This post inspired a question that I wanted to get some opinions about.
Does Hyde seem like a manager that is sympathetic to veterans at the expense of playing the better rookie?
I don't think it's Hyde's call.
But also, no, he (or the combination of he and the above field decision-makers) doesn't strike me like that. Plenty of rookies and young players have taken over for more entrenched vets once the performances dictate it. When is the rookie "better' is a complicated question, though. We saw some guys get moved to everyday right away, others have to chip away a bit. Depends both on the profile of the young guy and the older guy who's time they are taking away.