On ESPN this morning Stark reported that Buck said before the game that he would use Britton in the eighth and the ninth if the situation called for it. He just screwed up by saving him for the mythical lead that never materialized.
If the Sox can't win the series, I hope Buck goes down for this so the Sox can scoop him right up.That seemed monumentally stupid to me as well. One of the greatest relief pitching seasons in history doesn't factor in an extra innings, loser- go- home game. I'm a grudging Showalter champion because he seems distantly related to Belichick and I'd love him in the dugout, but wow.
I meant to post this point a while back when it was more about saves as a statistic but one of the more idiotic things about saves and wins in general is that they used to be a major factor in determining arbitration cases. Considering the root word of arbitration is "arbitrary," you kind of have to wonder what the thinking behind that is. The process could have changed by now, rendering my point useless, but I couldn't find any specifics.
At least high leverage relievers are starting to get paid multi million dollars (a la Andrew Miller) and get wooed a lot more than even 5 years ago.
Edit: Found this article from 2013 which mentions that holds, ERA and strikeouts are also part of the determining factors.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/12/30/5255660/saves-distorting-salary-arbitration
Even though it means I'll have to read another post by you, I really can't wait to hear what your reasoning for this statement is.If the Sox can't win the series, I hope Buck goes down for this so the Sox can scoop him right up.
I'm not a Farrell fatalist, but when there's a clear upgrade on Buck's level available, you take your shot.
Giving last posting rites. Nice.Even though it means I'll have to read another post by you, I really can't wait to hear what your reasoning for this statement is.
Is anything really worth that price?Even though it means I'll have to read another post by you, I really can't wait to hear what your reasoning for this statement is.
But there's a day between Sunday and Tuesday, Britton only threw 20 pitches on Sunday, and Britton wouldn't have to pitch again until Thursday (maybe). I don't believe in the old Dusty Baker handling of pitcher ways and means, but this is (was) October baseball for Buck and the Orioles. Unless there was something wrong with Britton, and he said he was fine after the game, he should have been considered for two innings.Britton has even better numbers against righties than lefties.
I think Buck had in his head that Britton could only give him one inning after getting five outs on Sunday, but still I think you need to use him earlier and certainly once it got to Encarnacion. If worst comes to worst, Tommy Hunter did do some closing in 2014 (11 saves), so it wouldn't have been a first-time thing for him.
Does he strike you as one that encourages such input or would listen to it?edit: and really, shouldn't there be someone on his staff who said, "WTF you doing?"
One need look no further than how Francona handled Foulke in 2004. It probably cost Foulke his career, but it's as clear a postseason roadmap as any regarding ideal closer usage.But there's a day between Sunday and Tuesday, Britton only threw 20 pitches on Sunday, and Britton wouldn't have to pitch again until Thursday (maybe). I don't believe in the old Dusty Baker handling of pitcher ways and means, but this is (was) October baseball for Buck and the Orioles. Unless there was something wrong with Britton, and he said he was fine after the game, he should have been considered for two innings.
Buck is a better manager than Farrell.Even though it means I'll have to read another post by you, I really can't wait to hear what your reasoning for this statement is.
So your reasoning is "Buck is better than Farrell". Solid.Buck is a better manager than Farrell.
If Farrell isn't going to be retained, Buck is the kind of guy you don't retain him for.
All the people all year who have said fire Farrell, I'd ask who is better than him?
Showalter would be an answer that fits that.
If the Sox can't win the series, I hope Buck goes down for this so the Sox can scoop him right up.
I'm not a Farrell fatalist, but when there's a clear upgrade on Buck's level available, you take your shot.
Is this a parody account?Buck is a better manager than Farrell.
If Farrell isn't going to be retained, Buck is the kind of guy you don't retain him for.
All the people all year who have said fire Farrell, I'd ask who is better than him?
Showalter would be an answer that fits that.
Your argument could be used in a high school English textbook to exemplify the literal meaning of "begging the question".Buck is a better manager than Farrell.
If Farrell isn't going to be retained, Buck is the kind of guy you don't retain him for.
