Why comment then.   

They gave up a 1st rd pick(18th) for Montana but before they got him they were in the playoffs for 3 years straight..

So true. Its hard to argue the logic when its worked for as long as its worked for them, but its baseball and there are things you cant measure and moments you cant script. Its not like they have actually won a championship with this formula.  Heres the issue. If the manager stays with the pitcher and he loses, hes wrong and the front office says you didnt follow the plan. If he stays with him and wins he is still gonna have to answer to them for why he took the risk and now hes not a team player. If he sticks with the plan and loses hes a good company man and if he sticks with the plan and wins the front office takes the credit. So 3 of the 4 scenarios are bad for the manager. The only way he wins (in the eyes of his boss) is by staying on autopilot. Im sorry but that structure has too much downside and not enough benefit for the manager. His job is more secure by contributing less than by doing more. Thats the way bureaucracies operate and its not conducive to winning.     The analysts should report to the manager, not to the GM. Think about it, who knows best what information is needed or how it should be tailored? Who´s job is it to communicate to the players and get them ready? The manager. The front office has every right to choose the manger but they should let him manage. The way its being done now undermines the manager to the people he leads and lessens his impact and thats counter productive. Id also have the players talking with the analysts, maybe they do talk I dont know, but this stuff is still in its infancy and both sides have a lot to learn from the other. I do know that a lot of players dont trust the analysts, who are essentially coaches. Stands to reason that if they are communicating directly to the players the players trust in them and their data would improve.