[King Glorious]

Funny how things work. He makes the bunt and the run scores and the manager is called a genius for having the guts to call that play when conventional wisdom would have said not too. They would have been talking about how he's aggressive and takes chances. Players would have been talking about why they love playing for him. But the guy misses and it's a stupid play. I believe it was the execution of the play (or lack thereof) that was bad, not the call itself.

It reminds me of a situation some years ago in basketball. The Pistons were down by a point and had the ball for the final possession. Isiah Thomas told the team that he was taking the shot. Period. He said after this shot, he'd either be the goat or the hero but he was the one that was taking the shot. It was the right decision. I don't think that looking at results after a play can be used to determine if the play was the right one to make or not. You hire a guy like Scioscia and live with what he brings you. You trust him to go with his gut instint. Another situation that comes to mind is the 2005 NCAA basketball final. UNC was leading Illinois in a tight game and Ray Felton picked up his second foul pretty early in the first half. Now, 95% of the coaches out there would have taken him out. Roy Williams probably would have taken him out any other time. But he went against conventional thinking and left him in there and UNC went on a spurt that kept them in control and things worked out. Now, if Felton had picked up his third, Williams looks like an idiot. But instead, he looked like a genius. You just have to go with your instincts.