All the people all year who have said fire Farrell, I'd ask who is better than him?
Showalter would be an answer that fits that.
You do understand there's an entire thread on this board about firing Farrell right?Your argument could be used in a high school English textbook to exemplify the literal meaning of "begging the question".
Is yours?Is this a parody account?
Yup. Just as I understand that "Showalter is a better option" isn't a compelling reasoning for firing Farrell and bringing in Showalter, seeing as that's the very premise of your original proposition.You do understand there's an entire thread on this board about firing Farrell right?
Yes. Although apparently unintentionally.Is this a parody account?
I think we need a new rule of management that I will call the "Showalter Rule": all managers (or people in similar position) ought have at least one person on their staff who can prevent the manager from doing something as dumb as Buck Showalter.Does he strike you as one that encourages such input or would listen to it?
I'm not trying to nitpick you, but I don't think this accurately captures what happened. The Grady analogy is a good one because, like Grady, Buck didn't make *a* brain fart. He made the same bad decision over and over again starting around the 9th inning, and it kept getting worse.Buck had a brain fart. A really really big one with the whole world watching. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/sports/baseball/zach-britton-buck-showalter-baltimore-orioles.html?_r=0
edit: and really, shouldn't there be someone on his staff who said, "WTF you doing?"
Honestly, I can't even see going to O'Day. The Jays had one out, two men on base and a run ends the game. You gotta go with Britton there, since he can either get a strike out or a double play to end the inning. I know Martin and Tulowitzki aren't Donaldson and Encarnacion, but O'Day has given up his share of homers this season and has a 34.2 GB%. It ended up working out great, but how do you gamble like that in a position where a bloop single can finish your season?I'm not trying to nitpick you, but I don't think this accurately captures what happened. The Grady analogy is a good one because, like Grady, Buck didn't make *a* brain fart. He made the same bad decision over and over again starting around the 9th inning, and it kept getting worse.
Going with Brach and then O'Day isn't smart, but you can see it. Going to Duensing was dumb. Then going to Jimenez was criminally stupid. Then leaving Jimenez in, against the heart of the Jays lineup--when he was giving up laser shots--was unfathomable. He had chance after chance to course-correct and get Britton in there for multiple innings and he missed it repeatedly.
I think that's part of what's made this such a big deal in the aftermath. That was a feature-length movie chokejob, not just a bad call in the heat of the moment.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine, and after reading some of the quotes from Buck, I have to believe that he got it in his mind that the Os were going to go ahead and Britton was going to be used for the save. He made a decision, got it stuck in his head, and couldn't get rid of it. Or maybe he made a decision not to use Britton in the 8th and 9th and figured that if he put Britton in the 11th, he would be going against himself. Who knows?I'm not trying to nitpick you, but I don't think this accurately captures what happened. The Grady analogy is a good one because, like Grady, Buck didn't make *a* brain fart. He made the same bad decision over and over again starting around the 9th inning, and it kept getting worse.
Going with Brach and then O'Day isn't smart, but you can see it. Going to Duensing was dumb. Then going to Jimenez was criminally stupid. Then leaving Jimenez in, against the heart of the Jays lineup--when he was giving up laser shots--was unfathomable. He had chance after chance to course-correct and get Britton in there for multiple innings and he missed it repeatedly.
I think that's part of what's made this such a big deal in the aftermath. That was a feature-length movie chokejob, not just a bad call in the heat of the moment.
I completely agree, and put it like I did more to show that even with generous benefit of the doubt it was a huge fuck up. But yeah, O'Day was a real stretch there for sure.Honestly, I can't even see going to O'Day. The Jays had one out, two men on base and a run ends the game. You gotta go with Britton there, since he can either get a strike out or a double play to end the inning. I know Martin and Tulowitzki aren't Donaldson and Encarnacion, but O'Day has given up his share of homers this season and has a 34.2 GB%. It ended up working out great, but how do you gamble like that in a position where a bloop single can finish your season?
