I believe there's so truth in this. We'll hire another ex-player from the 60's who believes in conventional baseball wisdom. He'll let his starters throw too many pitchers, only use his best reliever in "save" situations, insist on a fast guy at the top of the order instead of a high-OBP guy, sac bunt and hit-and-run us out of innings, etc. There was a bit about the copycat nature of modern managing in an article in today's BP by Joe Sheehan. A blurb: "But beyond a few examples, what characteristics do the vast majority of managers have? There’s virtually no innovation coming from the dugout any longer. What does Buddy Bell do that makes him qualified for his job? How does Eric Wedge or Mike Hargrove or Charlie Manuel or Bruce Bochy make the team better, add value to the organization in a way that shows up in the win column? I don’t mean to single out these guys. My argument isn’t that they’re bad managers, it’s that the standards for what makes a good or bad one aren’t clear beyond, “winning good, losing bad.” " http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5070