Is it safe to discuss John Farrell again?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,909
San Andreas Fault
I'm not screaming for Farrell to be replaced, and I won't be upset if he isn't, but at the same time I'm not sure why he deserves a full-throated campaign to be retained either.

He strikes me as a generally smart guy with many strengths and some notable weaknesses. Pretty much like every other manager who has compiled a mediocre overall record.

I understood those who were strongly advocating Francona being retained after 2011. He certainly had a track record that warranted that. Farrell? Eh, I suspect there are dozens of managers as good as him, some better, and of course some worse.

I wouldn't lay the majority of the team's recent poor performance at his feet, but if the FO decides that it's time for a shake up I understand that sentiment too.

In other words: meh, whatever.
He may be a smart enough guy, but he also seems like a very boring guy. Someone here a while ago said he doesn't relate to the young guys on the team and he got ridiculed and I don't know if he's around anymore. But, you know what, he may have been right. Remember Tito and Pedroia playing cribbage before every game? Or, you'd see a picture of Tito lying in his back for exercise and Papi laughing at him. Lot of banter with Tito you never see with Farrell. How any of this affects managing a team and winning games is impossible to figure. But, I'm calling him no fun Farrrell from now on.

Just thought that nobody ever questioned some of the tough guy managers like John McGraw, who were very successful. So, I could be full of shit.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
But I don't understand why some people react so strongly to the idea of getting rid of him.
First let me state--I agree with everything you've written in here re: Farrell. To me he's average, likely not to blame for everything going wrong, but he's fast approaching the point where he's due no more benefit of the doubt and I don't see a ton of downside if he is ultimately fired.

But to your last point. The crux of the issue occurs in game threads. When someone puts some thought into why he should be on the block, I notice some disagreement but not much in terms of what you're describing here.

However, we are in the midst of 2.5 years of atrocious baseball. Not scrappy, underperforming baseball--atrocious. It pisses people off. It also, for some reason, seems to attract endless waves of people who do not want to think past an easy scapegoat, and so we're also ~2 years into a non-stop cycle of reaction to bad baseball as being "ugh fire Farrell." And not just as a larger observation--in the moment, at a constant level. Personally, I'm largely agnostic in the moment of a baseball game--we talk about it here constantly, but there really is just a wealth of information regarding the day-to-day of running a baseball team that we just aren't privy to and which likely effects a bunch of stuff like usage, performance and long-term decision making. The blame pie is so complex and such a moving target, that to me to draw meaningful conclusions from it 5 seconds after it's happened is a tall order most of the time. I'm not saying Farrell is immune from criticism in the macro for these things, I'm saying that suggesting you know that he's at fault in the moment on a micro level is really, really silly and it happens constantly here.

To add to this, for the constant micro obsession of moves, one would have to assume the person doing the micro obsessing was good with baseball strategy and understanding of the game--at least, one would assume, better than John Farrell for the frequency with which I read it--but it seems the most vocal of the constant "FF" crowd are often the folks telling us "if we just signed Rich Hill" or barking about an in-game move only to have E5 or whoever patiently explain to them why it wasn't actually boneheaded at all. If you can't think past your own anger and see why X/Y/Z was actually defensible, why should I credit you with knowing more about in-game strategy than John Farrell? When he's in the locker-room and has more information than you? Couple that with the volume in which they appear and that's why you see the reaction. It becomes this act of fighting off a constant stream of peskily stupid shit that eventually starts to feel like it's about the sentiment regarding Farrell alone, when I don't think that's the case. I mean I wouldn't shed a tear if he were gone tomorrow and I may be in the group you're referring to there. I don't think it's stupid to want to fire Farrell, but I do think many-to-most of the calls to fire Farrell come off extremely stupid. So speaking just for myself, I'm not reacting strongly to the idea he should go, I'm reacting to the shit arguments I've read to that effect.

So this is a good thread. It needs to be tracked in the bigger picture, and I am definitely in the camp that he may just need to go at this point.
 
Last edited:

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
It started when I listed a group of absolute shit pitchers that can seemingly be negated by one pitcher whose been here for 3 months. I apologize for pointing out that Farrell has been saddled with a sea of 4/5s since the start of 2014.
You also mention that you are tired of free agents tanking when they get here as well. Of course, that falls on Ben, Baird, and Henry for a variety of reasons. Or is it on the players for not playing well enough? What is Farrell's strength as manager?
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
I'm not screaming for Farrell to be replaced, and I won't be upset if he isn't, but at the same time I'm not sure why he deserves a full-throated campaign to be retained either.

He strikes me as a generally smart guy with many strengths and some notable weaknesses. Pretty much like every other manager.

I understood those who were strongly advocating Francona being retained after 2011. He certainly had a track record that warranted that. Farrell? Eh, I suspect there are dozens of managers as good as him, some better, and of course some worse.

