Amen, DJ. I'm getting sick of being told how crazy I am. Lcbj, your point on how a difference in percentages (an example of something over which a manager does sometimes directly affect) is negligible is just plain off. Your throw-away of a ten-point percentage gap in either way is exactly why you aren't understanding why the critics have beef. A .330 hitter is a significant upgrade over a .250 hitter, so why would you want your manager to either stick with or sub in the inferior player - or maybe better stated, why wouldn't you be upset if he did so? Again, I wasn't talking about the manager making a substitution or not. I said [i'm neither yay or nay. I'd rather watch the players than armchair manager.]. I didn't say there isn't an advantage to being a .330 hitter as opposed to a .250 hitter, of course there is. But then again, where's our .330 hitter? All I was saying was I don't feel the need to get upset at a player when 67-77% of the time, they fail anyways. And if that player does fail, why is it AUTOMATIC that the other option on the bench was going to work, when maybe their percentage of failure was 10% less. It's NOT AUTOMATIC in my mind. This YOSTED business is silly. Because the other option isn't AUTOMATIC is why I don't place any wins or losses directly on the manager. Case in point, on another day, Acquino could have been lights out and Cordero could have come in and given up a 3-run jack, it's up to the players to perform as they are capable.