I say Rocco is below average, but I’m not sure how much it matters anymore.
There are so many other factors that are influencing the results of games today— primarily, quality of the competition, or lack of quality, is just striking to me.
In today’s MLB, there are several teams every year that do not even make an effort to be competitive. Depending on which division a team plays in, that could be 15-20% of your schedule, playing against teams that are not fielding a major league product. In the past, you might see a super team or two with 100-plus wins, and a bad team with 100 losses. Ten years ago, no team broke 100, winning or losing. The past few seasons, the story is different. Several teams every year win 100-plus, and several others lose 100. Sometimes well past 100. The quality of players on these teams is reflected in the win-loss records. Uncompetitive. Even in an era when 12 teams now make the postseason, we will still see multiple teams not really trying and without a play to even try next season.
Why is this so? I’m not sure. I would like to see an analysis. My guess is that it has something to do with the analytics movement (the philosophy, true or not, of “strikeouts don’t matter”) and those types of players that movement brought in. Maybe we are still in the midst of it. I don’t know. I don’t have this completely fleshed out but I would say it’s something like that.
In other words? There are too many bad players in the league to worry about Rocco’s bad substitutions!