I wouldn't lay the majority of the team's recent poor performance at his feet, but if the FO decides that it's time for a shake up I understand that sentiment too.

In other words: meh, whatever.
Where is this "campaign to retain" John Farrell? I must have missed that thread between the 6 Fire Farrell threads that were started when the team was in first place. People are questioning the idea of jettisoning a competent manager who has won a WSC in Boston for what are nothing reasons or complete assumption. I agree with the overall point of your post.

He pinch hit LaMarre for Marco Hernadez, against a lefty specialist. I don't buy this as an example of horrible in game management.
Like the one this post is responding to. We have people here that will jump in and declare that "the team has quit on him!!!" 2 days after coming back from down 4 in the bottom of the ninth. Or whatever assumption can be made about something they have no reference for. Or with full hindsight. We're told he doesn't work well with young players, but when the growth of young players at the ML level is pointed out, they fall back to some guys who are hurt or have been in Pawtucket. It's not an honest dialogue. Who is really being unreasonable here? I'm ALL FOR firing John Farrell, who I have no special affinity for, if someone can show me that this team's slide has some large part to do with him (and of course that the good play doesn't), but it is generally poor player performance that is sinking this team, so they can't. It's nonsense.

The best microcosm of this discussion is that the man gets no credit for winning the WS. I've heard people say it was a "fluke". Really? He fluked his was through 180 games? What a magic act!

Instead of firing Farrell, I would like to see major revamp on how the Red Sox evaluates and grooms pitchers. Throughout the entire organization, from rookie league to all the way up to the majors, it just seems like the pitching staff has been mediocre at best.
Indeed. You can't "manage" pitchers giving up 30-something runs in the last 21 first innings (or whatever brutal number that is this month).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,662
where I was last at
Examples? Response when he was diagnosed last year don't count.
Farrell has been associated on/off with the Sox since '07. Given the nature of the press we'd have heard something if JF rubbed players the wrong way. Hell it took all of 2 weeks into ST '12 for rumblings about BV pissing off the team to get reported. I get the sense he's a "players manager'

I'm not in the Fire Farrell camp and do not blame him for the pitching woes/cold bats/injuries shit show that has developed over the past month. I will admit to scratching my head over some of his in-game maneuvers. But its a long season and there are team circustances we are unaware of, so I imagime I will continue to scratch my head. I think he's an average XO guy.

However if he can't light a fire under these guys, and he's got some young players who should be enthusiastic and not jaded yet, his replacement is is just a seat a way.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
The best microcosm of this discussion is that the man gets no credit for winning the WS. I've heard people say it was a "fluke". Really? He fluked his was through 180 games? What a magic act!
His credit for winning the World Series has been given, in the form of extraordinary patience over 2014 and 2015, and into 2016. A manager who didn't win a World Series here would certainly have been fired after two consecutive last place finishes. The question is when does the credit run out?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,766
I'll start taking the Fire Farrell argument more seriously when folks start making a case about who they want instead and why. I don't think "they played well for Lovullo in August" is a valid reason anymore either; they just played even better in May under Farrell, which pretty well negates that particular argument.

Like others, I think he's done a good job handling the clubhouse, but I'm not opposed to replacing him if there's someone better for the team out there. But prove it. No one here would take an argument advocating the release or trade of a player seriously without a reasoned countermove to fill the spot. I don't see why the manager's role is any different.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
I'm curious if a board admin would be able to do a comparison of the number of "Fire Farrell" and "Fire Claude" threads. I'm guessing it would be pretty close: Claude has had a 5 year head start, but for obvious reasons the Sox forum gets more traffic.

My biggest problem with the "Fire Farrell" crowd is that there is an underlying assumption that the Sox ills would be magically solved with another manager that will somehow make all of the correct tactical decisions during a game. I guess it could happen, but it's still not clear that Farrell makes more mistakes than other MLB managers.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
Managers and coaches are fired in all sports for the same essential bottom line reason: The players are performing poorly and the team is not winning. Is that always fair? Certainly not, but it is fact of life in sports.

I am not sure why some find it such an affront that JF may lose his job based on poorly performing players and the team not winning. It is not a new concept and DD has shown he can pull the trigger. If this team is circling the drain around the all star break, it will not be shocking for JF to be shown the door.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
He pinch hit LaMarre for Marco Hernadez, against a lefty specialist. I don't buy this as an example of horrible in game management.
As was discussed ad nauseam when it happened, the issue wasn't pinch hitting LaMarre in a vacuum. It was the sequence of events leading up to that move that made the move necessary.
 

