Heyman on Buck/Britton

[OFFNY]

Doesn't even make the top 5 list.

In no particular order:

1 - Bill Buckner had no business being on first base for the Red Sox. Huge error by the manager.

2 - Dick Williams allowing Gossage to pitch to Kirk Gibson.

3 - Dusty Baker has 3 famous playoff collapses under his belt, and I don't count 2016 as a collapse. Too many bad decisions to list them all here.

4 - Grady leaving Pedro in the game 7 and 2003 ALCS with a lead.

5 - Brochy is a great manager and has made dumb decisions, like the 2012 rotation.

6 - 2013 WS, Game 6, Texas pinch hits and loses DH, but keeps Cruz as COF and he costs them the game.

o

Historically, this is one of the most overblown and misinterpreted issues of all-time.

To this day, there are people who still believe that when Buckner made that error, the Red Sox were winning the game, and that the Mets scored 2 runs on said play.

The reality is that the Red Sox had already blown a seemingly insurmountable lead (2 outs, a 2-run lead, and nobody on base) in such a horrific fashion ...... 3 consecutive singles ceded by their best reliever (Calvin Schiraldi), and then the wild pitch by their 2nd-best reliever (Bob Stanley) which GAVE the Mets the tying run, subsequently taking all of the pressure off of them. Even if Dave Stapleton were on the field and had made that play, it would not have saved the game for the Red Sox. The game was already tied, and the Red Sox, at that point, had emotionally just had their lungs ripped out.

Would the Red Sox still have had a chance to win that game had Stapleton been on the field, made the play, and the game went to the 11th inning ??? Technically, yes. But if I were a bookie laying odds on that game at that precise moment (right after Stapleton made the play and extended the game into an 11th inning), I would be laying the odds heavily in favor of the Mets.

Buckner's error (and/or McNamara's failure to have inserted Dave Stapleton as a defensive replacement for Buckner) was just the final nail in the coffin of what was a disastrous collapse by the Red Sox as a team overall in that game.

Was Ubaldo pitching the 11th?

o

If the Red Sox had failed to score in the top half of the inning, then yes, a 2 and-a-half years old Ubaldo Jimenez would have been pitching.

If the Red Sox had scored and taken the lead in the top of the 11th, McNamara would not have been able to use Zach Britton though, due to the fact that was not yet born.

[LA2]

o

If the Red Sox had failed to score in the top half of the inning, then yes, a 2 and-a-half years old Ubaldo Jimenez would have been pitching.

If the Red Sox had scored and taken the lead in the top of the 11th, McNamara would not have been able to use Zach Britton though, due to the fact that was not yet born.

A powerful argument indeed.

[O's84]

Doesn't even make the top 5 list.

In no particular order:

1 - Bill Buckner had no business being on first base for the Red Sox. Huge error by the manager.

2 - Dick Williams allowing Gossage to pitch to Kirk Gibson.

3 - Dusty Baker has 3 famous playoff collapses under his belt, and I don't count 2016 as a collapse. Too many bad decisions to list them all here.

4 - Grady leaving Pedro in the game 7 and 2003 ALCS with a lead.

5 - Brochy is a great manager and has made dumb decisions, like the 2012 rotation.

6 - 2013 WS, Game 6, Texas pinch hits and loses DH, but keeps Cruz as COF and he costs them the game.

I've only seen 2 of those (#3 and #4). I still think Buck's was worse from a decision making basis (not importance by round). It was obvious to everyone what was going to happen. Ubaldo had nothing and was getting hammered and he left him in to face the power hitter EE in a do or die scenario when he had the best closer in the game sitting in the bullpen. In fact he had multiple opportunities to use him that inning and passed on it.

[O's84]

Anyway I'm done harping on it. Time to root on the Indians.

[esmd]

It's not rocket science. He had a bunch of RH batters coming up and no idea how long the game was going to go. At this point, you think the odds are overwhelmingly strong that you are going to need to get some outs from Ubaldo, so you match him up against the RHBs that he has the best chance of getting out.

Once Ubaldo is in the game, you can't burn him.

The thinking may have been wrong, but that was the thinking.

This. S**t happened. Move on.

[ChuckS]

I think the reasoning is fairly clear:

1. He felt good about the way Ubaldo was pitching leading up to the game. Every bullpen move Buck made leading up to that inning delaying bringing Buck in was working. I think Buck had a slight feeling of invincibility. He knew he was going against the grain.

2. Once it was first and third with one out, Buck went with arrogance and seeing out his original decision to put Ubaldo in the game over the move that would create an overall higher probability of extending the game. . If he removed him then he would have been admitting he made the wrong decision. He was falling on his own sword so to speak. And if it works out somehow and the game extends, everyone is calling him a genius. While I don't want to see him fired, this part for me is indefensible and something I cannot recall ever seeing in a game of this magnitude.

I think we can throw out the "not putting your closer in on the road in a tied game" theory considering he had done it before. This is the only thing that makes sense for me.

[esmd]

I think the reasoning is fairly clear:

1. He felt good about the way Ubaldo was pitching leading up to the game. Every bullpen move Buck made leading up to that inning delaying bringing Buck in was working. I think Buck had a slight feeling of invincibility. He knew he was going against the grain.

