Farrell Fails Again

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Why are we focusing so much on Pomeranz making it into the eighth for the first time rather than his manageable pitch count and that he hadn't had to pitch through any real jams? The fourth was a bit squirrely, but he had four 1-2-3 innings, and another frame where a double play meant he faced the minimum.

He's thrown 7 full innings 11 times, including today, out of 72 career starts.

I think he was a batter late with the hook, but it was defensible.

He was at 92 pitches entering the 8th. His season high pitch count is 111. Having him start the inning was justifiable. He got the first out on a K (5 pitches), then the double (2 pitches), then a first pitch flyout so he was at exactly 100 pitches when Davis stepped in. There was no reason to believe he was gassed at any point in that inning.

I think the case could be made that they could have played match-ups with Davis and brought in Ziegler (or had Barnes up instead), but Naquin loomed on the bench so it wouldn't have guaranteed anything more favorable than letting Pomeranz face Davis like he did.

 

[dhappy42]

Yeah. I'd say he made decisions in every single game the Sox won that helped them win that particular game. Prove me wrong. Actually dont bother. its a stupid game.

No it isn't. If a manager pinch runs Roberts for Nixon, then sends Roberts to second on a steal and then... Well, you get the idea -- the manager is usually credited with making a couple of good decisions. If a manager calls a successful squeeze to tie or win a game, most people applaud the decision.

Managers obviously make countless invisible decisions that contribute to wins and losses. Just as obviously, I'm not talking about those decisions. Whether the visible decisions are judged good or bad is often unfair. "Good decisions" are the ones that worked. "Bad" decisions didn't.

Here's an example of a dumb (IMO) visible decision: using your best starting pitcher, who's not very athletic and hasn't run the bases in ten years, as a pinch runner. It's an unacceptable injury risk. What's an example of a good decision Farrell's made?

Again, I'm not in the torches and pitchforks mob. I think Farrell's okay. I think he's made a few really dumb decisions that have cost the Sox a few games. And I can't think of any decisions he's made to win any.

 

[dhappy42]

I wish someone(s) would compile this data. Several pages ago @Cuzittt said that he and/or the .COM team would be happy to work with someone(s) on such a project. I hope someone(s) took them up on that.

I'm not gonna do it, but one way to do it would be to identify all games where there was a large change in win-expectation, then look for any managerial decisions (on either team) that preceded it. Then you'd have to make a subjective decision about whether the manager screwed things up or, alternatively, pulled a rabbit out of his hat.

The reason this is subjective is because some big win-expect swings will happen after a managerial decision, but won't be the managers fault. For example, manager brings in his closer in the bottom of the ninth and the closer walks two then gives up a HR -- don't blame the manager. On the other hand, when a manager leaves in a starter who's over pitch count and struggled in the eighth, and the starter walks two, HR, game over -- blame the manager. If a manager neglects to make a defensive replacement when his team has a narrow lead in late innings and the poor fielder makes an error -- blame the manager.

This stuff is impossible to objectively measure. I'm not asking for that. I'm just trying to remember the last time Farrell made a good move that paid off. I'm sure it's happened. I just can't think of any.

 

[Over Guapo Grande]

Moving Mookie to 3rd in the order (now 4th) seems to have paid off. Sticking with JBJ. Riding Leon's hot streak. Letting Benentindi shine, rather than being glued to the bench.

Or are you looking for "that time he called for a steal that no one saw coming and it was awesome!!" moment?

 

[E5 Yaz]

I think he's made a few really dumb decisions that have cost the Sox a few games. And I can't think of any decisions he's made to win any.

Team wins ... players good

Team loses ... manager bad

 

[E5 Yaz]

Moving Mookie to 3rd in the order (now 4th) seems to have paid off. Sticking with JBJ. Riding Leon's hot streak. Letting Benentindi shine, rather than being glued to the bench.

Getting Buchholz out of the rotation. Giving Chris Young at-bats against RHP early so that he wouldn't be completely rusty when he started playing more often. Utilizing the running game early in the season to jump start the offense. Sitting Sandoval when it was clear he was out of shape. Having a team in playoff contention while having to use 23 pitchers

 

[dhappy42]

Moving Mookie to 3rd in the order (now 4th) seems to have paid off. Sticking with JBJ. Riding Leon's hot streak. Letting Benentindi shine, rather than being glued to the bench.