Moviegoer

broken record
Feb 6, 2016
4,898
I wonder how much of the resistance to the idea of firing Farrell is because of a worry (or even an assumption) that the Sox will be hiring a 'name' guy like the one above. Someone who is well known in the game, respected even, but when you look closely at them its all smoke and mirrors with little substance. Because if I had even the slightest suspicion that if Farrell is canned they'd be bringing in Ozzie Guillen or Dusty Baker, I'd be against firing him too.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I'm curious if a board admin would be able to do a comparison of the number of "Fire Farrell" and "Fire Claude" threads. I'm guessing it would be pretty close: Claude has had a 5 year head start, but for obvious reasons the Sox forum gets more traffic.

My biggest problem with the "Fire Farrell" crowd is that there is an underlying assumption that the Sox ills would be magically solved with another manager that will somehow make all of the correct tactical decisions during a game. I guess it could happen, but it's still not clear that Farrell makes more mistakes than other MLB managers.
Well, we heard the same arguments in favor of not firing Bobby Valentine around this time of year, and we all remember Joe Kerrigan (not that it was all his fault). The main case for firing Farrell now is it can't hurt, and maybe it can help. Maybe last year was a fluke when they played better without him, or maybe Farrell is just so intimidating that players, especially pitchers, that they don't perform as well as they could when the team is struggling and pressure builds and that makes it harder to get out of the slump . At some point, managers have to be held accountable. Ben was held accountable last year. DD is probably going to get some slack, so next in line is Farrell. If Tito can be canned, anyone can. Just so long as Bobby V's clone is not in line to take over for Farrell I am all for it.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
I wonder how much of the resistance to the idea of firing Farrell is because of a worry (or even an assumption) that the Sox will be hiring a 'name' guy like the one above. Someone who is well known in the game, respected even, but when you look closely at them its all smoke and mirrors with little substance. Because if I had even the slightest suspicion that if Farrell is canned they'd be bringing in Ozzie Guillen or Dusty Baker, I'd be against firing him too.
Yes, I think ownership values the off the field attributes more because of the shell shock from the BV Experience.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
His credit for winning the World Series has been given, in the form of extraordinary patience over 2014 and 2015, and into 2016. A manager who didn't win a World Series here would certainly have been fired after two consecutive last place finishes. The question is when does the credit run out?
Exactly. And despite Manny repeating the 2.5 year nonsense over and over, no one is ignoring the fact that he won a WS and he certainly deserves credit for that. But when people keep asking for reasons why a managerial change may be a good idea, saying that the last 2.5 years have sucked doesn't seem to be good enough. No one is cutting anything off at 2.5 years. It's that the last 2.5 years have been so bad yet he's still getting the benefit of the doubt because of 2013, but maybe it's time to call it even. And then an objective decision can be made.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
I'm not screaming for Farrell to be replaced, and I won't be upset if he isn't, but at the same time I'm not sure why he deserves a full-throated campaign to be retained either.

He strikes me as a generally smart guy with many strengths and some notable weaknesses. Pretty much like every other manager who has compiled a mediocre overall record.

I understood those who were strongly advocating Francona being retained after 2011. He certainly had a track record that warranted that. Farrell? Eh, I suspect there are dozens of managers as good as him, some better, and of course some worse.

I wouldn't lay the majority of the team's recent poor performance at his feet, but if the FO decides that it's time for a shake up I understand that sentiment too.

In other words: meh, whatever.
Yup. I don't get the attachment to him that some apparently have. It certainly wouldn't be unfair or totally nuts to make a change. I'm not even saying he needs to go. But I don't understand why some people react so strongly to the idea of getting rid of him.
I'm in sync with this line of thought. I don't see any reason why Farrell should have a claim to being in the Boston dugout. The group (including Simplico, above) who insist that there's a need for proof that another manager will be better are mistaken. There's not. It's a results-driven world, there are several years worth of reasons to question his results, and even the prospect that a change would lead to improvement would seem to be enough to support calls for change.

From what I've seen, Farrell isn't exceptionally good, as Tito was, nor especially disastrous, as Bobby V was. Farrell appears to be entirely fungible. He had a good season in 2013 - but so did Allen Craig, and he's not in the Fenway dugout...
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
No one defended not firing Valentine.

As one of the most vocal opponents to his even being considered for the manager's job, I did indeed defend him not getting fired late in the season. I wanted BV to suffer through every remaining game with us!

