Could You Win More Games With This Team?

[Bahama O's Fan]

It's not just Hyde. He's not the one moving players up and down and many think he's not even deciding on the lineup 

[HakunaSakata]

1 minute ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

It's not just Hyde. He's not the one moving players up and down and many think he's not even deciding on the lineup 

I'm not putting the Gray-Rod demotion on him, but Hyde clearly had some sort of issue with Stowers (it was his decision not to play him). With that in mind I have a hard time believing he didn't have some sort of say in demoting him.

[forphase1]

6 hours ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

With the current roster and talent in the minors, do you think that you could do a better job than Hyde and company when it comes to daily decision on personnel management, playing time and in game decisions? 

I think there are enough questionable decisions on how they handle the ML roster and lineups to justify questioning how good they are at their jobs in that aspect of the 'rebuild'.   So far drafting and player development have been very good, but the handling of numerous ML issues the past 2 years has certainly me questioning how good of a manager Hyde is and how capable Elias is at being a GM beyond the minor league development stages.  And no, I really don't care about manager of the year voting.  I feel/felt that the team succeeded last year more in spite of management/Hyde/Elias than because of them.  That said, I don't have to believe that I can do a better job than Hyde or Elias over all to be able to recognize questionable, if not outright dumb and/or head scratching moves.  Whether we talk about Odor, Aguliar, etc last year, the offseason moves (and lack thereof) or the handling of Stowers et al now they have some real flaws in their game, and its more than fair for all us armchair GMs and managers to call them out on it.  

So to answer your question, yes, in a few decisions I think the decision I'd make would likely have won us more games last year, and I think we did lose some games due to us giving away so many at-bats to guys who should have been on the bench or not on the roster at all.  This year it's too early to really say.  Of course, I don't doubt for a minute that some of the decisions I'd likely make if I was a manager/GM would backfire terribly.  Again, I don't claim to be a MLB manager or GM.  But I've seen enough to be able to question some moves and decisions that are made by Hyde and Co.

[spleen1015]

1 hour ago, HakunaSakata said:

I feel like a better title of this thread / question would be "Have the Orioles Outgrown Brandon Hyde"? I know we're only 10 games into the season, but it appears they have. DHing Henderson, then watching him play like a gold glover, when he's in the field, not utilizing Stowers, forcing Urias and Mateo into the lineup just about every game, constantly playing Santander in the field, several questionable pitching decisions, the list goes on and on. I'm beginning to think that Hyde was more of a transitional manager than a great mind and I'd be amazed if he makes it through the season. I'm not sure who's available, but we really need someone better because it seems like he's in over his head. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I'm not a big fan of folks who post just to be contradictory, but I have to say, Henderson has not been playing Gold Glove defense.

Hot take is hot 

[HakunaSakata]

1 hour ago, spleen1015 said:

I'm not a big fan of folks who post just to be contradictory, but I have to say, Henderson has not been playing Gold Glove defense.

Hot take is hot 

I've read the comments in the recent threads. I'm certainly not the only one questioning Hyde's decisions. And did you actually watch the games this weekend? Because Henderosn sure looked like a future gold glover to me.  Certainly not a guy you regular play at DH when you have a defensive liability like Santander on your team. 

https://twitter.com/masnOrioles/status/1644880960595415040?s=20

 

[Moose Milligan]

Henderson hasn’t looked like a GG dude to me, either. 

[HakunaSakata]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Henderson hasn’t looked like a GG dude to me, either. 

Maybe if they stopped bouncing him between 3B, SS and DH and just pick a position it would give him a chance to settle in. It's pretty clear he has the tools to be, even if he isn't quite there yet. 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Henderson hasn’t looked like a GG dude to me, either. 

Maybe he will be, but Urias already is, and Mateo should have been.  So Henderson is going to DH sometimes.  I don’t see what the problem is with that. 

[HakunaSakata]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Maybe he will be, but Urias already is, and Mateo should have been.  So Henderson is going to DH sometimes.  I don’t see what the problem is with that. 

The problem is Mateo and Urias aren't part of the long term future of this team and Henderson is. He needs to get reps and when Mateo's bat cools down it's going to be an absolute disservice to his development if he doesn't at the expense of Mateo / Urias. If the team and/or Hyde was so concerned about getting those guys ABs they shouldn't have signed Frazier. 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Maybe he will be, but Urias already is, and Mateo should have been.  So Henderson is going to DH sometimes.  I don’t see what the problem is with that. 

Once a month would be fine.  Once a week seems excessive, particularly when it puts Santander in the field.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Once a month would be fine.  Once a week seems excessive, particularly when it puts Santander in the field.

I don’t find it excessive at all.  The alternative is to bench Urias, Mateo or Frazier more often. I don’t see a good reason to do that.   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I don’t find it excessive at all.  The alternative is to bench Urias, Mateo or Frazier more often. I don’t see a good reason to do that.   

Or trade one of them.  Or have one of them DH.

Gunnar's development is more important.

[SteveA]

6 hours ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

I have seen many posters on here, in FORESIGHT, not hindsight, call out a bad move and it works out exactly how they called it. Obviously we are not professionals like Hyde and others, but man, if all you have to do all day is this with no other job, I bet some on here feel like they could do better. 

But even if you look at those instances you describe, where they criticize a move of Hyde's and it does indeed turn out badly, there's often a few things that are true:

   1)  You don't know what they would have done in place and whether it would have worked any better.   For example in today's game thread a lot of people didn't like bringing in Gillaspie.   But as near as I can tell NONE of them said who they would bring in.   We know Gillaspie gave up a run.    So we can say they were "right" and Hyde was wrong.   But we don't know who  they would have brought in, whether that person might have given up the run too or even more.

   2) Also there are a lot of fans who, when being critical of Hyde, are clearly looking at one particular game and not looking at getting relievers rest, getting relievers work.   The reliever someone might have wanted in today instead of Gillaspie, might help us win tomorrow and he wouldn't have been available if the OH critic was managing the team.   You don't manage like there's no tomorrow on April 9.

I'm not saying Hyde is a great manager, or even that he is making all the decisions.   But a lot of the second guessing I see, even when it's posted with foresignt, doesn't always say what the right move is, or take into account other games, or LH/RH considerations, etc.   In a lot of cases there are guys in the bullpen or on the team that posters lack confidence in -- often justifiably so because the guys are not playing well -- and whenever that person comes in its greeted with moans and groans and talk about how Hyde is "giving up on the game" or "not trying to win".   But nowadays you pretty much have to use ALL the pitchers on your roster, and there aren't enough blowout games to only use the "bad" ones in blowouts.   You also have to think about who would come in as a long man tomorrow if  your starter got knocked out early and injured and maybe not use that guy today.

I don't think it's an easy job, and I don't know if Hyde is great at it or not, but I think it's harder than a lot of second guessers think it is and it's awfully easy to say you were right when Hyde's move doesn't work out, with no true knowledge of whether your move would have been any better,

[SilverRocket]

Gunnar has misplayed a ball pretty much every game he's been on the field this year. His Outs Above Average is 1st percentile so far. I think he's better than this, and he certainly has the tools to become good, but at his current production level, DH'ing him once a week seems perfectly fine.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

Gunnar has misplayed a ball pretty much every game he's been on the field this year. His Outs Above Average is 1st percentile so far. I think he's better than this, and he certainly has the tools to become good, but at his current production level, DH'ing him once a week seems perfectly fine.

So you don't think he needs reps?