Or are you looking for "that time he called for a steal that no one saw coming and it was awesome!!" moment?

Yeah, stuff like that.

Moving Mookie in the order might count though. I think the move and the power surge are a coincidence, though.

Sticking with JBJ? As opposed to what? Besides, sticking with a slumping starter is a non-move in my book. Usually a good non-move.

Riding Leon's hot streak -- That's funny. You want to give Farrell props for not benching Leon?

Letting Benintendi shine -- If that's the best example of Farrell's tactical acumen you can up with, I might very well jump on the #firefarrell bandwagon.

 

[Byrdbrain]

This is all monumentally stupid.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This is all monumentally stupid.

And yet, we have yet to reach the nadir

 

[dhappy42]

Team wins ... players good

Team loses ... manager bad

Sometimes. See: 2015 Washington Nationals. Or 2003 ALCS, Game 7.

 

[nothumb]

He was at 92 pitches entering the 8th. His season high pitch count is 111. Having him start the inning was justifiable. He got the first out on a K (5 pitches), then the double (2 pitches), then a first pitch flyout so he was at exactly 100 pitches when Davis stepped in. There was no reason to believe he was gassed at any point in that inning.

I think the case could be made that they could have played match-ups with Davis and brought in Ziegler (or had Barnes up instead), but Naquin loomed on the bench so it wouldn't have guaranteed anything more favorable than letting Pomeranz face Davis like he did.

Given first base was open, you could probably have brought in Barnes, pitched carefully to (presumably) Naquin while getting Z up, and then proceeded accordingly.

I agree it may have been a more marginal decision than it initially appeared, but I think there was a clear alternative.

 

[benhogan]

Team wins ... players good

Team loses ... manager bad

OR

Team wins ... and the manager makes a few very questionable decisions with the bench, bullpen and starting pitcher in tight/late situations. An interested and well versed fan base questions and debates the decisions.

BUT by all means carry on with the absolutism

 

[Max Power]

No it isn't. If a manager pinch runs Roberts for Nixon, then sends Roberts to second on a steal and then... .

..you win a mid-September game? That's an odd one to reference with the others you could have pointed to that season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200409170.shtml

 

[DJnVa]

So you think it was OK for Farrell to basically give away all those games when he played a completely AND obviously useless Young so that Young *might* help the team later? You still going to feel that way if they lose the division by 1 game?

Just so I'm clear here--if the Sox lose the division by one game, *that's* where you're going to argue they lost it?

Young's 18 ABs as a starter in April?

Ignoring the .900+ OPS he put up in May and June?

 

[dhappy42]

..you win a mid-September game? That's an odd one to reference with the others you could have pointed to that season.

Any game. Mid-August, mid-September, early-October. The point's the same. I find it kind of funny that anyone would want to argue about whether managers do or don't make visible, game-changing decisions, some for the better, some for the worse. Farrell's been getting bashed a lot lately. Well, at least before the three-game D'backs sweep and today's squeaker in Cleveland. I can think of more than a few "dumb moves" he's made lately. I'm just asking if anyone can point to "good moves" he's made. I'm talking about tactics, not stuff like like "riding Leon's hot streak" or "letting Benintendi shine."

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Just so I'm clear here--if the Sox lose the division by one game, *that's* where you're going to argue they lost it?

Young's 18 ABs as a starter in April?

Ignoring the .900+ OPS he put up in May and June?

Can you prove a causal relation from the 18 AB in April to the .900+ OPS hr put up in May and June?

If so, please show your work.

 

[YTF]

This is all monumentally stupid.

To paraphrase Trump, That monument is going to get 10 feet taller.

 

[Plympton91]

Team wins ... players good

Team loses ... manager bad

Are you providing multiple contentless posts in this thread as an example to newcomers of what a sucky poster looks like?

Your post is actually beyond useless.

 

[DJnVa]

Can you prove a causal relation from the 18 AB in April to the .900+ OPS hr put up in May and June?