During late August/September ofTito's last Boston campaign, I said he should write a book call "Managing Naked" since there's so little a manger can do about a starting staff giving the team almost no chance to win, night after night. This recent 2016 stretch looks a lot like that right now.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
I wonder how many other fanbases pin the failures of a pitching staff, not on the pitching coach, but on the manager. Like are Yankee fans right now calling for Joe Girardi's head because Michael Pineda and Nathan Eovaldi have regressed, Luis Severino didn't become a star and Ivan Nova has lost whatever he had in 2011/2013. That's just one example but I bet if I looked hard enough I could find a similar scenario with an ex pitching coach as a manger. But an ex-catcher, one noted for calling a good game, should be able to get more out of his pitching staff, yeah?
I mean, I do kind of think Girardi should be replaced (I have never thought that before) but not because of any of that, I just think he's generally outstayed his welcome and they could use a new guy without so many ties to the veterans. He has three incredible weapons in his bullpen but he uses them in very conventional ways, if he let them go for 4-6 outs when it made sense, they wouldn't be screwed in a situation like last night, and there have been other examples.

So, not sure how much that helps...
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
Instead of firing Farrell, I would like to see major revamp on how the Red Sox evaluates and grooms pitchers. Throughout the entire organization, from rookie league to all the way up to the majors, it just seems like the pitching staff has been mediocre at best.

They did promote Brian Bannister from scout to director of pitching analytics. Hopefully this is step one in a series of moves designed to improve the broken pitching development machine.
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,189
Boston
Ultimately, I'm ambivalent towards whether JF gets fired or not, or really whether they should fire him or not. There are arguments in both directions. While the argument for is stronger now than the alternative, I'm not sure it will account for more than a symbolic adjustment.

My concern is that the Sox problems are more systemic. There seems to be two issues that have moved from Theo to Ben to Dave. Those problems appear to be pitcher development and MLB scouting.

From the end of the Theo era the Sox have seemed to have difficulty targeting and developing pitchers With anything that could be viewed as regularity. This has undoubtedly affected the team because they have not been able to bring up consistent pitching, forcing a reliance on free agency. This inability is glaring and prompts the question of how they target and develop pitching prospects. I realize there are only so many Kershaws or Bumms, but I'd take a Chris Tillman at this point.

Then there is the issue of MLB scouting. They have consistently been adequate to less than adequate in acquiring MLB pitching talent. Where I see this issue potentially manifesting more is perhaps game day preparation. I don't know what the Sox do in this regard, but performance leaves to inquiry as to whether their preparation is too driven by pitching to hitters weaknesses rather than staff strengths, vice versa or balancing this day-to-day. The former seems to be the right approach of your staff if they can execute, while the latter may be more appropriate with a less reliable staff.

We've had 3 managers and 3 pitching coaches since 2011. However, the Sox pitching woes remain. So to me, this points to a more systemic flaw. I tend to believe that targeting may be more of an issue than development and preparation given few poor performing Sox pitchers have left Boston and thrived elsewhere. However, habits acquired in Boston may be influencing that. Bottomline, with or without JF the organization's track record with pitching needs to be reevaluated.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
Exactly. And despite Manny repeating the 2.5 year nonsense over and over, no one is ignoring the fact that he won a WS and he certainly deserves credit for that. But when people keep asking for reasons why a managerial change may be a good idea, saying that the last 2.5 years have sucked doesn't seem to be good enough. No one is cutting anything off at 2.5 years. It's that the last 2.5 years have been so bad yet he's still getting the benefit of the doubt because of 2013, but maybe it's time to call it even. And then an objective decision can be made.
Dude, I'm not the one that keeps saying 2.5 years. If you presented some analysis of a player that only went back 2.5 years, conveniently leaving out the mvp season before you'd be laughed at. And this should be too. The attempt to squeeze a WSC out of this conversation is sad.

In 2014 the team largely tried to ride the team that won. They brought in AJ Pierzinski. Most of us made peace with this for emotional reasons. They, predictably, were not good.

In 2015, in the move that got Cherington fired, they decided that they could get by with a rotation of 2-5 starters that got ground balls and many of us convinced ourselves that logic was sound. They, predictably, were not good.

We have those seasons bookended by a WSC and this season of 2 months of excellent baseball and 1 month of poor baseball.

That's JF's record in Boston, not a record without context. Seems like he's been tasked with making a lot of chicken salad.

Yes, I can ask for reasons and shockingly so will the FO and they will make a non-emotional decision (even if the decision ends up being change for change's sake).

Btw, you can always respond to the questions I asked.

I'm in sync with this line of thought. I don't see any reason why Farrell should have a claim to being in the Boston dugout. The group (including Simplico, above) who insist that there's a need for proof that another manager will be better are mistaken. There's not. It's a results-driven world, there are several years worth of reasons to question his results, and even the prospect that a change would lead to improvement would seem to be enough to support calls for change.
LOL ok. What isn't this true about?

From what I've seen, Farrell isn't exceptionally good, as Tito was, nor especially disastrous, as Bobby V was. Farrell appears to be entirely fungible. He had a good season in 2013 - but so did Allen Craig, and he's not in the Fenway dugout...
These are not analagous situations.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I'm curious if a board admin would be able to do a comparison of the number of "Fire Farrell" and "Fire Claude" threads. I'm guessing it would be pretty close: Claude has had a 5 year head start, but for obvious reasons the Sox forum gets more traffic.
Ahem. Fire Clode.

