A rookie bullpen with a sprinkling of veterans that mostly suck. The rookie of the year stud is out, cy young winner out, 2019 saves leader out. Bregman, Altuve, Springer, Urquidy missing time. Cole to NY. How the hell is this team even within a game of .500? Oh and they lost out on 2 home games where they play well which became loses on the road.
The Astros team was a great team entering the season. They are still probably above average if they were given 162 games to sort this out.
I'm not all that impressed with in-game stuff, we know nothing about behind the scenes/clubhouse/dugout/etc, but I don't see how any change would matter, or would have.
I'm not too worried about regular season results this season. Astros either make it or they don't to playoffs. He may be better than he was, but I don't trust him with an injured and depleted pitching staff...especially one that is over-reliant on rookies.
Wish that were the case. I expected Garcia and Bielak would have openers. Besides for not thinking Baker manages pitchers in such a way to get the most long term benefit, I also worry he's getting more power such that he will push back on some recommendations (I expect manager to push back a little at times), and possibly undermine some of Luhnow's hardwork at getting front office, manager, and players in sync.
I wasn't thinking that angle. I was thinking in terms of him being a manager that can greatly affect how far we go or not in terms of wins and getting deep into the playoffs. I suggested he may be lame in the sense that the factors controlling these things are not in Baker's control. They are things like covid, injuries, rookies, scandal fallout, certain vets with damaged psyche's, and so on. But to your observation/opinion, he could very well affect the internal workings of the club and how the different parts relate. For me, I cant yet say whether that influence will help or hinder. But the potential to move the clubhouse away from things Luhnow and Hinch put into place is certainly there. But that would be the case with any previously well established manager. If they wanted a yes man to keep the status quo, they should have hired internally or chose someone green to the job.
I think it is hard to find a smoking gun on why a manager should be canned. I f8nd game decisions are usually gray. And even when it is a clear mistake..it usually isn't that bad. For Baker, it seems him and Click aren't on the same page. One will say so and so pitched on a mound while the other will say it was long toss. Hinch while he didn't always agree with Luhnow, it seemed the communication was better. Granted, this is 2020 so things are harder....though that should lean towards a different manager.
My opinion of Baker hasn't really changed. I'm not thrilled with him as a manager (never was), but he's certainly not the reason we've struggled this season. If I had liked the hire I wouldn't be blaming the struggles on him, so I'm not gonna blame Baker because of my preconceived issues with him. The only real complaint I have is that he's shown too much faith in Josh James, but it isn't as if he's rich with reliable pitching options. There's simply too much I don't know to have a strong opinion. I don't know how the players feel about him, and I don't know what is and isn't being communicated from the front office. Players performance is often completely independent of the manager.
Everything in the world is Baker’s fault, well nearly everything. Kenny Landreaux has to take some blame.
Keep in mind out of the pool of choices Baker was considered the best equipped to deal with the scandal. Turns out the blowback of that, at least from the fans perspective will come next year. I didn’t want Baker but I suppose I know why they did it. I just didn’t see it as necessary.
