Is it safe to discuss John Farrell again?

Status
Not open for further replies.

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
How so? He's a closer. He's not facing opposing pitchers in the 8th and 9th innings.
There's definitely some SSS involved, as well as skewing from his BOS and NYY years, but his splits suggest struggles in AL ballparks. He may not be facing pitchers in the 8th or 9th innings in NL ballparks, but DHs can be a lot more of a threat than a bench PH.

6.00 ERA in Texas, 5.40 ERA in Angels Stadium, 4.97 ERA in Fenway, 6.75 ERA in Cleveland, 6.75 ERA in Detriot, 8.25 ERA in the Toilet...

I don't think Melancon is on Farrell regardless, since Farrell was speaking Canadian during Melancon's Boston tenure. It does suggest a scouting issue perhaps.
 

Mookies Lip Curl

New Member
Nov 16, 2015
24
My problem with the fire Farrell narrative is that, outside of obvious cases like Valentine, the only reason it is even considered is because people care about the Red Sox doing well, and when they are not fans NEED an explanation, it's just an natural emotional response. Especially with sustained poor performance, fans naturally look for patterns, and one of the few common threads between 2014, 2015 and now is Farrell. Obviously he probably has SOME effect on overall performance, but it's hard to say how much. But if you're looking for answers and there's only one name that you can really point a finger at, you're more likely to overestimate his effect on overall performance.

Not too get too meta about it, but once you let that emotional bias permeate your thinking, then every single move by Farrell that doesn't work is now "wrong" because it confirms your bias, and everything he gets right is ignored or dismissed as a no-brainer, blind squirrel, or possibly even still wrong. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate issues with his in-game strategy, I'm just saying that having this bias makes a fan actively use hindsight and logical fallacy to attribute blame to the manager. My pet peeve is when fans "can't even imagine what Farrell was thinking" with bullpen usage, or Xander's recent day-off calamity, when it takes a pretty small amount of consideration to see that there are multiple options, all with pros and cons. Simply by making any decision, Farrell is in the wrong in their eyes because he wasn't able to miraculously capitalize on the upside of every single option while avoiding every single downside. Because Farrell himself made decision A, its obvious to fans that B was the better option. Then you can snowball and echo chamber effects, and it all piles up to be really biased, vile, and offputting discussion.

Fans never have to have a clear policy, or a clear value system that they stick by in these situations, and they never have to explain themselves when they deviate from that policy, even if they have one. No one's ever going to hold them accountable to their opinion on when Xander should have sat in this series, and ensure they stick to it the next time a similar situation arises. The only policy fans need to have is "win now, win more", and that covers everything: bunting, days off, batting order, bullpen usage, long term player development, the works.

Farrell is in a particularly difficult spot, because he's finished last two years in a row, whether he was a major factor in those outcomes or not. Managers get fired for that type of underperformance all the time, it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. So I wouldn't even really be surprised if he was gone if the rest of this season or even the next 30-40 games go very badly. So, I don't think talking about whether he will fired is an irrelevant discussion, but I do think fans who make statements like

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.
are just demonstrating the lack of thought they have actually put into it.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,566
02130
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.
Hard to back this up, but I think Tito was better at handling the bullpen in the regular season. I don't recall anyone really getting worn out from overuse under his management (except maybe Lackey who was pitching with a busted elbow ligament).

Also, Playoff Tito is an INCREDIBLE contrast to Playoff Farrell, who batted Brandon Workman in a tied World Series game because he fucked up. If Ortiz hadn't saved them I personally think that's a fireable offense right there.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I think he's done a good job with the team they have and dont have. .
How so? I'm not being snarky here - I'm looking for specifics as to what he's doing well, because I honestly can't see it. What is he doing well enough that he should keep his job?
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,192
Also, Playoff Tito is an INCREDIBLE contrast to Playoff Farrell, who batted Brandon Workman in a tied World Series game because he fucked up. If Ortiz hadn't saved them I personally think that's a fireable offense right there.
Jonny Gomes, David Ross, and Shane Victorino had the three game-winning hits after that abortion.