If so, please show your work.

I didn't make one. I said it seems weird to blame the a one game deficit in the standings, if it even happens, on those 18 ABs. It seems really fucking granular. It's like pointing out a 4 game losing streak in April, where Mookie Betts, who could be the AL MVP, went 1-17 and then blaming him for losing the East.

The post I responded to brought up the "if we lose by one game..." thing. My main point is that if we do lose the East by a game (or wildcard or whatever) that Young's 18 ABs will be pretty low on the list of reasons.

 

[Plympton91]

This is all monumentally stupid.

Ditto the above. The only monumentally stupid and useless waste of bandwidth posts in this thread are coming from people like yourself trying to shout down a very good discussion of actual on the field baseball moves. If that bores you, stop clicking on this thread and go look at porn in P&G.

 

[Plympton91]

To paraphrase Trump, That monument is going to get 10 feet taller.

Triple dittos. Seriously. If you find discussion of actual on the field baseball moves to be boring, there are thousands of other ways to waste time on SOSH. Stop disrupting a good thread with your strawmen.

 

[Plympton91]

Any game. Mid-August, mid-September, early-October. The point's the same. I find it kind of funny that anyone would want to argue about whether managers do or don't make visible, game-changing decisions, some for the better, some for the worse. Farrell's been getting bashed a lot lately. Well, at least before the three-game D'backs sweep and today's squeaker in Cleveland. I can think of more than a few "dumb moves" he's made lately. I'm just asking if anyone can point to "good moves" he's made. I'm talking about tactics, not stuff like like "riding Leon's hot streak" or "letting Benintendi shine."

Perhaps you haven't read the thead? I'm seeing plenty of criticism of Farrell today despite the win. I actually think all his visible moves and nonmoves were correct except possibly using Abad to pitch to Ramirez, and even there I don't know who he was supposed to use given recent performance. We know Farrell makes a lot of decisions based on the hot hand/cold hand theory that statisticians frown upon but every other human being knows exists.

 

[Dogman]

I'm going to start deleting posts and folks are gonna get a break if this crap keeps up. This is a legit topic of discussion but the personal shit is going to stop now.

 

[joe dokes]

Yeah, stuff like that.

Moving Mookie in the order might count though. I think the move and the power surge are a coincidence, though.

Sticking with JBJ? As opposed to what? Besides, sticking with a slumping starter is a non-move in my book. Usually a good non-move.

Riding Leon's hot streak -- That's funny. You want to give Farrell props for not benching Leon?

Letting Benintendi shine -- If that's the best example of Farrell's tactical acumen you can up with, I might very well jump on the #firefarrell bandwagon.

This is what I was talking about. Every example "doesn't really count" for you.

Here's an example of a dumb (IMO) visible decision: using your best starting pitcher, who's not very athletic and hasn't run the bases in ten years, as a pinch runner. It's an unacceptable injury risk. What's an example of a good decision Farrell's made?

Again, I'm not in the torches and pitchforks mob. I think Farrell's okay. I think he's made a few really dumb decisions that have cost the Sox a few games. And I can't think of any decisions he's made to win any.

While I'm confident you'll come up with some clever way to define these either as something other than "decisions" or if they are "decisions," they are somehow not worthy of consideration, here goes:

Pitching Kimbrel for more than 1 inning in a tie game on the road against Seattle on August 4th. Very few managers do either: more than 1 inning or pitch their "closer" in ties games on the road in extra innings.

Replacing Kimbrel with Barnes in the 9th on August 9th. Many (most?) managers just ride their "closer" into the sunset like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

 

[Rasputin]

Nevermind, this whole argument is pointless.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I expect if the Sox win the next two games this thread will easily clear 1000 posts

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

In 1997 or 1998, New York Giants head coach Jim Fassel decided to use Jason Sehorn as a punt returner/kick returner. Sehorn had developed into a top flight NFL defensive player and CB, and so I immediately hated the decision as a N.Y. Giants fan, believing you don’t ask top players to do things that will increase injury risk. Sehorn hadn’t returned punts/kicks since college. He spent his first few seasons in the NFL focusing on his development as a CB.

