Originally Posted by Raisor
Just a partial list of things we talk a lot about that also get a lot of push back over the fact that we talk about them.
In fact there are posters who seem to only post about not wanting to post about those things (that just made me dizzy)
The question is, if not that stuff, what should we be talking about?
What are the things we are missing out of?
I think the key thing is perspective. Of course being 80-52 doesn't make every decision the right one or exempt from criticism, but obviously something is balancing out the "wrong" decisions to this point.
So if we assume that a lineup featuring Chris Heisey in CF, Ryan Hannigan batting 2nd, and Drew Stubbs Left Out would be optimal in producing wins, how have the Reds compensated for that less than ideal lineup?
Have they just been lucky? Have they been so talented that anyone who saw that lineup on opening day would likely expect 100+ win?
Have players out played their stats and should be expected to come crashing down?
The problem is that there are certain decisions which can only be measured as a negative.
No manager has made a tactical move in baseball that was so brilliant it "won" the game for the team.
Either they make a move that has the best chance at success.(Expected) They go with their gut, do something sub-optimal, and win(Lucky) or they go with their gut, do something sub-optimal and lose(Negative)
I think the best managers will over the course of time make the most optimal decision more often than lesser managers, and they will be more successful on the "sub-optimal" decisions they make than lesser managers.
I think Dusty probably fails at the first test, but succeeds at the 2nd test. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that.