Not that Ortiz wasn't a factor as he intimidated Matheny to start IBBing him every AB by the end, but the whole team did just enough hitting and pitched great that series.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
How so? I'm not being snarky here - I'm looking for specifics as to what he's doing well, because I honestly can't see it. What is he doing well enough that he should keep his job?
Beyond the team's record, managaing a team with 2.67 reliable starters, generally successful aggressive baserunning, avoiding long losing streaks, I can't really see specifics of what he does well either. That's sort of the whole point. (or my point, anyway).
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,088
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.
Thanks for this - I appreciate the reasoned take, and that there isn't any obvious, precise method for assessing a manager's performance. And I'd second your interest in a panel of players and a FO panel that could identify the most important attributes of a successful manager - it would certainly provide valuable input to discussions like this one!

My problem with the fire Farrell narrative is that, outside of obvious cases like Valentine, the only reason it is even considered is because people care about the Red Sox doing well, and when they are not fans NEED an explanation, it's just an natural emotional response. Especially with sustained poor performance, fans naturally look for patterns, and one of the few common threads between 2014, 2015 and now is Farrell. Obviously he probably has SOME effect on overall performance, but it's hard to say how much. But if you're looking for answers and there's only one name that you can really point a finger at, you're more likely to overestimate his effect on overall performance.

Not too get too meta about it, but once you let that emotional bias permeate your thinking, then every single move by Farrell that doesn't work is now "wrong" because it confirms your bias, and everything he gets right is ignored or dismissed as a no-brainer, blind squirrel, or possibly even still wrong. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate issues with his in-game strategy, I'm just saying that having this bias makes a fan actively use hindsight and logical fallacy to attribute blame to the manager. My pet peeve is when fans "can't even imagine what Farrell was thinking" with bullpen usage, or Xander's recent day-off calamity, when it takes a pretty small amount of consideration to see that there are multiple options, all with pros and cons. Simply by making any decision, Farrell is in the wrong in their eyes because he wasn't able to miraculously capitalize on the upside of every single option while avoiding every single downside. Because Farrell himself made decision A, its obvious to fans that B was the better option. Then you can snowball and echo chamber effects, and it all piles up to be really biased, vile, and offputting discussion.

Fans never have to have a clear policy, or a clear value system that they stick by in these situations, and they never have to explain themselves when they deviate from that policy, even if they have one. No one's ever going to hold them accountable to their opinion on when Xander should have sat in this series, and ensure they stick to it the next time a similar situation arises. The only policy fans need to have is "win now, win more", and that covers everything: bunting, days off, batting order, bullpen usage, long term player development, the works.

Farrell is in a particularly difficult spot, because he's finished last two years in a row, whether he was a major factor in those outcomes or not. Managers get fired for that type of underperformance all the time, it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented...
Yes to the bolded, and that's the crux of the argument that several folks here, me included, are making. A rebuttal to the effect of "hang on, he's actually exceeding realistic expectations of performance (which is where Joe Dokes started above) is certainly reasonable - it at least provides a framework for discussion ("the Sox current talent level is/isn't better than what they're showing on the field") about whether Farrell is part of the problem or part of the solution.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Thanks for this - I appreciate the reasoned take, and that there isn't any obvious, precise method for assessing a manager's performance. And I'd second your interest in a panel of players and a FO panel that could identify the most important attributes of a successful manager - it would certainly provide valuable input to discussions like this one!
Oh, there might be one. I just dont know what it is. Its just so intuitively easier to point out what a manager does wrong than what he does right that it makes the "plus" side of the ledger more difficult to compile.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,513
NY
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.
This really isn't complicated. People have asked for reasons why it may be time to move on. Several of us have pointed out that the last 2.5 years have not gone well and that may be an indication that a change could help. To use your own analogy, if a player had a great 2013 but since then has looked old and washed up, and the question was whether to resign or extend him, wouldn't the last 2.5 years be more relevant than 2013?