While returning a kick in a preseason game, Sehorn tore his knee, missed the season, and was never the same player again when he returned the following year.

I presume that Wright did not experience a career altering injury. Nevertheless, the decision to use Wright in a pinch running capacity reminded me of the Sehorn decision to some extent. Specifically, Farrell asked one of the best players in the organization, a top starting pitcher, to do something he had not done in a long time, thereby increasing injury risk. There are certain things you don’t do as a manager, and using Steven Wright as a pinch runner is one of those things especially when Farrell had other options (all of them unappealing but not as unappealing as the decision Farrell ultimately made):

(1) Two position players on the bench.
(2) A former NL starting pitcher who had more experience running the bases than Wright.
(3) The Ortiz situation was peculiar. If he was so badly injured, why didn’t Farrell take out Ortiz when he reached first base? He didn’t take out Ortiz until he reached second base. If he could run from first to second, why couldn’t he run from second to third?
(4) Here’s someone who argues that Buchholz could have been used:
http://calltothepen.com/2016/08/11/boston-red-sox-john-farrell-blame-steven-wrights-injury/

Ben Buchanan also believes Buchholz could have been used in that situation, as well as Abad:
http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/8/10/12430064/steven-wright-to-miss-start-after-hurting-self-running-the-bases

Buchanan summed things up pretty well when he stated:

they wanted a pinch-runner for David Ortiz but didn't really have the bench depth to give him one. So they turned to a pitcher. This, in itself, is not the absolute worst idea in the world. What is the worst idea in the world is taking one of the most productive members of a rotation that's just barely pulling itself together and throwing him into that situation.

This situation is comparable to another baseball situation: a late inning blow out where the manager uses a position player to pitch one or two innings. In that scenario, managers rarely call on their best position players. Instead, managers call on utility bench players like a N.Green or G.Jones, for example, players who are eminently replaceable. Most competent mangers aren’t going to risk injuring a top position player by putting that player in an unfamiliar situation. Likewise, the Red Sox best starting pitcher should not be used as a pinch runner.

 

[nothumb]

Does anyone else wonder if Wright might be pitching through this travesty that Farrell inflicted on him if it wasn't 900 degrees outside? Serious question. People are always calling for dudes to get the Hellenic flu, including (I'm pretty sure) a few people who have mentioned that Wright could use a break from throwing in weather where he has little to no chance of success.

 

[Curt S Loew]

Does anyone else wonder if Wright might be pitching through this travesty that Farrell inflicted on him if it wasn't 900 degrees outside? Serious question. People are always calling for dudes to get the Hellenic flu, including (I'm pretty sure) a few people who have mentioned that Wright could use a break from throwing in weather where he has little to no chance of success.

Yeah. I would go further. I bet he purposely put Wright in as a pinch runner hoping he may tweak something so he could get Buchholz in for a few starts during these hot days. Evil Genius.

 

[nothumb]

Yeah. I would go further. I bet he purposely put Wright in as a pinch runner hoping he may tweak something so he could get Buchholz in for a few starts during these hot days. Evil Genius.

That's about the type of response I expected, but do you really not think the decision to DL a player (or not) is impacted by the rest of the roster and the player's performance?

If he ends up missing a month I will eat crow, but if he comes back next week and looks great, you've got to at least consider it.

 

[Van Everyman]

Well, he has said as much somewhat recently:

“The action to the knuckleball was not what we’ve seen, particularly in the first two innings,” Farrell said. “They score a couple of runs in both the first and second and we’re down 4-0 and I thought he started to settle in and have some of the similar action that he’s had.

“If we’re in a situation where there is a little bit of moisture or the temperature is 90 degrees, it almost leaves us at a point where I have to scratch him if it ends up being a situation where the results are what they are, but we have to figure out a way to maintain some kind of grip whether it’s wearing sleeves, using rosin. He’s done a very good job for us, no questions about that. But, in those elements we have to find a way to adjust and make the most of them.”

