Buck Stuff

[Redskins Rick]

I don't see many people sticking to the narrative that Buck knows best. Most people, including me, think it was a bad choice. The only issues are (1) how bad of a choice was it, and (2) it cannot be known if we would have won the game if he had made a different choice.

I think there are some fans like myself, that was very confused by the Buck decision.

Just because I refuse to join the public lynch Buck mentality of some of the posters, does it mean that I am part of the Buck knows best.

[Frobby]

Earl Weaver, who made the Hall of Fame (you might look that up while googling Buck Sucks to find more articles), lost WS in 69, 71 and 79. Many people believe that the O's were the better team in all three of those series.

I am one of those people. Those losses will burn in my mind much longer than the loss to Toronto, because of my belief that we were the better team in all three of those seasons. I didn't really feel we were better than Toronto, though I certainly hoped we could beat them in an elimination game.

To be fair, I don't remember any big controversies over managerial decisions in the World Series we lost.

[Redskins Rick]

I am one of those people. Those losses will burn in my mind much longer than the loss to Toronto, because of my belief that we were the better team in all three of those seasons. I didn't really feel we were better than Toronto, though I certainly hoped we could beat them in an elimination game.

To be fair, I don't remember any big controversies over managerial decisions in the World Series we lost.

We didnt have the social media or the internet back then, I do recall some of my Oriole friends were bitter at the end of the WS about Weaver and as soon as ST rolled around, they were back happy and all was well.

[foxfield]

I am being Hyperbolic? A lot of the press is saying it is the worst managerial decision ever. You think my posts are hyperbolic compared to the articles?

I'll respond once, since I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you. Um, yes, you are being hyperbolic. Hyperbole is by definition...exaggeration. I'll use your response to my post as an example.

A lot of the press is saying it is the worst managerial decision ever....You have posted several examples of articles to prove that there are in fact people of the press who at least compare it to the worst managerial decision ever. Why even ESPN has a poll allowing folks to vote on the very same idea. There is not a single decision in that poll, not one, that would rate behind the call that Buck made. You can wish it so all that you want, but it will not be. I do not in any way point that out to mollify the Buck Sucks crowd. I am comfortable with any sane rational person proffering the many reasons that Buck's actions could be questioned the other night.

But, as you noted in the post I originally quoted:

Buck is the laughing stock of baseball. I could add a bunch more but doesn't seem that anyone wants to read them. They are more interested in sticking to the narrative that Buck knows best. The principal reason we lost is Buck put in the worst pitcher in Major League Baseball 4 months into the season over a guy who has only given up one run since April. It is a ridiculously bad decision. I was saying it in the game thread at the time. Buck cost us the game plain and simple. He has been horrible all year. The chance of having home playoff games was gone as soon as Jiminnez headed towards the mound.

This is quite literally FULL of hyperbole. You did not know squat about the outcome of the game at the beginning of the bottom of the 11th. I'll offer that Britton could of simply come in to face EE and the result would have potentially been different. However, you offer that not only was the game over, but that Buck had made a ridiculously bad decision, costing the Orioles the game AND that he had been horrible all year are really to0 irrational to debate.

Again, Buck had the option of using Britton from the 5th on. Each choice, or gamble if you will, paid off until it didn't. I still personally would have liked to see Britton face EE, but as I noted in another thread, I was ready in the 5th 6th 7th etc. Buck's decision most definitely impacted the game, as did his decision to lead off AJ, ph Nolan etc. But the O's went done without a baserunner for 16 of their last 17 at bats. Setting exaggerations aside, this had a major impact on the game.

Finally, I will just try again. Yes, you are being hyperbolic. No, I do not think your post are hyperbolic compared to the articles that you post. The fact that you do not seem to comprehend the line of thought or that you can not discern the difference is fine. I respect your opinion. Really. I just can't take you seriously.

[Fuzzball22]

I didnt read this whole thread but I thought I heard or read that Buck had Britton warming up 3 different times during the game and didnt use him. If that is right isnt Britton pretty much done for the night after that?

Also while we are kicking Buck, I think a bigger failure is to not rest the starters more during the season. Machado and Schoop were terrible at the end of the year. Schoop played in every game and other than the suspension Manny did too.

[PaulFolk]

I think the decision has to be divided in half. Should Britton have started the 11th? I would have made the same decision as Buck and Gibbons and gone with someone else in a tie game. Leave Britton for when we go ahead. Should Britton have been brought in after it became apparent that Jimenez did not have it? Runners on first and third, Britton was needed.

I've seen several posters make this argument, but it makes no logical sense.

Pitching in a tie game on the road is a higher-leverage situation than pitching with a lead on the road. In a tie game, giving up a single run ends the game (and in this case, the Orioles' season). With a lead, giving up a single run doesn't end the game-- it would just be tied, or maybe even the O's would still be ahead.

So don't you want your best reliever (and arguably the best reliever in baseball) to be pitching in the higher-leverage situation? You can't just bury Britton on the bench hoping for a lead that might never arrive. You need to use him to keep the game tied as long as possible and give your offense a chance to go ahead. Then if you have to use another pitcher after you take the lead, that's OK. That pitcher isn't as good as Britton, but he'll have more of a cushion in case he stumbles.

I posted this in another thread, but there was a previous game this year (July 31 in Toronto) where Buck managed the situation perfectly. He brought in Britton for two innings to preserve a 2-2 tie and keep the Orioles alive. The O's then went ahead in the 12th by four runs, and Logan Ondrusek finished things off after the O's took the lead. Ondrusek wasn't even a good pitcher, but even he could protect the lead. The O's might never have been in that position to win if Buck had used Ondrusek first and saved Britton for later.