2. Once it was first and third with one out, Buck went with arrogance and seeing out his original decision to put Ubaldo in the game. If he removed him then he would have been admitting he made the wrong decision. He was falling on his own sword so to speak. And if it works out somehow and the game extends, everyone is calling him a genius.

I think we can throw out the "not putting your closer in on the road in a tied game" theory considering he had done it before. This is the only thing that makes sense for me.

I think that's exactly what it was. He was saving Britton to close out the game if we got a lead. If he brings in Britton, and he gets out of it, then pitches another inning or two and we still don't score, then if we somehow score an inning or two later, who closes it out? You're going to put that pressure on Bundy? Hunter, who failed once as closer? Right or wrong (and obviously it wasn't right), that's what occurred.

Let's play it out some more. Let's say we score in the 15th, long after Britton is out of the game. Hunter, Bundy, Ubaldo, or someone else is brought in, and blows the save. O's lose. Then the narrative is Buck blew it by using Britton too early with no good option to close it out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Bottom line, we had 4 whole hits in 11 innings. 4. People need to give Buck a break.

[ChuckS]

I think that's exactly what it was. He was saving Britton to close out the game if we got a lead. If he brings in Britton, and he gets out of it, then pitches another inning or two and we still don't score, then if we somehow score an inning or two later, who closes it out? You're going to put that pressure on Bundy? Hunter, who failed once as closer? Right or wrong (and obviously it wasn't right), that's what occurred.

Let's play it out some more. Let's say we score in the 15th, long after Britton is out of the game. Hunter, Bundy, Ubaldo, or someone else is brought in, and blows the save. O's lose. Then the narrative is Buck blew it by using Britton too early with no good option to close it out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Bottom line, we had 4 whole hits in 11 innings. 4. People need to give Buck a break.

You have to put your team in the best situation to win the game at all times. First and third with one out, leaving Britton in, indefensible. You can't claim the closer with a lead on the road rule when he went against that in the exact same situation against Toronto on the road previously in the season.

Buck was going with his gut and there was a little arrogance involved. I think we can all admit that. There is no way Buck could have thought Ubaldo gave him the best chance to win once it was first and third and the two guys that got there absolutely smoked the ball.

[VeveJones007]

It's not rocket science. He had a bunch of RH batters coming up and no idea how long the game was going to go. At this point, you think the odds are overwhelmingly strong that you are going to need to get some outs from Ubaldo, so you match him up against the RHBs that he has the best chance of getting out.

Once Ubaldo is in the game, you can't burn him.

The thinking may have been wrong, but that was the thinking.

If that's the rationale, what's keeping Buck from saying it?

[VeveJones007]

Why do we have to keep going over this? Buck has been questioned over and over again. He's been roasted. My gosh it's time to get over it. It happened. It's past and no amount of blame for Buck and others or hand wringing is going to change one damn thing.

Two reasons:

1) It's weird. Why can't he explain his reasoning. He's alluding to having a reason, but he simply refuses to state it. Why?

2) If Buck does not learn from this situation, it represents a fundamental error in either philosophy or judgment that portends further bad decisions in the future. In short, if Buck doesn't understand what he did wrong, then it's fair to question whether or not it's time for a different manager.

[VeveJones007]

I'm with you, and I think this is exactly why we keep beating this dead horse. Buck contradicting himself leads one to think there is some kind of nefarious as-of-yet-untold reason for the decision. What? We don't know.

This was one of the reasons why I started the thread. Why won't Buck just nip it in the bud and say what he was thinking? Now he's just extended the life of the story.

The other thing (and I'm not sure whether or not it's been discussed before) is whether or not Buck lost some credibility among the players. If the players are not behind the manager, then there might be some problems in 2017.

[blid]

I think Buck was doing a riverboat gambler type thing by saving up Britton, and he was doing it because he didn't really trust other guys in a save situation in a playoff elimination game. In lower leverage games he's let other pitchers close but here I think he was just pressing his luck trying to save Britton, with probably some "veteranosity"/gut thinking mixed in and enahnced by the Saunders wild card success. This is something where explaining his thinking wouldn't actually do him any favors which is one way of explaining his lack of explanation.

[LA2]

I think Buck was doing a riverboat gambler type thing by saving up Britton, and he was doing it because he didn't really trust other guys in a save situation in a playoff elimination game. In lower leverage games he's let other pitchers close but here I think he was just pressing his luck trying to save Britton, with probably some "veteranosity"/gut thinking mixed in and enahnced by the Saunders wild card success. This is something where explaining his thinking wouldn't actually do him any favors which is one way of explaining his lack of explanation.

I think what he's not saying is that he didn't trust his offense to score soon off of Liriano. He was predicting breaking through later, at which time he'd use Britton. He's not saying it because he doesn't want to risk insulting the hitters.

[Can_of_corn]

I think what he's not saying is that the didn't trust his offense to score soon off of Liriano. He was predicting breaking through later, at which time he'd use Britton. He's not saying it because he doesn't want to risk insulting the hitters.

Even if that is the case you have to extend the game and Ublado didn't give you the best chance to do that.

[thezeroes]

I think what he's not saying is that the didn't trust his offense to score soon off of Liriano. He was predicting breaking through later, at which time he'd use Britton. He's not saying it because he doesn't want to risk insulting the hitters.

This is what I believe to be the reasoning. Liriano had completely "Shut Out Offense" in his last outing for 6 1/3 innings.