wsnydes

Must be planning on him being on the DL for 42?

Is that Belisle I see in that picture? Must be an old photo since he's already signed.

Pitching hasn't really been the problem though. Plus, only half of the bullpen sees the field anyway.

Well, he's probably not wrong.

*Raises hand emphatically*

Good effort on the part of the ball kids to get out of the way there.

Most of the last decade suggests that it is.

Do we want to wear down the outfield like that though? I mean, the outfield wall is brick...

Wow...

He's his dad, right?

If replay is going to exist, is it too much to ask for them to get the call right?

Then I blame you!

That's fair. I accept responsibility.

Who's this guy pitching? Haven't seen him in what, two days? Thought Molitor forgot about him.

What a bad time to get home to turn the game on...

Didn't say turn them into stars. He can teach them to run the bases correctly, throw to the correct base, situational hitting and fielding... little things that don't require a minimum skill level. I'm not asking for miracles, just fundamental baseball. This team lacks it.

Wind blowing out?

so many pop ups and K's with RISP and less than two outs... made even worse with the pitcher spot up next.

You might be right on that they have been less significant than we've thought, at least in game. I still think they're more important outside of the game. Once the game starts, most of their job is done. Thanks for the debate! I enjoyed it.

I would argue that Molitor is a poor example to use, but to your point, it doesn't take a massive amount in game. One move or non-move can drastically alter a game. Most of the managers work is outside of the game anyway. That's how it's always been. How many in-game technique/mechanics adjustments or on the fly game plan changes can your statistician make? Is that person going to notice that the opposing pitcher doesn't have his fastball that day and adjust the batters game plan accordingly? Is that statistician going to notice that they're working a hitter a particular way and call for a hit and run to take advantage of it? That's the sort of thing a good manager is looking at. Sure, you have the "experts" to do some of that stuff, but the more eyes on those types of things the better off you will be. I don't disagree that those sorts of skill sets will creep into the dugout. they clearly are, but if the game progresses to the point where it's so robotic that nobody makes any sort of strategical adjustments based on current game conditions, then it's going to get even more boring than it is already becoming. There will likely be statisticians sitting in the dugout feeding the manager info, but the guy making the decisions has to understand what's going on on the field as much as he understands the information he's being given. That part of your point I don't disagree with at all. The game is already there. For what it's worth, when Epstein was hired by the Red Sox it was pretty clear even before he accomplished anything that that was where baseball was going to go in my view. The game the FO plays and the game in the dugout are two very different games though.

This makes more sense than what I was interpreting. However, basically what you said, is that it's not all that different (if at all) than it is now. If you still have a point man, would he not be the manager? Even if not in title? I agree that the manager position has changed a lot in a rather short amount of time. The skill set required is evolving and always will. The game is constantly evolving, it only makes sense that all those players and coaches involved will also need to evolve. I think where I might differ from your opinion is that the "point man" will always be a baseball guy. I think there's much more to managing that analyzing data and making a decision. Will that person need to know how to use data effectively? Absolutely. But he's also going to need to know the game beyond the data. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with that at all though. I think FO's can be filled with Stanford nerd types more practically than a dugout. The decisions that a FO make are more data driven to begin with. The day to day routine's are completely different requiring completely different skill sets.

You've mentioned this before in other threads. How would this work in your mind? I don't really agree, but I do think it's an interesting idea. I'm just not sure how it would work in practice. I assume that the three or four people have their own discipline in which they work in, but what happens where there is overlap? What happens a decision must be made quickly? Wouldn't you need someone to be the "point man", so to speak? Do these guys also work with the players to improve their skill/technique? I'm genuinely interested in how you see this arrangement work in practice.

Looking at 3+ years of overall track record and pointing at 2 months that are clearly outside of the norm is also cherry picking. The peaks and valleys this team exhibit is insane. The fact that Molitor can't even teach his team his own strengths as a player is alarming and problematic. I'm a firm believer that HoF type players generally make terrible coaches because things come so naturally to them that they don't know how to pass that knowledge on to others. I don't care so much about his overall record. I care about his inability to get the most out of the players that he is given. I care about his inability to get his team to play solid fundamental baseball. Doing the little things requires no minimum skill level.

True, but he was also actually pitching... Throwing a ball towards home plate anyway.

I'll take that for the guys that will be free agents after the season though. May as well get something for them.