Buck gets life tenure here regardless of future results. But the O's have been much better since Buck arrived than before he got here, and that gives him a lot of leeway. If the O's go 80-82 as BP predicts, then we can have a conversation after the season is over about whether the team is now stagnating under Buck. Right now, we're in contention, and from every indication of which I'm aware, Buck has the hearts and minds of his players 100%. I'm happy to criticize the decisions he makes each night, or some of his tendencies with which I disagree, but in my opinion he has done an excellent job managing this team overall and I'm very hard pressed to think there is someone available who would be likely to be better.

[MrOrange82]

I'm sorry you feel the need to tilt at that windmill. The players are here because Buck weeded through them, found them a role to play and made the team cohesive and functional. Every "star" that you see on our blue collar team was crafted by his care. We are a winner because of Buck, and we have Dan, because we had Buck.

We have Dan because our first and second choices declined to accept the O's offers of employment. We have AJ, Wieters, Nick, Machado, Tillman, and others thanks to people who have nothing to do with Buck. You're crediting their successes to him?

This is barely tilting at windmills, btw. I haven't even adopted the truly "adverse" position (i.e., that Buck isn't a good manager). I'm a bit surprised and amused how even raising the specter of a debate on that subject, however, seems to offend y'all so deeply.

[weams]

If you can't make an argument that connects Buck's presence to the Orioles' recent W/L records, that's your problem.

We all can if you need us to o. It is especially hard for me to understand how you think that certain strategic issues overwhelm the fact that every, single player who has played here for Buck, would be glad to again. Whether they have that privileged or not. He is universally revered. And a lot because of what has happened at the warehouse since HE showed up.

It's ok that you feel that Maddon and Girardi and Bob Melvin are better. Just don't diminish yourself with some weird idea that Buck is not on the very next tier. And he has had so much more to shoulder. This place was such a mess. From top to bottom. Ask Cal if you ever get a chance.

[MrOrange82]

First of all, the O's are 22-20, not 20-22, and what BP projects for the rest of the season is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not saying Buck gets life tenure here regardless of future results. But the O's have been much better since Buck arrived than before he got here, and that gives him a lot of leeway. If the O's go 80-82 as BP predicts, then we can have a conversation after the season is over about whether the team is now stagnating under Buck. Right now, we're in contention, and from every indication of which I'm aware, Buck has the hearts and minds of his players 100%. I'm happy to criticize the decisions he makes each night, or some of his tendencies with which I disagree, but in my opinion he has done an excellent job managing this team overall and I'm very hard pressed to think there is someone available who would be likely to be better.

My mistake for flip-flopping the current record. I still wrote my post with the correct record in mind, and fangraphs lists the correct record on their site. And I really can't argue with anything else you said. This season's final results are going to be pretty important when it comes to appraising Buck's future value to the team, IMO.

[weams]

We have Dan because our first and second choices declined to accept the O's offers of employment. We have AJ, Wieters, Nick, Machado, Tillman.

AJ grew up on Buck's watch. Tillman was going to be a discard. Wieters is a failed messiah, and Machado is all about Buck and Dan. Nick is a poor example, because is not very good unfortunately. Great guy. Tries hard, not that good.

[MrOrange82]

We all can if you need us to o. It is especially hard for me to understand how you think that certain strategic issues overwhelm the fact that every, single player who has played here for Buck, would be glad to again. Whether they have that privileged or not. He is universally revered. And a lot because of what has happened at the warehouse since HE showed up.

It's ok that you feel that Maddon and Girardi and Bob Melvin are better. Just don't diminish yourself with some weird idea that Buck is not on the very next tier. And he has had so much more to shoulder. This place was such a mess. From top to bottom. Ask Cal if you ever get a chance.

I used to work for Cal. I've had that conversation.

[Frobby]

I've seen several incredulous posts in a row in response to my "contrarian" question, "what has Buck built?" I've yet to see anything more than platitudes posted in support of Buck. Did I watch the teams that played from 1998-2011? Sadly, of course. Would Buck have won with most of those rosters? While we can't know anything for certain, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

So the question remains: what has Buck built? What player/personnel decisions has he been responsible for that turned the tide? What on-field decisions has he made that his predecessors either did not, or would not, make that changed the O's into a "winning" franchise? Why is Buck responsible for the O's recent track record of relative (and I do mean relative) success?

If we can't articulate facts that establish Buck's superiority to past, and possible future, managers, then why are we so convinced of his excellence? Is it because he's actually excellent, or is it because he took the reins of the team at the right time (i.e., just after it had finally acquired enough talent, and given that talent enough developmental time, to be respectable, regardless of Buck's hiring)?

Y'all can go on quoting the O's recent records, and you can wave pages of horrors concerning the (almost) decade and a half prior to Buck's arrival...but if you can't explain why he's so good, then you shouldn't be so unflinchingly certain that he is.

I hate to inform you of this, but not everything in life can be proven. If you think that referring to the clubhouse culture and accountability is a "platitude" because we can't measure that with statistics, then I simply can't help you. But it's obvious to 98% of us who observe the team closely.