I mean Christ, we can just look at Buchholz as a great example of this right now. He was awesome in 2013. Would anyone want to bring him back next year based on how he's performed since then?
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Beyond the team's record, managaing a team with 2.67 reliable starters, generally successful aggressive baserunning, avoiding long losing streaks, I can't really see specifics of what he does well either. That's sort of the whole point. (or my point, anyway).
The baserunning I'll give you - they've been really good with that, although I think a lot of that may be Amaro (as his Philly teams were all fantastic baserunning teams) - but Farrell is in charge, so he can have that.

The avoiding long losing streaks though is just meaningless statistical noise in my mind- losing 3, winning 1, and then losing another 3 isn't anymore impressive than losing 6 and then winning 1.

The starters though - he's supposed to be a pitching guru - and while Wright has been a revelation (plus points for him), Price has been well below his career norms, Porcello has been worse than he was in Detroit(FIP of 4.07 here, 3.7 previous 3) , Kelly has been significantly worse in Boston than in StL (could be AL/NL thing), and who the hell knows with Buch - he's had his two worst years under Farrell, but also two really good years. It's really tough to split out how much of having 2.67 reliable starters is him being a victim of the situation, and how much is him just being a bad coach. With all the rumors about guys tipping pitches, mechanical issues not being noticed (until Pedroia...) - I lean towards the latter.


And yeah, I get that its tough to evaluate managers - I'm not SURE he's a terrible manager - but at this point he's had that fantastic 2013 where he won 59% of his games and won a world series, and that mediocre first year in Toronto at 81-81 but besides that, his teams have consistently sat at the bottom of the division with a 45% winning percentage. It's possible that he's just gotten unlucky, and it's possible that manager's don't contribute much - but neither of those are strong arguments for keeping Farrell - they're both arguments that getting rid of him will have little negative recourse, and could have some positive affects by changing culture/etc.

I just don't think he's shown enough positive value that a franchise like the Boston Red Sox should continue to bet their near term future on him - and I'm really surprised that people think otherwise.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,851
San Andreas Fault
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.
I forget, Playoff Tito got the moniker because he changed pitchers more at the right time than regular season Tito? What else did Playoff Tito do different in the post season? If this is too tangential, sorry.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Smiley, Odorizzi, Archer, Moore...an entire bullpen outside of Colome

I thought Hickey was supposed to be a pitching guru. It's obvious now that all prior pitching success must have come from the Genius. I assume it had something to do with funny outfits on the road.

Fire Hickey. He sucks.

(See where I'm going with this? Let's start talking about other managers because any discussion about Farrell/Willis suckitude that doesn't include the context of Baseball is meaningless. It's just a complaint. It's time to start looking at other teams. For example, is Bannister the best manager in the AL? Why?)
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I forget, Playoff Tito got the moniker because he changed pitchers more at the right time than regular season Tito? What else did Playoff Tito do different in the post season? If this is too tangential, sorry.
playoff Tito was also willing to use pitchers longer than he would in the regular season -- risk their health, even, in order to WIN NOW.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,820
St. Louis, MO
No opinion on whether it should happen, but if they want to pull the trigger on letting him go, it feels like the right time. Off day tomorrow heading into a long home stand before the AS Break with Baltimore on a tough road trip. A jolt might make up a good bit of that difference before the break.
 

Twalk

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
265
Bozeman, Montana
Ship Dombrowski back to Detroit for Mike Aviles and then flip Aviles to Cleveland for their manager. I feel like that guy would be a good fit on this team.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
The avoiding long losing streaks though is just meaningless statistical noise in my mind- losing 3, winning 1, and then losing another 3 isn't anymore impressive than losing 6 and then winning 1.
I agree it is statistical noise, but the implied meaning of not having a 4 game losing streak is that the 2013 team did not have a losing streak as long a 4 games. So its turned into a sort of mystical number.

