No, I think Tito's been marvelous. I think I've been clear on that point. But all I'm saying is that you can make a "right" move and the guy you put in gives up a bomb anyway to a crap hitter. Or you can make a "wrong" move and the guy induces a weak popup to the league's leading hitter. Tito has done very well. But his relief pitchers (and his starters too, for that matter) have been outstanding. And when the guys on the field do their jobs well, it makes the manager look that much better. Conversely, when they don't do their jobs, it makes them look worse.I don't disagree with your larger point vis a vis unsustainability, but I think you're pretty seriously glossing over the fact that Tito flipping his closer and setup man due to matchups (each covering more than an inning) is a move that 29 other managers simply wouldn't have made. Your comment about "putting guys in a position to succeed" strikes me as overly cavalier as well. "Putting guys in a position to succeed" doesn't mean everyone gets to face the shittiest hitters. It means that when there is a predictable tough part of the order, you don't ask your 4th best reliever to mow them down, you ask your best one based on matchups.
If you honestly think John Farrell or most (any?) other MLB managers would have navigated a bullpen as well as Tito has been doing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So for example... is starting Kluber on three days' rest in game 4 the right move, a day after his bullpen had to pitch the entire game? Arguments can be made both ways. If Kluber doesn't do well and they lose 5-3, and then he cannot go until game 7, and meanwhile, the other two starters get (predictably) lit up in games 5 and 6, suddenly pitching Kluber in game 4 and having a spent bullpen and Kluber again on 3 days' rest for game 7 doesn't seem like a good situation. But if Kluber does his job and the Indians win, it'll look like a gutsy, genius move.