I get that there are some things that can't be quantified, but completely unquantifiable? No.
Win expectancy largely quantifies the difference between choice A and choice B.
I have no problem with you thinking that Cora made a mistake by leaving Kelly in too long. I think he left Kelly in too long also, though I think that decision is defensible.
What I have a problem with is blaming the loss on Cora. He is not responsible for the loss.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. High profile closers from one year often fail in subsequent years. And other relievers step up and become lights out closers. I am fully aware that the difficulty comes with finding those diamonds in the rough.
I've always agreed with the philosophy of acquiring as many arms as possible for that reason, and seeing what sticks. That means prospects as well as free agents.
Of course the manager needs to be alert to make the decisions.
My argument is with how big of an impact those decisions have on the outcome of the game.
There are so many events that take place during the course of a game that are 'random'. If any one of those random events did not occur or occurred differently, the outcome of the game could be completely different.
That doesn't mean that you don't need skilled players in the game. It just means that the outcome of close games is likely determined more by randomness than it is by skill.
I know the season is early and Betts is young, but managers like to give players 2 full days of rest if it's feasible.
Cora is applying many of the philosophies that the Astros used. Frequent rest seems to have done the Astros a lot of good last season.
I tend to agree with Youk. If the game is close, by all means, do whatever you can to get on base, including bunting against the shift. If it's the 9th inning of a blowout game, then I have to go with the unwritten rule. It's kind of like swinging on a 3-0 pitch or stealing a base when your team is up by 10.
Managers do need to be smarter than their players, but more importantly, they need to be able to get their players to buy into their decisions. If the player isn't buying it, chances are it won't work.
I know this isn't going to go over well, but truth be told, the outcomes of all of our games so far is largely random. We could just as easily be 0-4, 1-3, 2-2, or 4-0.
In close games, randomness is king.
A traditional line up works, but how does anyone know that it's the best way to set a line up? How do you know another line up won't work better? Are we just going to accept that a traditional line up is the best line up because that's the way it's always been done?
If Kelly had blown that game, Cora would have been crucified.
Personally, I liked the decision. (I fully admit that I would not have liked it as much if it had failed. I also fully admit that I was not extremely confident entering that 1/2 inning. LOL) Cora gave Kelly a huge vote of confidence in trusting him with that save situation. He got the sour taste out of Kelly's mouth. Whether that pays any long term dividends remains to be seen, but I like it.