Just for fun, I looked back at the 2013 results to see what the worst part of that season looked like and found they lost 9 of 11 from May 3 through May 14. That equates to three-straight three-game losing streaks. They won 7 of 8 before the swoon, and had 5 straight wins after. Also, the 2013 team only had 5 three-game losing streaks the whole season ... quirky that 3 of them happened in succession. This year's team has already had 6 three-game losing streaks.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with firing Farrell, but figured since I did the research I'd share it.
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
7,234
Florida/Montana
I just don't think he's shown enough positive value that a franchise like the Boston Red Sox should continue to bet their near term future on him - and I'm really surprised that people think otherwise.
Yes and as I've tried to point out in game and other threads an ESPN survey done of the best managers in baseball Farrell isn't even in the top ten in many categories.

Spend some time reading this article and then tell me why this franchise doesn't have one of the top three rated managers in the league? We might not have a great perspective on this but surely the players do.

This fan base deserves the best or at least much much better.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13186480/who-mlb-best-manager-survey-says
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,946
Yes and as I've tried to point out in game and other threads an ESPN survey done of the best managers in baseball Farrell isn't even in the top ten in many categories.

Spend some time reading this article and then tell me why this franchise doesn't have one of the top three rated managers in the league? We might not have a great perspective on this but surely the players do.

This fan base deserves the best or at least much much better.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13186480/who-mlb-best-manager-survey-says
Here's a key quote from that survey, throwing a little shade towards John Farrell:

"Buck puts guys in situations where they can be successful. He won't put them in spots where they're over their heads,'' said Orioles closer Zach Britton. "And rarely do you warm up and not go into a game. I think that was kind of eye-opening for Andrew Miller and other guys who've come here from different organizations. It's not always the innings or the games; some managers make you warm up two or three or four times a day and not go in. If I'm a free agent [reliever] and I'm thinking about going somewhere, that's an important thing to think about, right?''
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Yes and as I've tried to point out in game and other threads an ESPN survey done of the best managers in baseball Farrell isn't even in the top ten in many categories.

Spend some time reading this article and then tell me why this franchise doesn't have one of the top three rated managers in the league? We might not have a great perspective on this but surely the players do.

This fan base deserves the best or at least much much better.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13186480/who-mlb-best-manager-survey-says
10th best manager overall? Is that really that bad?

117 players are asked about a manager they dont play for. And 50 "scouts, front-office executives, big league coaches and media analysts" whoever they are.

Farrell might be the suckiest suck who ever sucked.

Or maybe, as the survey says, he's the 10th best manager in baseball.

But this "survey" is noise.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
Beyond the team's record, managaing a team with 2.67 reliable starters, generally successful aggressive baserunning, avoiding long losing streaks, I can't really see specifics of what he does well either. That's sort of the whole point. (or my point, anyway).
To me, this team seems to have an obvious critical flaw. Outside of Porcello and Wright, its starting pitchers can't be relied upon to prevent runs very well or to avoid an unduly heavy load on the bullpen. Everything else seems to be pretty good. The offense is very strong. (Though obviously, playing 2 to 3 guys who should be in AAA each night while we work through depth and injuries isn't ideal.) Baserunning and defense have been good. From an outsider's perspective team unity and cohesion seems good. But starting pitching has seemed to me to have had a long-term and short-term serious effect on this team. I posted in a game thread a stat that amazed me when I compiled it and it's probably pretty close to up-to-date if not worse, but the combined ERA of starters not Porcello or Wright was something like 6.40 -- worse than the worst qualified starting pitcher in MLB. The number of innings per game was crappy too.

When a team has an obvious flaw like the Red Sox do, it's just very hard to see how blaming the manager makes sense or, more important, how replacing him is going to change anything. This team is managing to stay above .500 even though, on average, it throws a guy out there who will give up 4 earned runs and not make it much past 5.1 innings every 3 out of 5 games. Even if you accept that there are managers out there who can have pitcher whisperer skills -- a premise I doubt but let's assume it's true -- at best that's going to help at the margins. It's not going to turn a turd into a diamond.

The converse of what I'm saying is that firing Farrell probably won't make much of a difference one way or the other anyway -- since starting pitching will still be bad. So, why not? I guess I don't care that much at this point, but doing it for the sake of doing it doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

If my premise is wrong -- that there is some other substantial contributor to the Red Sox woes this year that is manager-dependent -- I'm willing to listen. But the problem (singular) with this team seems on its face to seem so apparent and so significant, and so uncorrelated to managing, that I view much of this thread as a red herring.

Edit: typo
 
Last edited:

PapaSox

New Member
Dec 26, 2015
230
MA
I'm not for making a change until seasons end. I don't hear discontent from the players. We have had a "boat load" of injuries. Other that Wright the staff has been questionable at best. The pen is generally a wreak and a couple of pitchers are already over worked. We've had some players doing great stuff and guys like Papi and Dustin doing some nice work. Hanley has done well at 1B. There is good with the bad. I understand we've had to go through a great deal of pain since 2011, other the '13, and we want to get back to the way things were. I don't disagree that another solid starter is needed and that it will cost but there is a lot of good going on with this team that we need to keep in mind. Like all fans when the team is doing good there are few if any complaints but when they are doing poorly it is the manager's fault. JF is dealing with things as the come up. It's easy for us to "Armchair QB" his decisions when they go "south". Let's see what DD comes up with by the trade deadline before we get the tar and feathers out.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,851
San Andreas Fault
10th best manager overall? Is that really that bad?

117 players are asked about a manager they dont play for. And 50 "scouts, front-office executives, big league coaches and media analysts" whoever they are.

Farrell might be the suckiest suck who ever sucked.

Or maybe, as the survey says, he's the 10th best manager in baseball.

But this "survey" is noise.
He got just 2.2% of the vote though. That's pretty low and probably not much higher than what the 20th ranked manager got. Another thing that someone here posted when a survey (maybe this one, maybe another one) came out is that high profile team managers are going to get more votes just because. I believe that's true too.

Couple other things: article said Tito's great personality and ability to relate to players was one key to his success. I'd mentioned this in a post earlier, saying Farrell seems like a zero personality-wise.

We were laughing in the game threads at Clint Hurdle during the 2007 World Series. Now, he gets ranked significantly higher than the Red
Sox manager.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,513
NY
Denny, your point is fair but it's a chicken and egg thing that we all keep dancing around. Are the pitchers making Farrell look bad because they're performing like shit, or are they performing like shit at least in part because Farrell isn't a good coach? I don't know the answer. But as unfair as it may be to blame Farrell for the pitchers sucking, it may be equally unfair to place all of the blame on the pitchers. Until we know if it's the chicken or the egg this debate will continue with everyone dismissing the other side.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
Denny, your point is fair but it's a chicken and egg thing that we all keep dancing around. Are the pitchers making Farrell look bad because they're performing like shit, or are they performing like shit at least in part because Farrell isn't a good coach? I don't know the answer. But as unfair as it may be to blame Farrell for the pitchers sucking, it may be equally unfair to place all of the blame on the pitchers. Until we know if it's the chicken or the egg this debate will continue with everyone dismissing the other side.
I can't answer, but note that he's the same manager that's presiding over a really good offense. The notion that he's transmitting suck to the arms and brains of Buchholz and Kelly and whomever else we throw out there but not to Xander and Shaw and JBJ, etc., strikes me as a bit unlikely. I would think bad managing being the chicken would cause more whole team suck. It seems like we have specific suck. But again, I admit I'm just guessing.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Denny, your point is fair but it's a chicken and egg thing that we all keep dancing around. Are the pitchers making Farrell look bad because they're performing like shit, or are they performing like shit at least in part because Farrell isn't a good coach? I don't know the answer. But as unfair as it may be to blame Farrell for the pitchers sucking, it may be equally unfair to place all of the blame on the pitchers. Until we know if it's the chicken or the egg this debate will continue with everyone dismissing the other side.
This sums it up quite well. (although I'd like to think I'm not being dismissive, but that's a squishy line that I'm sure I cross....).
And, much like "defending" not using the closer in a tie on the road "because that's the way the game is played now," the fact is that a manager's firing is almost always related to shitty player performance, whether that's "fair" or not. So while I can't really agree that Farrell is the "problem," or whether replacing him is a "solution," I probably won't complain if it does happen, because that's baseball.

