This seems spot on.I suspect if they lose and Farrell got fired, it won't be that the sweep caused DD to fire him, but that it enabled him to. Even if he wanted to last year, the cancer deal prevented it.
I was questioning the Benintendi move as well. I figured JBJ would be out, not the guy that's hitting the ball.I didn't see any head slap moments this postseason, but letting Crisp hit right handed against Pomeranz and removing Benintendi aren't thing I agree with.
The last paragraph is kind of ridiculous. Dombrowski took over a last place team and added some key parts that were helpful to the team's ability to make the playoffs this season. Also, no good franchise fires a GM after one season; no point in letting the Sox become the Diamondbacks.I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone here who thinks Farrell is an above average manager. His game management can be brutal as we all know. Bigger concern to to me is that his teams struggle to come back when down. Last place finishes. Play tight in playoffs. Underperform in Toronto. 2013 is obvious outlier, but that team was opposite, a front runner riding a crest and got a miracle from Ortiz. When I see a team get this tight and have more poor plays in the field and poor ABs in three games than they did in a month, that's a reflection of the manager, right?
If you are basing decisions on performance alone, Dumbrowski should be fired. If you look at What he was handed when he started and then what he added, spent and traded away, it's embarrassingly awful. But that's another topic.
No way thats hyperbole, right?When I see a team get this tight and have more poor plays in the field and poor ABs in three games than they did in a month, that's a reflection of the manager, right?
Totally reasonable and not at all stupid. I think unfocused and unhungry teams win their really competive divisions all the time.Overall, this may be the perfect time for the younger players to get a new manager, a new way of doing things, a new voice. Perhaps that helps on a psychological level. This team never seemed focused and hungry. I realize that's something of an illusion, but the power of belief is a thing in and of itself.
They were certainly unfocused and terrible over their last 9 games.Totally reasonable and not at all stupid. I think unfocused and unhungry teams win their really competive divisions all the time.
Nah.No way thats hyperbole, right?
Did those things happen because of Farrell or in spite of him? Or something in between?The Sox won the best division in baseball, the kids developed into cornerstone players, and they were a few inches/bounces from being up 2-1 in the ALDS. Farrell will be back, and the idea that he shouldn't is silly.
The decision to use Wright as a pinch runner has been discussed before. If Ortiz had gotten hurt trying to score from 2nd, the board would have been on fire. Wright had a mental lapse, and that was entirely on the pitcher. And pulling Buchholz in that Series game at that time was not an option.The decision to use one of his best starting pitchers, however much he was coming back to earth at the time, as a pinch runner, which led to him getting hurt and being unable to pitch down the stretch is, by itself, a reason to question whether he should be retained. Where would this team have finished if Wright had been pitching in meaningful games in those final two weeks instead of running Henry Owens (as an example, since I know he only made a couple spot starts in the last few weeks) out there to get shelled? He did the same thing with Buchholz a few years back during the World Series and it nearly bit him in the ass (he apparently wasn't paying attention to Jeff Suppan's baserunning clinic 9 years earlier in the same situation).
It's not even that he's a bad in-game manager. I mean, he is, but it's more that some of his bad decisions have done more than hurt the team's chances of winning one game, instead having a potentially negative impact on the rest of the season. I'm not sure he'll ever figure out the little things it takes to steal a win in big games, like Tito batting Chisenhall against Price on Game 2, a move that arguably won Cleveland the ALDS.
The only defensible reason I can see for retaining him is the shadow of David Ortiz and the desire to have at least a buffer period between his departure and the hiring of a new skipper so any rough start doesn't get blamed on the managerial change and even that is a reach.
I don't think he should be back. But there's been nothing to lead me to believe he won't be and more's the pity. One lucky year will continue to trump all the bad ones he's had as a Major League manager but it will because of how lucky it was.
Brock Holt hit .400/.400/.800 in the ALDS.We saw it with batting Brock Holt 2nd in the postseason.
That doesn't mean it was a smart strategic decision. There is widespread consensus that you should have your best hitter bat 2nd. Brock Holt wasn't one of the seven best hitters in that lineup. It worked out in a vanishingly small sample, and that's great. But that doesn't make it strategic.Brock Holt hit .400/.400/.800 in the ALDS.
But the Sox didn't win so we can't use this as point in Farrell's favor, ie "doing the little things to win games." It's interesting to see people recycle their meme arguments against Farrell and distort/rewrite the 2016 season to fit their narrative. Only on SoSH is a 23 year old SS who just belted 21 HRs and placed 6th in fWAR not considered a cornerstone player.
I either poorly conveyed my point or you're being purposefully obtuse.Brock Holt hit .400/.400/.800 in the ALDS.
But the Sox didn't win so we can't use this as point in Farrell's favor, ie "doing the little things to win games." It's interesting to see people recycle their meme arguments against Farrell and distort/rewrite the 2016 season to fit their narrative. Only on SoSH is a 23 year old SS who just belted 21 HRs and placed 6th in fWAR not considered a cornerstone player.
Perhaps this can be broken out into its own thread but from where I sit Xander improved on his 2015 season in just about every way you could have hoped for. Power was a huge want out of him and we saw it this year. He had a pretty terrible August, which is really commonplace in the sport, but rebounded somewhat in September. Perhaps the extra PA were too much for him down the stretch and maybe conditioning is something he'll focus on this offseason?I either poorly conveyed my point or you're being purposefully obtuse.
