Farrell Watch

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

There's a lot of emotion here, but I've yet to see a cogent argument that Farrell shouldn't be held responsible for what actually occurred under his watch. He simply is. Whether that's "fair" or not is another issue.​

If Farrell is average, he should be jettisoned for a new average face at this point.

Exactly. The manager is not an innocent bystander! There have been a lot of arguments that it's not the manager's fault that every starting pitcher shit the bed in each of the last two postseasons, that his ace reliever suddenly got diarrhea of the ERA when it counted most, that his leadoff hitters got a total of ZERO hits in this postseason, that his entire lineup regressed offensively from last year, that his team continues to run into out after out after out on the basepaths, that his starter-turned-reliever got tired after 4 innings of work and airmailed a changeup to a RH batter when a RH reliever was available to face him and the next two RH batters (Reed).

To which I reply: Nonsense. The manager is ultimately responsible for the performance of his team. He couldn't find a way to get a single goddamn hit from his leadoff man in this series. He couldn't find a way to get a single half-decent start from his starting pitching. He couldn't find a way to get a proper pinch-hitting matchup against Devinski, to use Reed properly in the 8th yesterday with 3 RH batters due up, to even stay in either of the first two games of the series.

Farrell did not succeed at the most basic aspect of his job: putting his players in a position to succeed. His job is NOT to throw up his hands and say "Oh well." His job is to fix problems. He couldn't or wouldn't do it. For that he should pay with his job.

 

[canderson]

Shaughnessy's article in The Globe today says: "Ejected in the second inning while defending Pedroia, who argued a called third strike, Farrell continued to call the shots via satellite (Fitbit, perhaps?)

Don't know if Shaughnessy was just being cute or if this is fact but if the latter, what sense will there be in the future in ejecting the manager?

This is always the case, the manager just sits in the tunnel with the monitors and yells directives.

Unless you physically escort him to a safe room and have guards, this is never not happening in MLB. It's silly.

 

[lexrageorge]

Chris Sale's innings were not much different from his usage 2013, 2015, or 2016. The Sox were in a tight pennant race for the division. Not sure how Sale could have been managed any "better". It's easy to say now that he should have been "rested", but identifying which games ahead of time is not quite so easy (and please don't bring up the Baltimore game; that's Shank territory).

Price was managing an injury all season. That's not on Farrell; perhaps on the medical staff, but they don't report to Farrell.

EdRod also had to manage what has turned into a chronic knee injury. The team got stuck with "odd year Porcello". Porcello's peripherals were closer to his career averages, and noone, not even the coaching staff, can control his 0.324 BABIP this past season. Wright is just not that good; we need to get over this "he was great until he hurt himself pinch running" nonsense. Fister is nominally the 5/6 starter.

Kimbrel improved his walk rate considerably from his career average of 3.3/9. Not sure that can be waved away as having nothing to do with Farrell or the staff. BTW, the last time Andrew Miller pitched more than one inning was July 29th. Chapman: once on 7/27, and again on September 18th. Fernando Rodney hasn't had a multi-inning appearance all season, in case anyone is wondering if Lovullo would be any different. Ken Giles: August 31st was his last multi-inning appearance; seems pretty far away to have any impact on his current ability to record a multi-inning appearance.

Yes, Farrell has made some mistakes. So have the infallible Joe Maddon and Buck Showalter (the latter's usage of the bullpen in the 2016 play-in game was borderline fire-able offense). It's fair to expect more, and blame the manager when more doesn't happen. That's baseball in this day and age. Just don't expect any major change in pitcher usage from whomever manages the 2018 Boston Red Sox.

 

[uncannymanny]

I’m still curious about the effects of losing Tippett (analyst), Dyrek (conditioning coach), and Tewksbury (mental coach) on this season. Obviously impossible to quantify, but those seem like they could’ve been big losses.

 

[bosockboy]

My main issue is they rarely paid crisp baseball. Lots of poor fundamentals, base running, without accountability. In early August, the White Sox were in town and Benintendi, after a leadoff double, tried to take 3b on a grounder to SS. Easily gunned down, and a really embarrassing gaffe. In the dugout Farrell gave him a seemingly encouraging pat on the back. That play stood out to me out of the thousands you have in a season. That Moreland send yesterday too, just inexplicable.

They need to tighten up the fundamentals IMO and not sure Farrell is that guy.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

My main issue is they rarely paid crisp baseball. Lots of poor fundamentals, base running, without accountability. In early August, the White Sox were in town and Benintendi, after a leadoff double, tried to take 3b on a grounder to SS. Easily gunned down, and a really embarrassing gaffe. In the dugout Farrell gave him a seemingly encouraging pat on the back. That play stood out to me out of the thousands you have in a season. That Moreland send yesterday too, just inexplicable.

They need to tighten up the fundamentals IMO and not sure Farrell is that guy.

I'm as vocal as anyone here in calling for Farrell to be summarily executed, but the send yesterday didn't bother me at all. There were 2 outs, the field and ball were wet, Moreland's a decent (not great, but decent runner) and the offense had to deal with Wegner's terrible strike zone all day so it's hardly a lock they'd get a hit to drive him in. It didn't work, but in that circumstance I didn't mind the send.

 

[Cuzittt]

Winning his second straight division title (no small feat given that the Red Sox have NEVER done that before, which is hard to believe actually)

The division era started in 1969. Before that, two Red Sox managers won 2 consecutive AL Titles... Jimmy Collins (03/04) and Bill Carrigan (15/16). So... Farrell was the first Red Sox manager in 100 years to win consecutive "regular season titles".

