Wick3 said: "Even though he doesn’t work for NYT anymore, do you think he has enough of a following or influence where if he continues to review shows on his own and post them on his own website or blog or something, people would read it?"
In theory, anyone who truly cared about his opinion before should continue to care about it now. His artistic standards and insight weren't tied to the job title, they're things he gained through experience - experience he still possesses.
If he were to continue writing reviews, they inevitably wouldn't be as popular simply because he wouldn't have the built-in readership that the NYT has. And normal people wouldn't care enough about him to seek out his independent reviews. But I would hope that any theatre people who really valued his opinion before wouldn't be so shallow as to consider his criticism worthless just because he doesn't hold the same high position.
Having said that, I'm guessing that many theatre people who eagerly anticipated reading his verdict weren't doing so because they valued his personal insight, but rather because they knew that his reviews had the most influence and power to sell tickets (compared to other reviewers). Without the NYT job, he no longer has that power. So I suspect most theatre people won't care what he has to say, unless they have a particular affinity for his personal writing style, or found that his personal opinions have historically aligned with their own.