My point is that it didn't just happen this year; the suggestion in the post I was responding to was that the kids developed into cornerstone players this year. My point is also that Boegarts tailed off somewhat this year and ended the season on a downward trend. If Farrell gets credit for Xander developing on his watch, then he should fairly get some of the blame for what happened down the stretch with Boegarts.
There are two things that could have factored into both Bogaerts and JBJ wearing down. One, the lack of alternatives for big chunks of the season. Bogaerts played a ton of games without a trustworthy back-up (by which I mean someone who could start once a week and not be a net negative). Part of that was the decision to play Holt as the strong half of the LF platoon for much of the year (also due to lack of suitable alternatives), part was not thus having anything better than Hernandez and Marrero as middle infield depth. Similarly, JBJ played a ton of games because the team was hurting for outfielders more often than not (injury and ineffectiveness). Castillo being a complete flop, Young getting hurt, Swihart getting hurt, even Benintendi getting hurt...all left them no choice but to start JBJ and Mookie pretty much every day.Well, Farrell admitted at one point that he ran X into the ground and needed to get him more days off...
JBJ was awful in the second half as well. Maybe for similar reasons, or maybe because his hot first half isn't representative of his true level of offensive ability.
It isn't addressed because Farrell did it by the book. The chance of your scenario occurring are less than the chances of Ortiz coming back up in a meaningful AB. Once he gets to second then the conventional wisdom is the risk is worth the downside.This is probably addressed somewhere else, but Farrell's failure to pinch run for Ortiz last night when he was the tying run on first with two out in the 8th could have been a blunder of Grady Little-esque proportions if Hanley hit a double instead of a single.
I would too, because down one run with four outs left and the whole lineup needing to recycle to get back to any possible meaningful Ortiz AB seems like a scenario that should be left out of that book.It isn't addressed because Farrell did it by the book. The chance of your scenario occurring are less than the chances of Ortiz coming back up in a meaningful AB. Once he gets to second then the conventional wisdom is the risk is worth the downside.
I'd be curious to see a statistical breakdown of the numbers but that is the conventional wisdom so he wouldn't get killed for not running.
Only when you tie the game first.Really? Games don't go into extra innings?
Oh, right, JF forgot to use his Delorean.Only when you tie the game first.
So putting your posts together that means that you think the chances of the Sox tieing the game up without pinch running for Ortiz when he was on first were so remote they shouldn't even be taken into account.Only when you tie the game first.
That's not the way I'm looking at it, no. I understand that the chances of Hanley hitting a double that would allow someone with two working legs to score from first are remote, and that of course the game could be tied without pinch running for him. The question I'm concerned with is, at that moment, what is more likely to occur - Hanley hitting a double, or, 8 more batters coming to the plate before Ortiz comes up with another chance to tie or win the game. With four outs left to go.So putting your posts together that means that you think the chances of the Sox tieing the game up without pinch running for Ortiz when he was on first were so remote they shouldn't even be taken into account.
Now I see why we have a disconnect.
I understand where you are coming from but what you are proposing isn't the way it is done, ever.That's not the way I'm looking at it, no. I understand that the chances of Hanley hitting a double that would allow someone with two working legs to score from first are remote, and that of course the game could be tied without pinch running for him. The question I'm concerned with is, at that moment, what is more likely to occur - Hanley hitting a double, or, 8 more batters coming to the plate before Ortiz comes up with another chance to tie or win the game. With four outs left to go.
By leaving Ortiz at first you are relying on either Hanley hitting a homer or consecutive walks/hits to tie the game in the eighth, in a series where we had precious few chances to score. You are removing Hanley hitting a double (and with two outs and running on contact, a whole lot of doubles get a fast runner home from first) from the list of ways you can tie it up at that very late point in the game. All so you can preserve the possibility that Ortiz gets a meaningful AB later on in extra innings in a game that isn't actually tied yet.
Honestly, I had no clue that this idea would be even mildly controversial.
Really? If Shaw gets a hit in the 9th to tie the game, then Papi is on deck, and could either be hitting in the 9th (if Mookie walks to load the bases) or leading off the bottom of the 10th. So the possibility was not at all remote that Papi could have had another meaningful AB.All so you can preserve the possibility that Ortiz gets a meaningful AB later on in extra innings in a game that isn't actually tied yet.
You mean the manager of the AL East team with the most wins since 2012? I think a lot of what was weird about the Britton thing was that Buck generally does a really good tactical job.Maybe he will be fired and they can replace him with a more cerebral and well liked guy like Buck Showalter.
Boston really is a thankless place to manage baseball.
Further to that, did anything that happened in the 49 games that Lovullo was in charge last year that indicates he's worlds different from Farrell in knowledge and decision-making?Re: Farrell asking for Tory's advise more:
How do we know Torey hasn't agreed with everything?
Tito used to say about a bench coach: 'You have to have a big enough voice and strong enough personality to stand up to me and tell me when I'm wrong. BUT, you also have to know when to shut up.'
Which is it in our situation?
I understand where you are coming from but what you are proposing isn't the way it is done, ever.
There was no controversy and Farrell wasn't questioned on it because he managed it by the book and the way all managers have handled slow sluggers since there have been slow sluggers.
Check out the gamethread which in general never found a move Farrell made that someone didn't criticize, and no one was calling for a PR until Ortiz got to 2nd.
I admit I don't know for certain if the conventional wisdom is correct and maybe advanced statistics would show that pinch running for him earlier would have been better but he would have been criticized heavily if he did that.
Edit:I just noticed you are back to the four outs left to go ignoring how extra innings happen and need to be part of the calculation that is made.