And it is not particularly close. Even adjusting for forum, Clode has been fired way more often.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Managers and coaches are fired in all sports for the same essential bottom line reason: The players are performing poorly and the team is not winning. Is that always fair? Certainly not, but it is fact of life in sports.

I am not sure why some find it such an affront that JF may lose his job based on poorly performing players and the team not winning. It is not a new concept and DD has shown he can pull the trigger. If this team is circling the drain around the all star break, it will not be shocking for JF to be shown the door.

That the players have been sucking and the team losing (if you call whats going on losing or just add it to the overall record) is a fine reason for firing the manager. I dont think anyone suggests otherwise. They *do* suggest that, as Joe Morgan said on his way out the door, that this team might not be as good as everyone thinks it is and that a new manager may not help. But just in this thread, there has been criticism in the same post for both leaving the starter in the game AND using too many good relievers in that same game. That's senseless.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Couldn't figure out why he let ERod give up 9 runs, then let all his "use when ahead" relievers burn innings in a lost cause.

Turns out the extra 4-5 runs that ERod gave up made a big difference in the outcome.
This has been something I've consistently harped on. The number of times he leaves a pitcher in to give up 6, 7, 8 runs, sometimes within an inning or two just seems intolerable. A couple years ago someone here did a study and showed the Red Sox did give up big innings more than average, but not completely at the bottom of the pile. Still, that study would need to adjust for overall quality of the staff to get a complete picture, maybe regress the number of big innings on overall ERA and some other controls (but I can't think of a good one).

One thing I wonder is if the problem goes to the desire to use relievers for only one or two innings to not mess up the specialization model for the next night. In years past, Bob Stanley would have come on after the first two hits of the 3rd inning and pitched the rest of the game, then come back on one day of rest and do it again. We know that's a bad idea, but with Barnes, Ross, and Hembree all having shown they can throw three quality innings, there is no excuse for allowing a starter to give up 9 runs in 2 innings plus.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
I'm in sync with this line of thought. I don't see any reason why Farrell should have a claim to being in the Boston dugout. The group (including Simplico, above) who insist that there's a need for proof that another manager will be better are mistaken. There's not. It's a results-driven world, there are several years worth of reasons to question his results, and even the prospect that a change would lead to improvement would seem to be enough to support calls for change.

LOL ok. What isn't this true about?
You're halfway there - you got the bold, missed the italic. Yes, the bolded is true. But the position that you appear to be arguing from - that there isn't reason enough to can Farrell - lacks basis. Farrell doesn't have a "right" to be manager of the Red Sox - like Craig (situations aren't as non-analogous as you're pretending), his results need to be better than what another guy might deliver, or he should go.

If your argument is that nobody could reasonably be expected to do a better job than Farrell managing the Red Sox in 2016, say so, and we can agree to disagree. If your argument is that Farrell should be kept because circumstances are bad, well, that's where both the italic and the bold apply. Farrell has no innate claim on the manager's seat, or any other job, and if his results aren't good, and change might produce better results, then the FO/ownership should make a change. FWIW, that wouldn't be an unusual reaction in any industry where performance didn't live up to forecasts...
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
This is how the rotation should go until the ASG:

Wed - Price

Fri - Wright
Sat - Buch
Sun - Porcello
Mon/Tue - Price/5th starter
Wed - Wright

Fri/Sat - Buch/Porcello, either order
Sun - Price

Then you can reset with Price again right away on Friday after ASG, etc.

Reevaluate Farrell after this stretch if needed.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Can anyone honestly describe something that Farrell does really well as a Manager? I can't think of anything.

The pitching usage is bad, the on-field tactics are bad, general strategy is bad, etc. He's supposed to be a pitching guru, and the pitching is a mess - and so often misused - and its been that way most of the time he's been here.

And its not just happening now - its the same stuff that they were complaining about in Toronto. People need to come to grips with the fact that 2013 was a perfect storm type fluke, and this guy isn't fit for the job. 2013 is the only year in his career he's been above .500.

I ran some numbers earlier this year - comparing Farrel's records to both the preseason WAR projections, and the Vegas O/Us - and he overperformed by 15 games in 2013 - and has underperformed by roughly 10 games a year the rest of his career. I just don't see any reason to believe that this guy is anything other than a terrible manager.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
Difference between preseason WAR and actual results are all on the manager? Those seem to be some extreme numbers as well.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Then there is the issue of MLB scouting. They have consistently been adequate to less than adequate in acquiring MLB pitching talent.
Have they really though? Its tough to judge starters because the time periods are so long, but how many relievers have they signed/traded for, who were terrible/mediocre for a year, and then went on to have success elsewhere?