Maybe he's the guy they need in the FO to help them draft better pitchers!
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I can't answer, but note that he's the same manager that's presiding over a really good offense. The notion that he's transmitting suck to the arms and brains of Buchholz and Kelly and whomever else we throw out there but not to Xander and Shaw and JBJ, etc., strikes me as a bit unlikely. I would think bad managing being the chicken would cause more whole team suck. It seems like we have specific suck. But again, I admit I'm just guessing.
Why does it strike you as unlikely that he'd be good at one thing and bad at another? Maybe he pretty much leaves the hitting alone to the hitting coach, and meddles with the pitching? Who knows.

The point still stands though - if the manager doesn't affect player performance, what the heck does he affect? If we take player performance out of the manager skill set, we're left with pretty much bullpen usage, and other in-game tactics, and those definitely aren't things Farrell shines at.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Nearly half the team has been largely disappointing this season and nearly half the team hasn't. Those two halves basically consist of the offense and the pitching staff. I think we all agree that the pitching staff has areas of concern that need to be addressed both in the rotation and bullpen. The manager is a former pitching coach. Juan Nieves was replaced fairly early last season in favor of Carl Willis who was touted as some sort of Cy Young maker. We also have Brian Banister serving as something called Director of Pitching Analytics. Perhaps to some extent you have to point to weaknesses in the makeup of the pitching staff, but there is no denying that under the watch of Farrell, Willis and Banister this group as a whole is not performing to expectations.
 

SamBowen

New Member
Aug 1, 2006
27
And it's really just a quarter of the team - the starting pitchers. Only one of the starting pitchers is outperforming their steamer/zips projections for FIP: Wright. In the bullpen, Kimbrel, Hembree, Layne, Barnes and Ross are all doing better than expected.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
There's just so much noise going on with coaching assessments. Example:

John Farrell was the pitching coach when the Red Sox pitchers were ranked: 1, 3, 3, 11
Juan Nieves came on board in 2012 for 3+ years and the team ranked: 12, 6, 11
Willis: 14, 11

Either (a) Farrell was great and then he wasn't and (b) Nieves was inconsistent and Willis sucks...OR

It's more about the pitching staff each guy inherited from the front office and we'll never know if the coaches made them better or worse. How are we to tell?

Step one is to take out injuries as outliers. Step 2 is to look at each staff for each year and decide if any given pitcher under-performed or just sucked (and vice-versa).

Step 3 is to look at other pitching coaches and organizations and try to determine the actual statistical impact any given coaching staff had on their pitchers, minus all the noise...and then compare it to a Willis.

Who one earth is capable of doing that? For example, does Hickey get all the credit for Ray's success, or did he inherit a phenomenal group of young pitchers (it's a combination of the 2).

Also: Is pitcher coaching more important in the high minors or in the majors, where most experienced throwers are already set in their ways and only need tweaking? Should our attention be focused on the management satff in Boston...or do results indicate that the Red Sox minor league managers do very well with position players and not so much with the pitchers?

I still think it comes down to talent more than coaching.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,201
Cambridge
The team is 42-36, three games shy of halfway through the season. On pace currently for 87 wins. The question really comes down to how you think that compares with the talent on the roster -- are we overperforming (the pitching sucks), underperforming (the first month or two was a better indication of the true talent level), or about right? The Vegas O/U was 85.5 wins, so my sense is that at least compared with preseason expectations, Farrell has done neither an outstanding nor a terrible job. Firing him would send a message to the clubhouse, but the most likely outcome of replacing him with another manager is that we have a 85 win team, like we have to this point. I think that's why the debate has been surprisingly noncontentious -- we have an average manager and so replacing him is neither likely to save the season nor kill the season.

But maybe that's the way the to ask the question now. The Sox will have 42-45 wins at the halfway point. We've also learned a lot more about both the players and the injury situation going forward. Based upon the talent currently on the roster and what you've seen in the first half of the season, how many wins do you think this team should end up with assuming it's managed reasonably well?

