I always had a certain sense in me that told me burning through the bullpen for playing the matchups is not always necessarily a good idea – this article supports that notion of mine. I mean, if managers always played matchups, not only would this move sacrifice a bullpen arm that would be much better utilized in a later situation, but it often unnecessarily delays the flow and process of the game. Now, I could understand if it were a pressure situation with RISPs and the matchups were absolutely crucial – then it would be easily justifiable, on account of consequence. But overall, the matchups ideology utilized by many managers today is ridiculous in its many small misconceptions and the often risky pursuit of perfection in strategic maneuvers.

There are three things, I say, that make a great manager. (1) A manager knows his players and communicates to them in a peer-to-peer manner, while yielding authority in a justified manner – a good manager listens and sympathizes with the players, and also assumes a key leadership role in the clubhouse, serving as a unifying force, as opposed to an oppressive, egotistical and tyrannical presence. A manager must have faith in his players’ abilities, yet must also be realistic and make sound decisions and judgment based on performance and skill. Jim Leyland serves as a good example of this. (2) A manager must act, not based on rules, but on principles – I often have a problem with people imposing certain rules just for the sake of such (sometimes, to assert their authority) as opposed to doing it for an actual reason! One should ask “What is the purpose of each rule?” My point here is that a manager manages the clubhouse etiquette a certain way, because there is a reasonable and productive rationale for doing so. Lastly, (3) a manager must actually know how to manage – set lineups correctly, know how to play the game and use a strategy that often works!

I think I explained everything here.