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/07/27/john-farrell-hints-steven-wright-may-need-to-be-scratched-in-games-involving-rain-heat/

In 1997 or 1998, New York Giants head coach Jim Fassel decided to use Jason Sehorn as a punt returner/kick returner. Sehorn had developed into a top flight NFL defensive player and CB, and so I immediately hated the decision as a N.Y. Giants fan, believing you don’t ask top players to do things that will increase injury risk. Sehorn hadn’t returned punts/kicks since college. He spent his first few seasons in the NFL focusing on his development as a CB.

While returning a kick in a preseason game, Sehorn tore his knee, missed the season, and was never the same player again when he returned the following year.

And yet, Tito received about .09% of the criticism for his choice to PR Buchholz against the Rangers a number of years back. I mean, you only have so many people on your roster to get results from. Maybe Fassel thought Sehorn would be an awesome PR. Maybe he could've been. I'm not sure that the role of coaches is to minimize bad luck.

At this point in the thread, I'd be more interested in what neutral parties on the board think is driving the Farrell hate. I'm not rabidly against the guy but it seems folks here are far more aggravated by his managing style than specific decisions – the "feeling" that he doesn't anticipate things and makes decisions in a vacuum, the mushier/less defined "I stick w vets until they crater" philosophy than Tito, the trust in Willis, etc.

What do the undecideds think?

 

[nothumb]

For me it's mainly the lack of planning and apparent "feel" for in-game decisions, primarily pitching, and, to a lesser / un-proven extent, the underperformance or lack of development of many pitchers on a more general level.

I think the gripes about the Wright and Swihart injuries are pretty weak and that in general his lineup moves have worked out.

 

[Curt S Loew]

At this point in the thread, I'd be more interested in what neutral parties on the board think is driving the Farrell hate. I'm not rabidly against the guy but it seems folks here are far more aggravated by his managing style than specific decisions – the "feeling" that he doesn't anticipate things and makes decisions in a vacuum, the mushier/less defined "I stick w vets until they crater" philosophy than Tito, the trust in Willis, etc.

What do the undecideds think?

Two last place finishes might have something to do with it. Plus 2 years in a row?

The Red Sox don't finish in last place, and have managed to do it 3 out of 4 years. Like it or not, the manager is on the hook for that. The other guy who finished last was an utter disaster and was canned.

I am not saying that Farrell is the sole reason for these poor teams(he's obviously not), but just responding to what is partly driving the hate.

 

[AB in DC]

The whole notion of pinch running = injury risk is absolutely baffling to me. I've honestly never heard of a single player who ever got injured as a pinch runner until Wright (with the possible exception of home plate collisions, which thankfully have been basically abolished). So it's absolutely bonkers to criticize Farrell for an exceptionally tiny risk vs. the more obvious risks of Ortiz hurting himself (even further) or losing a pinch hitter that would likely be needed later.

I think a better criticism is that pitchers like Wright weren't sufficiently prepared for he possibility of pinch running. Clearly Wright lost track of how big a lead he should take. That sounds like he didn't get enough reps during practice.

 

[glennhoffmania]

This is baffling to me. Kimbrel is your "best reliever." Two outings ago he looked totally off and Farrell yanked him. The following outing he looked solid and had a clean inning. He struggles out of the gate--which he does at times even when he's healthy--and so Farrell has a call to make. Stick with him/ Ziegler. There is a ton of noise around whether Kimbrel can get those three outs, owing to his coming off injury, so its a call he has to make. Ziegler is more likely to pitch to contact in getting those three outs and could easily give up a dribbler to tie the game, and Kimbrel at least misses bats. Farrell made the call to ride Kimbrel out, and it worked.

What am I missing?

I agree. I'm far from a Farrell defender but I don't know what else he should do in this situation. Kimbrel wasn't out for so long that he needs to be eased back into the closer role. If he's healthy he should be closing. The question is whether he's healthy enough, and maybe Farrell should be able to tell that his knee isn't right and he should suggest another DL stint (for all we know he has done this).

Kimbrel is a good pitcher who is pitching worse than usual right now, most likely because of his knee. The FO needs to fix this. They shouldn't give him back to Farrell and say, here's a damaged closer, make the best of it.

His other moves were just plain stupid and he almost blew another game, but going to Kimbrel in the 9th was certainly defensible.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Maybe he could've been. I'm not sure that the role of coaches is to minimize bad luck.

