Should O's Add New Blood to Stagnant Offense?

[Can_of_corn]

Nope. We all agree that Buck is a good manager right? Therefore is stands to reason that Buck is playing Young over Snider for a reason. If Buck thinks that Snider is a better player than Snider will play over Young.

That being said I think that my other point is valid - Wee wouldn't be having this debate if the Orioles had brought in a legit replacement for Markakis/Cruz instead of going the value route with Snider.

I don't get this whole Buck is a good manager = Buck is infallible business.

It really stifles conversation that, whenever anyone questions Buck someone inevitably retorts with: Buck know what he is doing.

Buck can be a very good manager and still have certain things he is not as strong with. For instance I think he relies too much on head to head matchups.

[weams]

I don't get this whole Buck is a good manager = Buck is infallible business.

It really stifles conversation that, whenever anyone questions Buck someone inevitably retorts with: Buck know what he is doing.

Buck can be a very good manager and still have certain things he is not as strong with. For instance I think he relies too much on head to head matchups.

Buck is the Best manager that we could ever afford, get, and retain. Ever. And he is obviously less than perfect.

[El Gordo]

I don't get this whole Buck is a good manager = Buck is infallible business.

It really stifles conversation that, whenever anyone questions Buck someone inevitably retorts with: Buck know what he is doing.

Buck can be a very good manager and still have certain things he is not as strong with. For instance I think he relies too much on head to head matchups.

Buck doesn't rely on head to head matchups with Jones, Hardy, Machado, and until recently Davis. Perhaps if he had more day to day level starters he wouldn't have to.

[Stotle]

1. Unsign Jimenez and ask him to give all that money back

2. Trade Bud Norris

3. Trade Matusz

4. Sign Castillo.

5. Trade for Hamels

6. Profit

[Can_of_corn]

Buck is the Best manager that we could ever afford, get, and retain. Ever. And he is obviously less than perfect.

I think Weaver was better.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't get this whole Buck is a good manager = Buck is infallible business.

It really stifles conversation that, whenever anyone questions Buck someone inevitably retorts with: Buck know what he is doing.

Buck can be a very good manager and still have certain things he is not as strong with. For instance I think he relies too much on head to head matchups.

I've formed a mini-religion around Earl Weaver and I know that his index cards with head-to-head matchups were mostly bunk.

[DrungoHazewood]

Buck doesn't rely on head to head matchups with Jones, Hardy, Machado, and until recently Davis. Perhaps if he had more day to day level starters he wouldn't have to.

I think the point was that batter vs. pitcher data is almost always less reliable than larger samples of L v R splits or similar. Knowing that someone went 5-for-12 with two homers against Joe Sambito is essentially worthless as a projection tool.

[Dipper9]

What is Hardy's status? I haven't seen any mention of it. If he gets DL'd we're down another infielder before Flaherty is ready.

I seemed to be the only one concerned, but Buck and Hardy both expect him back in the lineup tonight...

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2015/05/this-that-and-the-other-85.html

[Redskins Rick]

I think the point was that batter vs. pitcher data is almost always less reliable than larger samples of L v R splits or similar. Knowing that someone went 5-for-12 with two homers against Joe Sambito is essentially worthless as a projection tool.

Davy Johnson was known to butt heads with Earl over metrics.

[El Gordo]

Buck is the Best manager that we could ever afford, get, and retain. Ever. And he is obviously less than perfect.

I don't doubt he is less than perfect, but in ways do you consider it obvious?

[El Gordo]

I think the point was that batter vs. pitcher data is almost always less reliable than larger samples of L v R splits or similar. Knowing that someone went 5-for-12 with two homers against Joe Sambito is essentially worthless as a projection tool.

It doesn't matter, he is only going with matchups with marginal players like Snider/De Aza, e.g. Last season when Pearce was mashing he didn't go with match ups for him.

[Herman]

I don't get this whole Buck is a good manager = Buck is infallible business.

It really stifles conversation that, whenever anyone questions Buck someone inevitably retorts with: Buck know what he is doing.

Buck can be a very good manager and still have certain things he is not as strong with. For instance I think he relies too much on head to head matchups.

I see your point and I agree

[Can_of_corn]

I don't doubt he is less than perfect, but in ways do you consider it obvious?

Reliance on matchups, excessive loyalty to certain players, overly concerned about the save rule, seemingly obsessed with stopping opposing teams running game.

Doesn't mean I want to get rid of him.

[TouchemAll]

I think Weaver was better.

Now on that we agree LOL..

My biggest gripe with Buck you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

(especially this >>"excessive loyalty to certain players, overly concerned about the save rule, seemingly obsessed with stopping opposing teams running game.")

And NO I don't want to get rid of Buck.

[Rene88]

The front office had the entire offseason to improve the lineup.

Agreed

b/c he doesn't have a lot of upside and isn't that good of a player. He is a below average fielder and doesn't drive the ball. He might not be a bad option compared to the other platoon of guys playing the corner outfield spots, but that isn't saying much.

Great post Herman, agree with all points.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk