How to lose a game with a four run second inning

[webbrick2010]

On the surface the O's four run second looked like a good thing, but digging a little deeper.

How after the first 5 hitters reach and 3 runs are in.... the pitcher desperate for an out, does Buck call for a sacrifice bunt in the freakin second inning against a potent Yankees offense?

and then how does the third base coach get a runner thrown out at the plate when there was only one out and the 2,3,4 hitters up next? How can you make that mistake?

The O's should have scored 6+ runs in the second inning. Pineda should have been knocked out of the game.

I can't believe all the Sabermetricians aren't up in arms on this message board questioning Buck's continuing infatuation with the bunt, especially early in games.

Earl Weaver is tossing in his grave watching Buck continuing to go against the odds and losing. It's pathetic.

[weams]

On the surface the O's four run second looked like a good thing, but digging a little deeper.

How after the first 5 hitters reach and 3 runs are in.... the pitcher desperate for an out, does Buck call for a sacrifice bunt in the freakin second inning against a potent Yankees offense?

and then how does the third base coach get a runner thrown out at the plate when there was only one out and the 2,3,4 hitters up next? How can you make that mistake?

The O's should have scored 6+ runs in the second inning. Pineda should have been knocked out of the game.

I can't believe all the Sabermetricians aren't up in arms on this message board questioning Buck's continuing infatuation with the bunt, especially early in games.

Earl Weaver is tossing in his grave watching Buck continuing to go against the odds and losing. It's pathetic.

Starting pitchers who are not good. That is how.

[Can_of_corn]

The bunt was mentioned in the game thread.

Every bunt gets mentioned in the game thread.

[weams]

The bunt was mentioned in the game thread.

Every bunt gets mentioned in the game thread.

I don't care for bunts. but there were a few nice ones. Aesthetically.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't care for bunts. but there were a few nice ones. Aesthetically.

I'm OK with the occasional bunt for a hit attempt.

If guys are not on base.

And it isn't the 9th inning of a no hitter with a deficit greater then two.

[mdbdotcom]

I don't care for bunts. but there were a few nice ones. Aesthetically.

Flash's bunt was a beauty. I didn't get Caleb's.

[OFFNY]

Starting pitchers who are not good. That is how.

Correct.

When you don't have even decent starting pitching, you will lose more often than not.

When Ron Stander was about to challenge Joe Frazier for the World Heavyweight Championship in May of 1972, a reporter asked Stander's wife what she thought her husband's chances were of dethroning Smokin' Joe.

Stander's wife replied, "You don't take a Volkswagen into the Indianapolis 500, unless you know a hell of a shortcut."

[notyourbuddy]

Even when the bunt works people complain about bunts.

You do realize there is no guarantee Caleb gets a hit in that situation right? He could have struck-out, popped up, or grounded into a double play.

Instead he made a productive out. One that resulted in a run scoring on a routine ground ball. It also would have set up another easy run if the human windmill weren't on the team.

[sportsfan8703]

Bad teams find ways to lose. Even in the middle of a big inning. Giving up outs on bunts and base runners getting thrown out. That was a joke.

[waroriole]

I know the last 3 years have been tough on OP. What with the O's being good. At least you have this year to celebrate their demise.

[LookitsPuck]

Bad teams find ways to lose. Even in the middle of a big inning. Giving up outs on bunts and base runners getting thrown out. That was a joke.

The bunt I can sort of understand. Getting thrown out at the plate was idiotic.

[BMann]

The bunt I can sort of understand. Getting thrown out at the plate was idiotic.

And, am I crazy, or should Manny have easily gone to second on that play at the plate? Turned out to be big because he didn't score on the next hit.

[e16bball]

I can't believe all the Sabermetricians aren't up in arms on this message board questioning Buck's continuing infatuation with the bunt, especially early in games.

Earl Weaver is tossing in his grave watching Buck continuing to go against the odds and losing. It's pathetic.

The Orioles have 18 sacrifices this season, 13th in the AL. Which means they have fewer sacrifices than everyone in baseball but Oakland (12) and Detroit (16).

During Earl's 16 full seasons as the manager of the Orioles, they averaged about 57 sacrifices per year. The fewest sacrifices they ever had in any season under Earl was 26, in 1981, and they had only two seasons with fewer than 40 sacrifices under his guidance. To suggest that Earl would have looked at Buck's strategy and concluded that he bunts too often is almost certainly incorrect. And to suggest he would "toss in his grave" because of Buck's bunting is farcical, at best.

Buck takes heat when he bunts and it doesn't work out --- because that means he's giving up outs and throwing away the chance for the big inning. He also takes heat when he plays for the big inning and it doesn't work out --- because that means the team is nothing but a bunch of station-to-station sluggers and can't manufacture runs.

It may be time to come to terms with the fact that the offensive downturn isn't really about poor strategy. It's about the fact that the players haven't produced, plain and simple. When you're getting MLB-worst production at 3 different positions (SS/LF/RF), it's awfully tough to field a high-powered offense. No matter which buttons you press (or don't press). Hell, he's tried 11 different guys in the corner OF spots and not a single one of them has managed an OPS+/wRC+ over 94. Sometimes Door #1 and Door #2 are both bad options.

[weams]

The Orioles have 18 sacrifices this season, 13th in the AL. Which means they have fewer sacrifices than everyone in baseball but Oakland (12) and Detroit (16).

During Earl's 16 full seasons as the manager of the Orioles, they averaged about 57 sacrifices per year. The fewest sacrifices they ever had in any season under Earl was 26, in 1981, and they had only two seasons with fewer than 40 sacrifices under his guidance. To suggest that Earl would have looked at Buck's strategy and concluded that he bunts too often is almost certainly incorrect. And to suggest he would "toss in his grave" because of Buck's bunting is farcical, at best.

Buck takes heat when he bunts and it doesn't work out --- because that means he's giving up outs and throwing away the chance for the big inning. He also takes heat when he plays for the big inning and it doesn't work out --- because that means the team is nothing but a bunch of station-to-station sluggers and can't manufacture runs.

It may be time to come to terms with the fact that the offensive downturn isn't really about poor strategy. It's about the fact that the players haven't produced, plain and simple. When you're getting MLB-worst production at 3 different positions (SS/LF/RF), it's awfully tough to field a high-powered offense. No matter which buttons you press (or don't press). Hell, he's tried 11 different guys in the corner OF spots and not a single one of them has managed an OPS+/wRC+ over 94. Sometimes Door #1 and Door #2 are both bad options.

When Earl managed, pitchers had to bat. No longer. The data does not translate.