Palmer sounds like he's had enough.

[SteveA]

6 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

   Maybe it's me, but I don't think that a major league hitter should be taking on a 3-1 count. That's a hitters count if there ever

   was one. I could see Palmer's frustration if ii was a 3-0 count.

When the pitcher has been wild, you are down by multiple runs in the 9th, and the ONLY thing that matters is getting on base (a walk is as good as a home run)?

[El Gordo]

5 hours ago, Roy Firestone said:

You should hear what he tells me. And no, I won't repeat it.

Aw c'mon Roy. You can censor and paraphrase, use euphemisms etc. Give us a taste.

[Il BuonO]

14 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

   Maybe it's me, but I don't think that a major league hitter should be taking on a 3-1 count. That's a hitters count if there ever

   was one. I could see Palmer's frustration if ii was a 3-0 count.

Context matters. What’s been left out is the guy they brought in was having trouble locating. Palmer, I believe said something like, “ He’s all over the place.” He went on to say that two runs down hitters should be looking to make sure he throws strikes. 

Situationally, a 3-1 count is a favorable count for the hitter, but the circumstances of the game dictate another strategy. And while there probably isn’t a team that has a take sign, players should be thinking about situations from a team perspective. If my team is down two runs in the 9th, my job is to get on base. Even if I get the meatball I want on 3-1, it still leaves the team a run short if I hit a HR.

And again, with a pitcher struggling to command pitches there’s added context. I totally get JP’s frustration.

[El Gordo]

3 hours ago, atomic said:

I don't think too many of us managing could do worse than 8 and 24.  

Fair enough. What's your best lineup given the current 25 man roster?

[accinfo]

3 hours ago, Going Underground said:

Under Armour is not doing that well. Shareholders are suing. His Port Conington project ,some people feel is over ambitious. One of the biggest projects on the East Coast, like a Google headquarters. He now owns a whiskey company and a hotel.

Yes, Under Armor and Plank have their own financial issues.  However, even if there is another "better" ownership possibility it really doesn't matter.  Angelos will pass the team to his heirs because it is his to do with what he wants.  No one is going to force new ownership on the Orioles.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, accinfo said:

Yes, Under Armor and Plank have their own financial issues.  However, even if there is another "better" ownership possibility it really doesn't matter.  Angelos will pass the team to his heirs because it is his to do with what he wants.  No one is going to force new ownership on the Orioles.

Couldn't MLB force the issue?

[accinfo]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Couldn't MLB force the issue?

I guess they could once Angelos passes and not approve the sons as owners.  I just doubt they do that.  One thing the sons could do is settle this MASN suit in exchange for approval of them as owners.

[Superbee83]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

When the pitcher has been wild, you are down by multiple runs in the 9th, and the ONLY thing that matters is getting on base (a walk is as good as a home run)?

      What if he hit a single on the pitch and the next guy hit a two run homer?

      Disagree with giving Sisco the take sign on 3 and 1.

      

[Superbee83]

1 hour ago, Il BuonO said:

Context matters. What’s been left out is the guy they brought in was having trouble locating. Palmer, I believe said something like, “ He’s all over the place.” He went on to say that two runs down hitters should be looking to make sure he throws strikes. 

Situationally, a 3-1 count is a favorable count for the hitter, but the circumstances of the game dictate another strategy. And while there probably isn’t a team that has a take sign, players should be thinking about situations from a team perspective. If my team is down two runs in the 9th, my job is to get on base. Even if I get the meatball I want on 3-1, it still leaves the team a run short if I hit a HR.

And again, with a pitcher struggling to command pitches there’s added context. I totally get JP’s frustration.

      I get that the hitter should maje sure that he throws strikes, but a pitcher being wild is not a good reason to

      give a MLB hitter a take on a 3-1 count. ( I think the OP blamed Buck for not giving Sisco the take.)

      In this situation your job is to get on base. If you take that pitch down the middle for a strike the next pitch may be a breaking

      pitch that you strike out on. I am not saying that you should try to jack the ball out of the park, however, if you hit a solo 

      homer you have cut the lead and the inning is still alive.

      I get Palmer's frustration with the outcome of the at bat, but I disagree with a hitter taking on 3 and 1.

 

 

 

[Moose Milligan]

I don't agree with taking all the way on a 3-1 pitch, too.  If the pitcher is going to not want to walk someone there's a good chance they're gonna throw a get-me-over fastball that could be hammered.  A 3-2 count is very different.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/whats-the-most-important-pitch-of-an-at-bat-mlb-hitters-offer-their-thoughts/p8s91l136i2l1gkadyp39p14o

This article is a few years old, but I can't imagine a very big change in the stats.

After 3-1 count: .274 average, 1.029 OPS

On a 3-2 count: .216 average, .792 OPS

Palmer on the broadcast just said "...some of them don't belong here..." when going down a list of people that aren't playing well, hurt, etc.  

 

[Beef Supreme]

12 hours ago, ChangeRoadUnis said:

if Buck has no authority on this team and apparently doesn't influence the players at all, why is it so important he's manager?

If managers have no authority to give a take sign to a batter, then how can anyone assign blame in the Sisco at-bat where he swing on a 3-1 pitch in the ninth inning with nobody on base down two runs. Is there somebody the Orioles could hire to replace Buck who is capable of telepathically communicate the indisputable need for the batter to TAKE that pitch.

If that was Buck's fault, then I understand if you want to fire him.
If it is beyond any and all managers to direct his player to adhere to not erring against one of the real "unwritten rules of baseball," aka "common sense," then  how can we expect any manager to conduct and coordinate a team? To me, the role of 'manager' is beginning to look like it is morphing from the grisled, lifelong baseball scholars like Buck into the ripped, buff, cut middle-aged former players who are marionettes of their GMs. Technician rather than Tactician.

So I ask the question: is it really true that managers can not give the take sign. To anyone not named Trout... or even named Gregorious? Can they not give it to a green rook like Sisco!!??!? Do you expect that the rook will know better 100% of the time and that the coaching staff can sit on their hands and not even communicate with the players they are tasked to manage? 

This looks like a valid critique by Palmer. But if Buck is not able to give players the take sign, then what does it matter if he, like a Supreme Court judge, is appointed Manager-for- Life?

[atomic]

6 hours ago, El Gordo said:

Fair enough. What's your best lineup given the current 25 man roster?

I wouldn't have the current 25 man roster.   

[atomic]

17 minutes ago, atomic said:

I wouldn't have the current 25 man roster.   

 

6 hours ago, El Gordo said:

Fair enough. What's your best lineup given the current 25 man roster?

Also I don't think it matters.   I doubt a randomly generated line up would do any worse. Orioles are winning less than 25 percent of their games.  Not having  a manager and just letting the players decide wouldn't be worse. 

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

I wouldn't have the current 25 man roster.   

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't agree with taking all the way on a 3-1 pitch, too.  If the pitcher is going to not want to walk someone there's a good chance they're gonna throw a get-me-over fastball that could be hammered.  A 3-2 count is very different.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/whats-the-most-important-pitch-of-an-at-bat-mlb-hitters-offer-their-thoughts/p8s91l136i2l1gkadyp39p14o

This article is a few years old, but I can't imagine a very big change in the stats.

After 3-1 count: .274 average, 1.029 OPS

On a 3-2 count: .216 average, .792 OPS

Palmer on the broadcast just said "...some of them don't belong here..." when going down a list of people that aren't playing well, hurt, etc.  

 

Depends where the pitch is.   Remember that OPS you cite includes taking ball four.   If it’s borderline, you probably take.    The walk rate after a 3-1 count is over 50%.