Buck Hates Kim

[25 Nuggets]

a) Bourn laid down a perfect bunt his next plate appearance and almost legged it out.

b) .212/.270/.273, .543. Know what that is? Kim's slash line in September over 13 games.

c) maybe Buck still doesn't like Kim. Maybe one day we'll find something out about it.

[Aristotelian]

Because Buck called for a bunt, and Bourn is fast enough that he could out possibly outrun the bunt. If Buck wanted the hitter to swing away I'm sure he would have left Kim in. Bourn muffed the bunt though. Can't blame Buck for that.

When was the last time Buck bunted with a man on 1st and none out? Granted he went and did it again with Hardy. If that is the new Buck strategy I guess it makes sense but that seemed like the wrong strategy both times.

[CheeryO]

a) Bourn laid down a perfect bunt his next plate appearance and almost legged it out.

b) .212/.270/.273, .543. Know what that is? Kim's slash line in September over 13 games.

c) maybe Buck still doesn't like Kim. Maybe one day we'll find something out about it.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Aristotelian]

a) Bourn laid down a perfect bunt his next plate appearance and almost legged it out.

b) .212/.270/.273, .543. Know what that is? Kim's slash line in September over 13 games.

c) maybe Buck still doesn't like Kim. Maybe one day we'll find something out about it.

September splits? That's like his 0 for 20 in spring training. Meaningless. He should have PH for Wieters, Trumbo, and Davis as well by that logic.

[sportsfan8703]

Buck must really think Kim is a fluke. There is no other reason. He only played him out of necessity. He even kept him on the bench a few games this month vs RHP for Bourn's defense. Kim should be the lead off hitter the rest of the year. Including tomorrow vs Ray.

[CheeryO]

When was the last time Buck bunted with a man on 1st and none out? Granted he went and did it again with Hardy. If that is the new Buck strategy I guess it makes sense but that seemed like the wrong strategy both times.

I have no idea, but when was the last time the O's had a man on first in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth inning with nobody out when they're half a game behind in the wildcard race in late September?

[Aristotelian]

I have no idea, but when was the last time the O's had a man on first in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth inning with nobody out when they're half a game behind in the wildcard race in late September?

Why would you change to bad strategy just because we are in a pennant race? Everyone knows run expectancy goes down if you give up an out and that is if the bunt is successful, which it often isn't.

[25 Nuggets]

Why would you change to bad strategy just because we are in a pennant race? Everyone knows run expectancy goes down if you give up an out and that is if the bunt is successful, which it often isn't.

I didn't like the strategy either. Wouldn't you know, it didn't work. Twice.

[CheeryO]

Why would you change to bad strategy just because we are in a pennant race? Everyone knows run expectancy goes down if you give up an out and that is if the bunt is successful, which it often isn't.

What? I didn't watch the game, but teams have been bunting with nobody out and a man on first, especially late in a close game, for a century and a half. Who says it's bad strategy in general? It might be bad strategy if the guy on first is slow or the hitters coming up aren't that great, but why are you saying it's bad strategy? If it had worked it would have been great. And like 25 Nuggets pointed out Kim has not been very good lately and Bourn is faster.

[CheeryO]

Buck must really think Kim is a fluke. There is no other reason. He only played him out of necessity. He even kept him on the bench a few games this month vs RHP for Bourn's defense. Kim should be the lead off hitter the rest of the year. Including tomorrow vs Ray.

It's not like Kim hasn't been in the lineup, but yeah Jones as the leadoff hitter is starting to wear thin.

[25 Nuggets]

It's kind of like stolen bases. You need at least a 75% success rate for them to really pay off; that's a generalization but it's around that number. If you give an out to advance a runner there's no guarantee of anything. We've seen plenty of times now, for example, when a team (like the Diamondbacks) walks the bases loaded and gets out #2-3 whether by force out at home, double play, or in this case a weak fly ball.

Basically, the more true-outcome your team is geared for (home run, walk, strikeout) the harder it is to make steals and sac bunts work. A team like Kansas City the past couple years is much more adept at using them than this team going station-to-station at a nearly historic level.

[Aristotelian]

What? I didn't watch the game, but teams have been bunting with nobody out and a man on first, especially late in a close game, for a century and a half. Who says it's bad strategy in general? It might be bad strategy if the guy on first is slow or the hitters coming up aren't that great, but why are you saying it's bad strategy? If it had worked it would have been great. And like 25 Nuggets pointed out Kim has not been very good lately and Bourn is faster.

Teams have been moving away from it in the last 10 years. Run the numbers. Your chance of scoring a run goes down by about 20% if you give up an out.

Kim has been fine lately. He had a ball that should have been a grand slam that went for a single and another home run that he just missed. If those two balls go for HRs he is the hottest hitter on our team.

[CheeryO]

It's kind of like stolen bases. You need at least a 75% success rate for them to really pay off; that's a generalization but it's around that number. If you give an out to advance a runner there's no guarantee of anything. We've seen plenty of times now, for example, when a team (like the Diamondbacks) walks the bases loaded and gets out #2-3 whether by force out at home, double play, or in this case a weak fly ball.

Basically, the more true-outcome your team is geared for (home run, walk, strikeout) the harder it is to make steals and sac bunts work. A team like Kansas City the past couple years is much more adept at using them than this team going station-to-station at a nearly historic level.

A 75% success rate of what, successfully bunting the guy to second? Maybe, but since it's been pointed out the O's rarely do there's to small a sample size to know their success rate. I bet the success rate is very high for the league as a whole over the years. But yes generally speaking for this particular O's team I guess the strategy is questionable when Adam Jones is the next batter to hit. I'm guessing none of the Orioles, with the possible exception of JJ Hardy, lately inspire much confidence to get a single with a man on second.

But we would have criticized Buck anyway if he hadn't tried to bunt Hardy over and then the next guys had gotten out -- like they have been doing consistently the past 5 games.

[brianod]

Teams have been moving away from it in the last 10 years. Run the numbers. Your chance of scoring a run goes down by about 20% if you give up an out.

Kim has been fine lately. He had a ball that should have been a grand slam that went for a single and another home run that he just missed. If those two balls go for HRs he is the hottest hitter on our team.

Kim hasn't been fine lately, maybe it's you with an agenda, not Buck?

[CheeryO]

Teams have been moving away from it in the last 10 years. Run the numbers. Your chance of scoring a run goes down by about 20% if you give up an out.

Kim has been fine lately. He had a ball that should have been a grand slam that went for a single and another home run that he just missed. If those two balls go for HRs he is the hottest hitter on our team.

Maybe so, but the Orioles have sucked at hitting lately. Run the numbers. Buck probably felt he needed to try something different to shake up a terrible offense and get some base running going.

Kim may have had a couple of good hits that resulted in outs, but look at his numbers over the last 7 games and then the last 14 games. Yeah, if this, if that, then such and such would have happened...