Originally Posted by Chip R
You may be right. However he may do things that you or I can't see that makes this team better. Not everything has to be seen or measured to be effective.
Those are legitimate criticisms. But there's also more than one way to skin a cat. Baseball is different than other sports where playing/managing "Old School" is a recipe for defeat. You don't see basketball teams throwing up set shots or running a Four-Corners offense. You don't see football teams run the ball quite as mush as they used to or have pure thowers play quarterback anymore. In baseball, you can employ "old School" stratigies and they work just fine. It may not be to your taste but it does work.
Again, those are things that cannot be seen or measured.
I think he has had some bad luck with his late inning relievers. He looked like a genius last night when Chapman saved the game. He would have looked like a bum if Chapman blew the game. The players aren't robots. They have to perform. When they do, the manager looks good. When they don't, not so much.
Who are you going to acquire for $3M (since you have to pay the new guy at least $500K) that is going to make a difference?
What is this "21st Century game"? Does it have lasers and robots and droids?
Do they play games in outer space?
If you can't see how the game has changed since the 1970's then I am not surprised you are a supporter of Dusty Baker.