Minimizing bad luck is pretty much the basis of every decision coaches make. When you bring in your closer, its not because you know hes going to get people out, its because he has a higher probability of it, and a lower probability of shitting the bed. You're minimizing the chance of bad luck (the pitcher having a bad day) by bringing in the pitcher who is least likely to do that.

Pinch running Wright was a decision that had a high probability of going badly, with a high cost if it went badly, and very little upside. Its exactly the sort of decision managers should avoid.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Pinch running Wright didn't have a high probability of going badly at all. I agree the upside was low but it really isn't too much to expect him to advance base to base with a base hit and not get hurt.
I realize those like FSB think this move is the worst thing ever but most people living in reality just see this as a bad break and one of those things that happen.
There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about with Farrelll, I'd say this one has been beaten to death.
Also Stephen Wright is not the Sox best pitcher.

 

[nothumb]

Minimizing bad luck is pretty much the basis of every decision coaches make. When you bring in your closer, its not because you know hes going to get people out, its because he has a higher probability of it, and a lower probability of shitting the bed. You're minimizing the chance of bad luck (the pitcher having a bad day) by bringing in the pitcher who is least likely to do that.

Pinch running Wright was a decision that had a high probability of going badly, with a high cost if it went badly, and very little upside. Its exactly the sort of decision managers should avoid.

There's a difference between luck and probability, though the two are blended in most outcomes.

When you make a pitching decision based on matchups and prior performance, you are playing the probabilities. The inputs are knowable and measurable. Sure, there is also luck involved - BABIP, umps, short term variance in performance, etc. But I would draw a distinction between seeking an edge based on known factors, and preventing outcomes which are exceedingly rare, unpredictable and probably random to an extent.

If you want to argue that letting a pitcher run the bases has a high probability of a very costly bad result, you need to show your work. Pitcher injuries on the basepaths are very rare - it would not surprise me at all if they are more rare, on a per-opportunity basis, than position player injuries.

Telling guys not to slide headfirst, not to dive into first, or to wear a hand guard are examples of coaching interventions that play the probabilities and minimize injury. These events come up often and have a certain rate of injury associated with them.

Maybe Wright should have been cautioned about his lead, or given a bit more work in drills, but you can't coach your way out of every freak accident or injury. Running the bases isn't the Hunger Games.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Pinch running Wright didn't have a high probability of going badly at all. I agree the upside was low but it really isn't too much to expect him to advance base to base with a base hit and not get hurt. .

Why do you think it "isn't too much to expect".

As I've pointed out before in this thread, this is something he literally hadn't done since high school. Expecting him to do it at a level similar to that of people who basically do it for a living (position players) is absurd.

This is no different than throwing Steven Wright in Right Field and expecting him to do a decent job.

Telling guys not to slide headfirst, not to dive into first, or to wear a hand guard are examples of coaching interventions that play the probabilities and minimize injury. These events come up often and have a certain rate of injury associated with them.

Maybe Wright should have been cautioned about his lead, or given a bit more work in drills, but you can't coach your way out of every freak accident or injury. Running the bases isn't the Hunger Games.

These are exactly the sort of stupid things that you would expect someone who doesn't do an activity regularly to do. These sort of things are exactly why you don't ask a pitcher to run the bases - he's more likely to do stupid things like slide headfirst, dive into first, run into a fielder, etc.

Taking a bad lead, and getting hurt diving back to the base is exactly the sort of stupid shit that you'd expect someone that doesn't run the bases regularly would do at a higher rate than a seasoned baserunner. Seasoned base runners know how far they can lead.

Now, its possible that Farrel told him to "stand on the damn base and not move until the ball is in play" and he just disobeyed that order, but again, this is a player being put in a situation he hasn't been put in since high school - he should be expected to make mistakes at a significantly higher risk.

 

[joe dokes]

This is no different than throwing Steven Wright in Right Field and expecting him to do a decent job.
.

Yeah, a competent manager would never put a pitcher in the outfield.

 

[nothumb]

Why do you think it "isn't too much to expect".

As I've pointed out before in this thread, this is something he literally hadn't done since high school. Expecting him to do it at a level similar to that of people who basically do it for a living (position players) is absurd.