Absolutely. Shows the value of flexible thinking--the only explanation is, as you say here--he got it in his head he was going to play it one way and became inert when his plan started going to shit.I had this discussion with a friend of mine, and after reading some of the quotes from Buck, I have to believe that he got it in his mind that the Os were going to go ahead and Britton was going to be used for the save. He made a decision, got it stuck in his head, and couldn't get rid of it. Or maybe he made a decision not to use Britton in the 8th and 9th and figured that if he put Britton in the 11th, he would be going against himself. Who knows?
So maybe you are correct and this isn't a "brain fart" but it shows how someone can outsmart themselves.
I'll put myself up against you on anything baseball.Yes. Although apparently unintentionally.
I see you put as much thought into this post as you have your previous ones. Trying to prove your point by offering your opinion never works. Evidence does.Buck is a better manager than Farrell.
If Farrell isn't going to be retained, Buck is the kind of guy you don't retain him for.
All the people all year who have said fire Farrell, I'd ask who is better than him?
Showalter would be an answer that fits that.
you mean something like this?I see you put as much thought into this post as you have your previous ones. Trying to prove your point by offering your opinion never works. Evidence does.
As opposed to Farrell.Oh, man. 4% chose Showalter out of 117 surveyed. That's 5 guys.
And you have yet to say why you think that.You guys are way overreacting as it is.
I didn't say fire Farrell right now. Far from it.
I said if the Sox determine that Farrell is not coming back, Showalter would be a phenomenal choice.
As opposed to Farrell.
But keep trying. Yall making this personal makes it too easy.
Maybe the mistake was having Ubaldo on the roster to begin with particularly since (1) he was rumoured to be starting on TRS if they won and (2) they could have put Vance Worley on the roster.Buck was deceived by SSS. Ubaldo has been maddeningly inconsistent since 2010. Had a great September, but that was as a SP'er, his SSS record as a RP'er is not comforting.
Ubaldo should have been used as a last resort only. Frankly, would you rather see him pitch with a lead against a different part of the order or against the heart of the Jays order where 1 run means game over.
Just show your work. Thinking Showalter is a better manager than Farrell is perfectly acceptable, as long as you justify your opinion. When the best argument you can come up with is an ESPN article containing zero analysis, it's not enough to even start a conversation.As opposed to Farrell.
But keep trying. Yall making this personal makes it too easy.
You don't understand. I strenuously object!Just show your work. Thinking Showalter is a better manager than Farrell is perfectly acceptable, as long as you justify your opinion. When the best argument you can come up with is an ESPN article containing zero analysis, it's not enough to even start a conversation.
The only one talking about a comparison is you. The rest of us are talking about how Buck is a terrible manager.You guys are way overreacting as it is.
I didn't say fire Farrell right now. Far from it.
I said if the Sox determine that Farrell is not coming back, Showalter would be a phenomenal choice.
He probably will. He's following the model for this so far.Maybe if Broda repeats the same thing for a fifth time, that's what'll finally convince everyone.
Not after Tuesday night. Showalter is now more likely to be a MLB Network anchor than manage another baseball team.Buck is a better manager than Farrell.
If Farrell isn't going to be retained, Buck is the kind of guy you don't retain him for.
All the people all year who have said fire Farrell, I'd ask who is better than him?
Showalter would be an answer that fits that.
Maybe he was the choice to make the start if Tillman came up lame in the warmups, which was a not insignificant probability.Maybe the mistake was having Ubaldo on the roster to begin with particularly since (1) he was rumoured to be starting on TRS if they won and (2) they could have put Vance Worley on the roster.
I wish some intrepid reporter had asked him or Duke why Ubaldo was on the roster in the first place. I guess we'll never find out.
Well then maybe we should take some time to reconsider.You don't understand. I strenuously object!
I would suggest reading these 2 articles and then doing some math and see what you can figure out. You see this is basic scientific method here, you have a hypothesis, now get some data and either prove your point (Buck>>>>>Farrell) or refine your hypothesis.As opposed to Farrell.
But keep trying. Yall making this personal makes it too easy.