I mean, look at Melancon for example - decent for several years in Houston, abysmal for a year in Boston, and then one of the better relievers in baseball. That's not a scouting issue, and that's not a talent issue. I know relievers are flaky, but there just seems to be a very common trend of pitchers showing up in Boston and putting up the worst years of their career. Andrew Miller is the only guy I can think of who improved.

Difference between preseason WAR and actual results are all on the manager? Those seem to be some extreme numbers as well.
I'm talking about the difference between the preseason WAR based record projections, and the actual record - IE the PECOTA/etc projections say you've got a 94 win talent team and you win 84 games, you're at -10.

I think if the entire team is underperforming, then either its the manager, or its some sort of environmental/clubhouse/training/etc problem. Maybe its not Farrell, maybe they're getting bad sunflower seeds or something, but when there's a consistent pattern of a manager's players underperforming, you have to start looking at him.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
I mean, look at Melancon for example - decent for several years in Houston, abysmal for a year in Boston, and then one of the better relievers in baseball. That's not a scouting issue, and that's not a talent issue. I know relievers are flaky, but there just seems to be a very common trend of pitchers showing up in Boston and putting up the worst years of their career. Andrew Miller is the only guy I can think of who improved.
Damn, good call, Melancon.

OK you finally convinced me. Even considering his putting Andrew Miller on the right track... it is time to fire Bobby Valentine.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
You're halfway there - you got the bold, missed the italic. Yes, the bolded is true. But the position that you appear to be arguing from - that there isn't reason enough to can Farrell - lacks basis. Farrell doesn't have a "right" to be manager of the Red Sox - like Craig (situations aren't as non-analogous as you're pretending), his results need to be better than what another guy might deliver, or he should go.

If your argument is that nobody could reasonably be expected to do a better job than Farrell managing the Red Sox in 2016, say so, and we can agree to disagree. If your argument is that Farrell should be kept because circumstances are bad, well, that's where both the italic and the bold apply. Farrell has no innate claim on the manager's seat, or any other job, and if his results aren't good, and change might produce better results, then the FO/ownership should make a change. FWIW, that wouldn't be an unusual reaction in any industry where performance didn't live up to forecasts...
You're not any of the way there. I haven't argued any of those things. I've said a lot. You can read it, here, in this thread.

My position is that the people who are so sure of things about the manager speak mainly in hyperbole, dubious assumptions and pretend to have authority on things they aren't privy to.

Maybe the next great manager, since we so consistently get those, has this team tied for first right now. I think that's ridiculous, but surely possible. I think they are just playing poorly, particularly pitching poorly, and are still more of a .615 team than a .375 team, especially given the latter's sample is twice the size, but they've looked every bit both of those records. I'm not eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater without hearing something non-fabricated that tells me that canning him carries a strong, well reasoned possibility that the pitching will improve. I'd imagine the FO takes the same approach.

I guess some writers have convinced people here of some kind of guruness, but maybe he hasn't told them "don't fucking give up 3 runs in the first inning" enough. Maybe we can find a guy who can give that type of advice. Is someone that skilled even available?

Farrell has "no right" to be manager? Seriously, wtf are you talking about?
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
I think if the entire team is underperforming, then either its the manager, or its some sort of environmental/clubhouse/training/etc problem. Maybe its not Farrell, maybe they're getting bad sunflower seeds or something, but when there's a consistent pattern of a manager's players underperforming, you have to start looking at him.
Whatever you said before this statement is revealed as total bullshit.

"The entire team is underperforming"?

Betts is underperforming? Pedroia? Ortiz? Bogaerts? Bradley? Shaw? Underperforming? Kimbrel? Tazawa? Porcello?

How many teams are under .500 right now? You contend that each one is the fault of the manager? Or are they not "underperforming" to your dissatisfaction...

This simplistic shit is boring. Just say you're pissed off. At least that's a valid statement.
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,475
Somewhere
I am not sure why some find it such an affront that JF may lose his job based on poorly performing players and the team not winning
Because it's mostly reactionary nonsense, one step above game threading in many instances. Another thing to consider is that the team has played well, by and large. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that they'll snap out of their current swoon.
 

garlan5

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2009
2,684
Virginia
Pardon me but didn't tito do the same kinda thick headed stuff as Farrell? He just got away with it more because we were more of an offensive juggernaut in his prime years.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Can anyone honestly describe something that Farrell does really well as a Manager? I can't think of anything.
I'll play your stupid game.
They haven't had a four-game losing streak all year. I think they're one of very few teams. I think that's all on the manager. 100%. (Actually, I'm not sure. But it's a stupid game so I'll give potentially stupid answers).

Now it's your turn. You named 4 things a manager does -- The pitching usage is bad, the on-field tactics are bad, general strategy is bad, etc. He's supposed to be a pitching guru, and the pitching is a mess.