Edit: I can't do math.
 
Last edited:

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,365
To me, this looked like it would be a back to the 70's, fun to watch 83 or 84 win team when the season started. Still looks that way, despite the recent slide.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,078
The team is 42-36, a game shy of halfway through the season. On pace currently for 85 wins. The question really comes down to how you think that compares with the talent on the roster -- are we overperforming (the pitching sucks), underperforming (the first month or two was a better indication of the true talent level), or about right? The Vegas O/U was 85.5 wins, so my sense is that at least compared with preseason expectations, Farrell has done neither an outstanding nor a terrible job. Firing him would send a message to the clubhouse, but the most likely outcome of replacing him with another manager is that we have a 85 win team, like we have to this point. I think that's why the debate has been surprisingly noncontentious -- we have an average manager and so replacing him is neither likely to save the season nor kill the season.

But maybe that's the way the to ask the question now. The Sox will have either 42 or 43 wins at the halfway point. We've also learned a lot more about both the players and the injury situation going forward. Based upon the talent currently on the roster and what you've seen in the first half of the season, how many wins do you think this team should end up with assuming it's managed reasonably well?
And, it should be noted that the team would earn one of the wild card spots if the season ended today. Last season's AL wild card teams had 87 and 86 wins.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
There's just so much noise going on with coaching assessments. Example:

John Farrell was the pitching coach when the Red Sox pitchers were ranked: 1, 3, 3, 11
Juan Nieves came on board in 2012 for 3+ years and the team ranked: 12, 6, 11
Willis: 14, 11

Either (a) Farrell was great and then he wasn't and (b) Nieves was inconsistent and Willis sucks...OR
Or, Manager and Pitching Coach are different jobs.

The world is littered with people who do their own job well, but can't do their bosses job.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Or, Manager and Pitching Coach are different jobs.

The world is littered with people who do their own job well, but can't do their bosses job.
In fact, somebody wrote a book about it.

It's possible Farrell is a Peter Principle case. Certainly I think few would dispute that he was better as a pitching coach than he is as a manager. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's a shitty manager; he could just be ordinary, where as a pitching coach he was excellent. That's how it looks to me.

Would an outstanding manager be able to eke out a few extra wins a year that Farrell couldn't? Possibly. But there aren't many outstanding managers out there. If the Sox think they have a line on one, then replacing Farrell might make sense. I just don't think it's an urgent priority.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
Enough is enough. Shaw picked off 2nd with no outs. It happens once, no big deal. They make stupid outs on the bases EVERY DAMN GAME. When is it the manager's fault?
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Is this serious? Are you blaming the manager for that?
I don't think he is anything special and if they don't turn it around quick he'll be gone but those two plays are not the managers fault.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
When it happens once, no, I don't blame the manager. When they fuck up on the bases literally every game? Hells yes I am
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
Literally every game? Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago when we were hearing about how good a baserunning team the Sox were?
There have been a couple of bad screw ups the last few games, that is all.
It seems to me this sort of irrational complaining is what a game thread is for.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
Literally every game? Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago when we were hearing about how good a baserunning team the Sox were?
There have been a couple of bad screw ups the last few games, that is all.
It seems to me this sort of irrational complaining is what a game thread is for.
What about those two plays was good aggressive baserunning?

Ditto getting caught stealing for the 3rd out of the inning. It isn't smart or good aggressive. It is boneheaded shit
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
You'll have to point out where I said those were good plays, they clearly weren't.
I'm just not blaming the manager for things that are out of his control.

What I will do is stop replying to these silly posts.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
You'll have to point out where I said those were good plays, they clearly weren't.
I'm just not blaming the manager for things that are out of his control.

What I will do is stop replying to these silly posts.
At what point - in other words, how many stupid outs on the bases that are "out of his control" - does he get blamed? Never? Ok.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,367
Will say that while I am not "blame the manager" - I did think of this thread as two guys got thrown out in an inning...Can one feel that it doesn't reflect well on the manager even if they don't blame him for player mental errors?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.