This is no different than throwing Steven Wright in Right Field and expecting him to do a decent job.



These are exactly the sort of stupid things that you would expect someone who doesn't do an activity regularly to do. These sort of things are exactly why you don't ask a pitcher to run the bases - he's more likely to do stupid things like slide headfirst, dive into first, run into a fielder, etc.

Taking a bad lead, and getting hurt diving back to the base is exactly the sort of stupid shit that you'd expect someone that doesn't run the bases regularly would do at a higher rate than a seasoned baserunner. Seasoned base runners know how far they can lead.

Now, its possible that Farrel told him to "stand on the damn base and not move until the ball is in play" and he just disobeyed that order, but again, this is a player being put in a situation he hasn't been put in since high school - he should be expected to make mistakes at a significantly higher risk.

Again - you need to show some work here. My observation is the opposite - most pitchers running the bases do so gingerly, conservatively and slowly. They don't do the kinds of things that are most likely to get a person hurt. Every time it happens (like with Wang or Clay), it becomes a big deal, but you've presented no evidence that it is really all that dangerous in the aggregate.

I literally can't think of another example of a pitcher getting hurt diving back to a bag.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

http://www.sportsgrid.com/real-sports/mlb/watch-indians-pitcher-fausto-carmona-go-to-the-dl-in-the-funniest-way-possible/
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Marlins-rookie-pitcher-Mendez-hurt-running-bases-77399239-090610


There are a lot more, and a simple google search will make that clear.

Its a simple fact that people get better at things when they practice.
Here's a study saying that: (https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf)
Steven Wright has had almost no practice running the bases, or doing the things that baserunners are expected to do (like sliding)


Here's a study on sports injuries. It lists both skill level and infrequency of behavior as factors for sports injuries.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/37/5/384.full

Steven Wright is more likely to be injured because he's bad at running the bases, and doesn't do it often.

 

[dhappy42]

This is what I was talking about. Every example "doesn't really count" for you. While I'm confident you'll come up with some clever way...

Try writing a post without the word "you" in it.

Pitching Kimbrel for more than 1 inning in a tie game on the road against Seattle on August 4th. Very few managers do either: more than 1 inning or pitch their "closer" in ties games on the road in extra innings. Replacing Kimbrel with Barnes in the 9th on August 9th. Many (most?) managers just ride their "closer" into the sunset like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

I think bringing Kimbrel in to get four outs after Abad got in trouble qualifies as a "move." Not an especially noteworthy one, though.Taking your closer out after he's walked four batters in a row? Not at all. That's just common sense.

Are [edit] those the best tactical moves Farrell's made you can think of? Bringing in Kimbrel an out early to get out of Abad situation? And then five days later, pulling Kimbrel after he walked four straight? Managerial genius that guy, Farrell.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

I know it is anecdotal but didn't Chien-Ming Wang hurt himself running the bases and his career was pretty much ruined?

pretty famous case, I would think

AMAZING that anyone would justify pinch running Wright and be asking SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES to support their argument with numbers. Where are your numbers? Don't remember the above case?

Sometimes common sense is very lacking in this world. Have you seen Steven Wright run? Have you seen his build? Does he look like the guy you want leading off second base and then steaming for hom on a long single??WHY would you put this guy on second base? I have no way to prove this but I would think there would be a good chance he gets injured with any base running activity as has been mentioned, he hasn't done it since when, exactly? 10 YEARS ago or something like that??

 

[uncannymanny]

"High probability"? Seriously? Standing on the bases and possibly having to run to 3rd. is not like playing right field. At all. It is far closer to running off the mound to the dugout and much less intensive than fielding a ground ball, which he does literally several times every time he pitches.

Thus must be the "great discussion" P91 was talking about. Give. Me. A. Break.

 

[nothumb]

http://www.sportsgrid.com/real-sports/mlb/watch-indians-pitcher-fausto-carmona-go-to-the-dl-in-the-funniest-way-possible/
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Marlins-rookie-pitcher-Mendez-hurt-running-bases-77399239-090610


There are a lot more, and a simple google search will make that clear.

