Interesting Article: It's Okay To Be Critical

[weams]

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.

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.

Your opinion is that we will fail the rest of the year. You have a lot of other touts willing to back you on that. Buck is still a winner here, and if I wanted to rig the deck statistically on you you I would throw out the first year and a half of the counting stats, as someone else's residual. But I didn't.

[weams]

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.

A really good way of saying what I have been unable to.

[weams]

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

Since Buck stopped by for a few years?

[MrOrange82]

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.

IMO, AJ is who he is, and he was going to develop into the player he is regardless of who the manager is or was. Wieters, similar story. And prior to the hot start this season, he'd actually been going backwards under Buck (who, IMO, played him WAY too much over the last few years). Machado got an early opportunity because the O's were in a playoff race, but he was identified and drafted before either Buck or Dan joined the organization. Tillman was given the same chances that his "cavalry" peers were given. If Buck gets credit for making Tillman a success, does he take the blame for Arrieta, Britton (as a starter), and Matusz, as well? Does he take a minor hit for David Hernandez? As for Nick...I think he's been pretty good for the most part, he's just not an All Star. And he's occupied a regular place in the O's lineup since well before Buck came to town.

[MrOrange82]

Your opinion is that we will fail the rest of the year. You have a lot of other touts willing to back you on that. Buck is still a winner here, and if I wanted to rig the deck statistically on you you I would throw out the first year and a half of the counting stats, as someone else's residual. But I didn't.

Where did I say that?

Since Buck stopped by for a few years?

Nope, I left for law school the year before that. But you mentioned asking Cal in the context of "this place was such a mess." That's the conversation I had...nothing to do with Buck.

[weams]

IMO, AJ is who he is, and he was going to develop into the player he is regardless of who the manager is or was. Wieters, similar story. And prior to the hot start this season, he'd actually been going backwards under Buck (who, IMO, played him WAY too much over the last few years). Machado got an early opportunity because the O's were in a playoff race, but he was identified and drafted before either Buck or Dan joined the organization. Tillman was given the same chances that his "cavalry" peers were given. If Buck gets credit for making Tillman a success, does he take the blame for Arrieta, Britton (as a starter), and Matusz, as well? Does he take a minor hit for David Hernandez? As for Nick...I think he's been pretty good for the most part, he's just not an All Star. And he's occupied a regular place in the O's lineup since well before Buck came to town.

I disagree with every point you have made there, but I will support your right to make those points. We obviously differ so much on our opinions of how this all transpired that I'm gonna let you go with your opinion, because I feel certain I will never talk you out of it, and as I said, I support your right to your opinion. I just disagree. Vehemently. With every point you have made on this topic.

[weams]

Where did I say that?

Nope, I left for law school the year before that. But you mentioned asking Cal in the context of "this place was such a mess." That's the conversation I had...nothing to do with Buck.

Got it. I have no idea what you think of Cal. But I know what Cal thinks of Buck.

[MrOrange82]

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.

And if it can't be proven, then it's fair to question, no? You do realize that I never even took a firm position on anything in this thread, don't you? Simply asking these questions, however, has stirred up a wealth of almost purely emotional responses. You'd think I set fire to a church, when really all I did was light a cigarette next door.

[weams]

Where did I say that?

I thought you were referencing the BP expectancy going forward. You weren't?

[weams]

And if it can't be proven, then it's fair to question, no? You do realize that I never even took a firm position on anything in this thread, don't you? Simply asking these questions, however, has stirred up a wealth of almost purely emotional responses. You'd think I set fire to a church, when really all I did was light a cigarette next door.

My responses have nothing to do with emotion, just fact finding, and putting out the fire of off base conclusions.

[weams]

AJ is who he is, and he was going to develop into the player he is regardless of who the manager is or was. Wieters, similar story. And prior to the hot start this season, he'd actually been going backwards under Buck

David Hernandez was a wonderful pitcher, who was the price of us having the piece of Mark Reynolds that was necessary to be in the playoffs in 2012.

Whatever Weiters has been is because Buck stopped the hazing of him immediately when arriving. If anything, blame the veterans who were here when Matt arrives for ANY regression.

[MrOrange82]

I thought you were referencing the BP expectancy going forward. You weren't?

I referenced it, but I didn't endorse the numbers. I actually agree (and have said recently, multiple times) that Buck does most things well when it comes to managing the team, especially in terms of having his players' faith and dealing with the press. I don't give him full credit for player personnel moves because I don't know much about the nature of his involvement with those moves (let alone the moves that DIDN'T happen). There's simply not much information out there. That said, I do imagine that he had a big hand in bringing Cruz, Davis, and Hunter to town, which is obviously significant. I've also been critical of some of his tendencies and day-to-day, in-game decisions. However, being critical of those decisions doesn't mean I think the team is doomed and/or that he's a poor manager. But I do try pretty consistently to think of all the pros/cons that I can. And if the O's fail to reach the postseason this year, I think it'll be fair to start discussing whether a different manager would be good for the team (even though I think he's a lock to return, regardless).

[weams]

I referenced it, but I didn't endorse the numbers. I actually agree (and have said recently, multiple times) that Buck does most things well when it comes to managing the team, especially in terms of having his players' faith and dealing with the press. ... (even though I think he's a lock to return, regardless).

I think it is absolutely ok to discuss what in game moves Buck might make. You've got him as a manager through at least 2018.

[Tx Oriole]

I think Buck gets his fair share of criticism. But many times when he doesn't make the move that many of us think he should have made, he has a reason. Saving the pen, a player was not available for one reason of another.

Maybe I will feel differently after this season if the O's do not make the playoffs, but right now I am pretty happy with Buck.

I am too. We as fans have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. We as fans

want immediate success. It doesn't happen that way. It is fine to be critical of

Buck and the team. But when some start calling for coaches to be fired or the GM

fired and players to traded or sent down the it has become silly. IMO

[TonySoprano]

I've said before and will again, I wouldn't want any other manager with the exception of Joe Maddon.