Is that it? Is there *anything* else a Manager does so we can at least decide whether Farrell does it really well?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I think it would be helpful if the pro-Farrell, or stand-pat, crowd started listing exactly the types of questions they'd be asking in an evaluation. Because I keep reading posts that have a lot of numbers and evidence, and then the stand-pat crowd makes no acknowledgement of the previous post before declaring that no numbers or evidence have been provided. What?

So let's have the list of questions you'd ask John Fareel in his mid season evaluation, and what you'd consider satisfactory answers. Then those who want to make a change can at least know the criteria the stand pat crowd is using.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Pardon me but didn't tito do the same kinda thick headed stuff as Farrell? He just got away with it more because we were more of an offensive juggernaut in his prime years.
Yes. He also always had an ace and sure as hell never had to deal with a pitching staff like he was given in 2015. He also had a great personality, so he was easier to give the benefit of the doubt to. He wasn't No Fun Francona.
The fact is, all managers do plenty of things during the course of a very long season that we may not like but certainly don't understand.
"Playoff Tito" wouldn't have existed if he didn't change his decision making from the things that drove us crazy in the regular season.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,996
Newton
Sorry if I missed it but is the "0.5" of the "2.5 shitty years" supposed to be this season? Because this year's team is 7 games over .500.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
You're not any of the way there. I haven't argued any of those things. I've said a lot. You can read it, here, in this thread.

My position is that the people who are so sure of things about the manager speak mainly in hyperbole, dubious assumptions and pretend to have authority on things they aren't privy to.

Maybe the next great manager, since we so consistently get those, has this team tied for first right now. I think that's ridiculous, but surely possible. I think they are just playing poorly, particularly pitching poorly, and are still more of a .615 team than a .375 team, especially given the latter's sample is twice the size, but they've looked every bit both of those records. I'm not eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater without hearing something non-fabricated that tells me that canning him carries a strong, well reasoned possibility that the pitching will improve. I'd imagine the FO takes the same approach.

I guess some writers have convinced people here of some kind of guruness, but maybe he hasn't told them "don't fucking give up 3 runs in the first inning" enough. Maybe we can find a guy who can give that type of advice. Is someone that skilled even available?

Farrell has "no right" to be manager? Seriously, wtf are you talking about?
I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not claiming any authoritative knowledge of Farrell's faults - I'm one of several posters who is saying that a change might be good for the club, and that Farrell doesn't appear to be the kind of transcendent managing talent who should get the benefit of the doubt in all situations. (Parenthetically, it's odd that Farrell's supporters don't point to anything he does well as a reason to keep him on as manager.)

With respect to "no right" - I thought it was clear in the last post, but no employee (in baseball, and in whatever industry you work in) has a "right" to a job - they serve at the pleasure of management/the board. If management/board believes that a change will yield better results, they're within their rights - obliged, even, if they are serving shareholders - to make that change. I've seen many demonstrably good executives get milled out of jobs where they had a track record of success, in the wake of shortfalls resulting from factors (exchange rates, the economy as a whole) that are much further beyond their control than what Farrell is dealing with. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't - but management/board doesn't have a requirement to prove that the change will be beneficial in advance, and the employee doesn't have the "right" to stay in situ until others (including, in this case, customers/message boarders) are persuaded that the staffer isn't ideal for the role.

To bring this back to Farrell - being manager isn't like being Pope, you don't get to serve from the time that you're selected to the time that you retire or die. And it's not like being, say, President, where there needs to be evidence supporting impeachment before you're removed. It's like being the manager responsible for any business operation: you are put in position to generate results, and you will generally be left in that position until the results fall short of what management/the board (who in corporations may react to "the market/shareholders," and in sports may react to "the fans who buy tickets") believe is reasonable.

Do you think the Sox' play is reasonable relative to expectations (talent level, etc.)? If you do, I can see your support for Farrell. Some number of us don't believe that, and think a change might be for the best. This is a message board, disagreements are part of what makes it run...but fwiw, I'd like to see (as a few others have noted) some of the pro-Farrell folks support his continued employment on the grounds that the team is playing as well as can be expected, and if/where the point is at which you'd come around to believing that a change is warranted.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Not that we'll ever know, but how differently does Farrell's record look in 2014 and 2015 if ownership gives Jon Lester a contract extension and keeps John Lackey until the end of his contract?
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
Melancon is likely a classic "can pitch to NL lineups but not AL". There is a huge difference between the two types of lineups.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,996
Newton
Not that we'll ever know, but how differently does Farrell's record look in 2014 and 2015 if ownership gives Jon Lester a contract extension and keeps John Lackey until the end of his contract?
Well, the 2014 team was already in last place at 48-60 when they traded Lester and Lackey. So I'm not sure how much worse they actually got. I think the bigger issue is how much better they would have been this year with this offense and both those guys, instead of Price and Porcello.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not claiming any authoritative knowledge of Farrell's faults - I'm one of several posters who is saying that a change might be good for the club, and that Farrell doesn't appear to be the kind of transcendent managing talent who should get the benefit of the doubt in all situations. (Parenthetically, it's odd that Farrell's supporters don't point to anything he does well as a reason to keep him on as manager.)