[WEAVERMAN]

So ESPN has a poll that includes Buck not bringing Britton in as worst managerial decision ever. You can vote too:

http://www.espn.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/17719938/did-buck-showalter-make-all-mistake

The usual drivel from ESPN. It's best to be ignored.

[osfan83]

For those agruing against Britton being "saved" for the save situation. Would you have brought Britton into the game in the 7th or 8th? It is essentually the same situation. Tie game, late, andif we take the lead you would have to close with someone else.

[PaulFolk]

For those agruing against Britton being "saved" for the save situation. Would you have brought Britton into the game in the 7th or 8th? It is essentually the same situation. Tie game, late, andif we take the lead you would have to close with someone else.

I might've brought him in as soon as the 8th, yes. I certainly would've brought him in for the 9th against the Jays' best hitters, and I thought Buck was fortunate to get through that inning with Brach/O'Day. And obviously the 11th he should've been in when the top of the order came up again.

What's the big deal about having to close the game with someone else? If you have to use an inferior reliever, it's better to use him when you have one or two runs of cushion, rather than when the game is tied and there's no margin for error.

Put it this way. Which of the following options is preferable?

Option 1: Britton pitches 1-2 scoreless innings in a tie game, the Orioles take a lead, and another reliever gives up a run. Worst case scenario, the game is tied. Best case scenario, the Orioles still have a lead.

or...

Option 2: An inferior reliever comes into a tie game and gives up a run. The Orioles lose. Britton never makes an appearance.

[Moshagge3]

Pete Carroll's stunningly stupid decision to throw the ball at the end of the Super Bowl rather than give it to Lynch is way ahead of all other coaching blunders, as well it should be. Even had the O's won last night, they were many miles from a championship. Carroll had one right in his hands, and threw it away, literally. That was truly a blunder for the ages.

There's a big difference between making a bad play call, where the idea is to catch the other team off-guard, and what happens in a baseball game. If a baseball pitcher stood behind a screen, and all the Orioles pitchers were lined up behind the screen so that the hitter had no way of knowing who he was going to get a pitch from, then Buck could use Jimenez and say afterwards, "we wanted the hitter to be mentally prepared for a Britton sinker and then the Jimenez fastball would fool them." That's what a football play call is like.

[atomic]

For those agruing against Britton being "saved" for the save situation. Would you have brought Britton into the game in the 7th or 8th? It is essentually the same situation. Tie game, late, andif we take the lead you would have to close with someone else.

Yes I would have and I said as much in the game thread in those innings.

[Tony-OH]

cimota, you really are enjoying wallowing in this, aren't you? We all saw the game and I'm not sure what we gain by reading that many pundits thought Buck's strategy was bad. That opinion and the underlying reasoning has been discussed ad nauseum.

Personally, I feel it is being overblown. We didn't muster any offense after the fifth inning and I view that as the principal reason we lost, as well as an indicator that we might have lost even if Britton had been used at some point and tossed two shutout innings.

What is wrong with having one thread about what the national pundits think of Buck's horrible, indefensible move?

I agree with you that it tdid not lose the game per se, but a manager's sole function during games is to put players in the best position to succeed and Buck failed miserably at that. Who knows, maybe Britton comes in and gets out of it and then the Orioles failed to score the next two inning and then Buck has to go to Ubaldo and the same thing happens. If that happens, at least you can say, Buck used all his best options and now he had to run out a long reliever (though i would have picked Bundy over Ubaldo even though he's been so hot of late).

[Tony-OH]

I have read every one that you have posted. I am sick to the stomach as well. Again, as Tntoriole posted above...Earl Weaver, who made the Hall of Fame (you might look that up while googling Buck Sucks to find more articles), lost WS in 69, 71 and 79. Many people believe that the O's were the better team in all three of those series. Buck gambled and lost and the O's season is done. But if we are being completely fair, and read your post above...well it is clear that you really do not know what you are talking about. It's not that no one wants to read the articles....it's not a narrative that the Almighty Buck knows best....it's your hyperbolic froth that just simply cannot be taken seriously.

But can you find fault in how Earl managed those World Series or the fact that his team's underperformed?

[Moshagge3]

I might've brought him in as soon as the 8th, yes. I certainly would've brought him in for the 9th against the Jays' best hitters, and I thought Buck was fortunate to get through that inning with Brach/O'Day. And obviously the 11th he should've been in when the top of the order came up again.

What's the big deal about having to close the game with someone else? If you have to use an inferior reliever, it's better to use him when you have one or two runs of cushion, rather than when the game is tied and there's no margin for error.

Put it this way. Which of the following options is preferable?

Option 1: Britton pitches 1-2 scoreless innings in a tie game, the Orioles take a lead, and another reliever gives up a run. Worst case scenario, the game is tied. Best case scenario, the Orioles still have a lead.

or...

Option 2: An inferior reliever comes into a tie game and gives up a run. The Orioles lose. Britton never makes an appearance.

Remember the episode of Arrested Development where Buster goes to sleep somewhere else so as not to disturb his mother with his snoring? But he leaves a tape recording of his snoring so that she won't know he's gone? That's the level of logic I am reading here and elsewhere. "If you use Britton in a tied game, you'll have to use someone far inferior and untrustworthy like Duensing or Jimenez for the eventual save! The solution is to use Duensing and Jimenez, whom I just called inferior and untrustworthy!"

[atomic]

Who knows? We didn't have anywhere near the scrutiny back then that we do now. Earl is considered infallible but I'm sure you could pick out some things he did that were questionable.

Earl didn't have the stats readily available like every manager had today. He keep track of how each batter did against each hitter on index cards. Maybe he was at a disadvantage in the World Series because his batters hadn't faced the opposing pitchers before. So the advantage he had in the regular season was not there in the World Series as there was no inter league play.