Its a simple fact that people get better at things when they practice.
Here's a study saying that: (https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf)
Steven Wright has had almost no practice running the bases, or doing the things that baserunners are expected to do (like sliding)


Here's a study on sports injuries. It lists both skill level and infrequency of behavior as factors for sports injuries.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/37/5/384.full

Steven Wright is more likely to be injured because he's bad at running the bases, and doesn't do it often.

Both of the examples you linked are of players getting injured running TO a base. I specifically said it's very rare for a pitcher to get injured diving back, and is therefore almost totally unpredictable.

Establishing a link between practicing and being good at something is irrelevant - we are not talking about skill level, only risk of injury.

And the last study you linked is about how to design a methodology for studying sports injuries. It mentions experience as a factor that has been used IN CERTAIN STUDIES, but it doesn't state that experience or skill are universally linked to risk of injury across all sports in a significant way. It repeatedly stresses the importance of using a study design that captures all relevant situational factors in the subject of interest prior to drawing conclusions, and it contains not even a single mention of baseball. This is the kind of desperate, grasping, amateurish google-fu that you would expect from a college freshman who has just been told that marijuana does not actually cure diabetes, or that there is no such thing as "reverse racism." I award you no points, and my God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

On June 15, 2008, Wang was taken out of an interleague game versus the Houston Astros due to a right foot injury he sustained while running the bases, something he was not used to doing, since pitchers do not bat in the American League. Wang was diagnosed with a torn Lisfranc ligament of the right foot and a partial tear of the peroneus longus of the right foot. Despite not requiring surgery, he was on crutches and wearing a protective boot. The cast was removed on July 29, but the extensive rehabilitation process prevented Wang from pitching for the remainder of the season.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

The whole notion of pinch running = injury risk is absolutely baffling to me. I've honestly never heard of a single player who ever got injured as a pinch runner until Wright (with the possible exception of home plate collisions, which thankfully have been basically abolished). So it's absolutely bonkers to criticize Farrell for an exceptionally tiny risk vs. the more obvious risks of Ortiz hurting himself (even further) or losing a pinch hitter that would likely be needed later.

It’s a tiny risk but why take it at all especially with your top of the rotation starter? It has happened before, as Dehab (above) has pointed out.

Letting Ortiz run is a bigger risk? I think Lively’s point is interesting on this (not to mention the excellent post by Hoodie Sleaves). Lively argues that “Ortiz has more base running experience than most guys in MLB. He might not be the fastest, but Wright is not a more talented base runner than he is.”
http://calltothepen.com/2016/08/11/boston-red-sox-john-farrell-blame-steven-wrights-injury/

As for the claim that the Red Sox should save the bench for a pinch hitter that would be needed later, Lively covered this too:

John Farrell elected to lift David Ortiz for Steven Wright when Hanley Ramirez, Sandy Leon, and Clay Buchholz were all available to run. By the time the Dodgers had won the game 8-5, Leon was still on the bench and Buchholz pitched a useless eighth inning.

The end result: Buchholz pitched a meaningless inning, Leon wasn’t used at all, and Steven Wright was on the way to the disabled list. That’s called poor managing and poor risk management.

The articles by Lively, Buchanan, and Hurley nailed the issue. I’m looking for an article that defends Farrell’s decision making in this regard, but I can’t find one. I would like to read this type of article, if someone has a link.

 

[joe dokes]

Try writing a post without the word "you" in it.


Is those the best tactical moves Farrell's made you can think of? Bringing in Kimbrel an out early to get out of Abad situation? And then five days later, pulling Kimbrel after he walked four straight? Managerial genius that guy, Farrell.

I don't know if they is the best, but they is both quite recent and didn't require looking. And they is moves that a majority of managers very often don't make.

 

[phenweigh]

Pinch running Wright was a decision that had a high probability of going badly, with a high cost if it went badly, and very little upside.

Steven Wright is more likely to be injured because he's bad at running the bases, and doesn't do it often.

There is a large difference between these two statements. I whole-heartedly agree he is more likely to be injured, but disagree that it had a high probability of going badly. My wild guess is that the probability increased from a fraction of a percent, to about 1%.