With respect to "no right" - I thought it was clear in the last post, but no employee (in baseball, and in whatever industry you work in) has a "right" to a job - they serve at the pleasure of management/the board. If management/board believes that a change will yield better results, they're within their rights - obliged, even, if they are serving shareholders - to make that change. I've seen many demonstrably good executives get milled out of jobs where they had a track record of success, in the wake of shortfalls resulting from factors (exchange rates, the economy as a whole) that are much further beyond their control than what Farrell is dealing with. Sometimes the changes work, sometimes they don't - but management/board doesn't have a requirement to prove that the change will be beneficial in advance, and the employee doesn't have the "right" to stay in situ until others (including, in this case, customers/message boarders) are persuaded that the staffer isn't ideal for the role.

To bring this back to Farrell - being manager isn't like being Pope, you don't get to serve from the time that you're selected to the time that you retire or die. And it's not like being, say, President, where there needs to be evidence supporting impeachment before you're removed. It's like being the manager responsible for any business operation: you are put in position to generate results, and you will generally be left in that position until the results fall short of what management/the board (who in corporations may react to "the market/shareholders," and in sports may react to "the fans who buy tickets") believe is reasonable.

Do you think the Sox' play is reasonable relative to expectations (talent level, etc.)? If you do, I can see your support for Farrell. Some number of us don't believe that, and think a change might be for the best. This is a message board, disagreements are part of what makes it run...but fwiw, I'd like to see (as a few others have noted) some of the pro-Farrell folks support his continued employment on the grounds that the team is playing as well as can be expected, and if/where the point is at which you'd come around to believing that a change is warranted.
I certainly agree that there is no "right" based on incumbency. He could be there 100 years; if the FO thinks a change will lead to more wins, then it's their job to make that change.

I do think the team's play is reasonable for the talent level. (I think "talent level" is a tricky concept, though. What is Rodriguez's "talent level," right now? Or Buchholz?).
I think he's done a good job with the team they have and dont have. He's had two reliable starters -- Porcello and Wright -- and Price who has been generally good but inconsistent. That cascades into some difficult bullpen management issues. I'd like to see more of Ross, but they really seem to try and keep him, more than all the others, away from back-to-backs (only 10 last year and none this year). I assume that's intentional and that there is a reason. I wont assume it's because they're idiots or its because they think they'll get less grief if Tazawa or Uehara blows a game than if Ross does.

The bolded is overall a good question. I think ultimately it comes down to whether he still "has" the team, and I think he does. I can't get any more specific than that because I know about as much about managing a major league baseball team as I do about flying an airplane. Thus, to me, the question "what does he do well" is virtually unanswerable. Does he get credit for the aggressive baseruning that seems to pay off much more than it doesn't? Does he get any credit for trying to keep Young sharp enough in April so that he would do well when his chance finally came? Are those even "things"? I dont even know what a great manager "does well." And I dont even know half of what *any* manager even does.

I understand people's tactical concerns, but as much as I might scratch my head about a particular move -- admittedly less than some others here -- that doesn't speak much to me without being able to assess "well, just how good/bad is he relative to others" because ultimately they play against today's teams. Maddon used 3 pitchers in the OF last night in the 14th and 15th innings. None had any plays; if one wrecked a knee or arm out there, what would people say? I've said this before, but to the extent a move leaves me wondering, I try to reverse engineer it. "He did it, he must have had a reason; I wonder what it was." I put the burden on me to show that it was a bad move, rather than starting off with "it was stupid, and he better come up with a good reason or I will continue to think its stupid." Ultimately, there are very few moves that leave me completely befuddled. And again, I dont know how that would compare if I was watching the Cubs or Orioles or Giants every single day. what's good? One befuddlement a week? One a month? Are there any nevers?

I think we'd all do better to acknowledge first and foremost that we dont know half as much as we think we do about managing, even though we probably know quite a bit about baseball. And I'm not talking about specific information -- "Hernandez had a bunion, that's why he didn't pinch-run last night" kind of stuff -- because that's an easy crutch -- "Well, we dont know everything....." I'm talking more on the macro level.

I'd love to get a panel of recently retired players across multiple skill levels to talk about what makes a good/bad/great manager. And also a panel of similarly situated FO types. I wonder where the answers would jibe and where they would conflict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.