He is also alone at the top with 3 total "regular season titles" (division or otherwise).

I'm ambivalent on managers in general. It is very difficult for any manager not to make "mistakes" that will be pounced on by fanatics. If Dombrowski feels he can get someone better... so be it.

But... no other Red Sox manager had won 3 division titles... let alone 3 in 5 seasons. So, I will be shocked if Farrell is dismissed.

 

[glennhoffmania]

My main issue is they rarely paid crisp baseball. Lots of poor fundamentals, base running, without accountability. In early August, the White Sox were in town and Benintendi, after a leadoff double, tried to take 3b on a grounder to SS. Easily gunned down, and a really embarrassing gaffe. In the dugout Farrell gave him a seemingly encouraging pat on the back. That play stood out to me out of the thousands you have in a season. That Moreland send yesterday too, just inexplicable.

They need to tighten up the fundamentals IMO and not sure Farrell is that guy.

Exactly. Some of the play we saw this year shouldn't be tolerated at pretty much any level above little league, and yet it kept happening. We can get rid of all of the players who did stupid shit, or we can get a new boss who makes them stop doing stupid shit. I think that choice is pretty easy.

Also let's take the 15-3 extra innings record and adjust it to something reasonable like 10-8. I don't think Farrell has any special skills that make him a better extra innings manager than anyone else so I see this year as a lucky fluke similar to the Orioles' ridiculous record in one run games a couple of years ago. Now this becomes an 88 win wild card team. If that was the case does that make it more acceptable to fire Farrell?

 

[judyb]

From August 1, Sale started 5 games on 4 days rest, 5 games on 5 days rest, 1 game on 6 days rest, and his playoff start on 8 days rest. So, I don't see how they weren't trying to give him some extra days off.

 

[Rovin Romine]

(snip) I just pulled a name out of the hat - Dwight Evans. Nearly hall of fame career. Here is his ops+ numbers over his first 10 full seasons(snip)

Not so good an example for your point. Dewey had the physical skills but didn't deliver at the plate until he changed his approach under Hriniak. He was also recurrently injured.

Also, I'm not saying that Farrell and Co. are the only factors in a young player's success, but coaching and managing are factors.

As we headed down the stretch, you tell me where they should have given Sale a couple of extra days off, and how you know that those couple of extra days would have made him pitch better in the ALCS.

I could probably go through the archives and search for "players have to execute" and "JF couldn't have known" and "WTF is JF doing" and come up with a handful of games wherein our players could have been put into a better position to win. Leading to a better W-L, leading to more flexibility in resting Sale.

(Honestly, arguing for JF's in game skills is like arguing HRam should play LF because there are no clear examples of games that were lost solely due to his playing LF. "We all know he makes gaffes, but. . .")

Yes, well of course he should be held responsible, being the manager. But that also means being held responsible for the SUCCESS too. Winning his second straight division title (no small feat given that the Red Sox have NEVER done that before, which is hard to believe actually), and losing to a superior team while several of his key guys are playing hurt (Pedroia, Betts, Bogaerts, and Nunez completely out) isn't really an unsuccessful season.

I don't disagree that they were, by that measure, successful. However we're talking about JF and Co.'s ability to get the best results out of the available talent, which is far different than just noting results and assuming those results come from some kind of optimal performance.

I don't think anyone who watched the season thinks that the Sox played smart, sound, maximal baseball all season long. While that's aspirational, I don't think Farrell shot closer to the mark than the average manager would have.

 

[BaseballJones]

Not so good an example for your point. Dewey had the physical skills but didn't deliver at the plate until he changed his approach under Hriniak.

Sure he delivered. 120 and 128 ops+ numbers are excellent. His trajectory is typical, and most players go through a few hitting coaches along the way. Good players improve, but it's not usually a constant improvement. It's more like the stock market - up and down, but the larger trend is up.

Also, I'm not saying that Farrell and Co. are only factors in a young player's success, but coaching and managing are factors.

I could probably go through the archives and search for "players have to execute" and "JF couldn't have known" and "WTF is JF doing" and come up with a handful of games wherein our players could have been put into a better position to win. Leading to a better W-L, leading to more flexibility in resting Sale.

(Honestly, arguing for JF's in game skills is like arguing HRam should play LF because there are no clear examples of games that were lost solely due to his playing LF. "We all know he makes gaffes, but. . .")

Yeah, and part of the problem is: What does it mean to put a player in a position to succeed? Let's say you've got a situation where you could have player A up or player B. Player A has a better ops against this pitcher, but he's been in a bit of a slump. Player B has a lower ops against this pitcher but has been on fire.

Which is the right call? In which situation is the player being put in a position to succeed? You put player A in there saying, well, this will be good to snap him out of his slump, since he has a good ops against this pitcher. Maybe it works because he's good against this guy. Maybe it doesn't because he's in a slump.

You put player B in there saying, well, he's not good against this guy but he's on fire, and maybe that will build his confidence if he can hit this guy. Maybe it works because he's on fire lately. Maybe it doesn't because he doesn't hit this guy well.

How do we know what the "right" play is? How do we know which situation is "putting a player in a position to succeed"? And sometimes the "right" play still yields bad results. The "right" guy up there smokes one to third base, and he throws across the diamond for a double play (that NEVER happens, does it?). Sometimes the "wrong" play still yields good results. The "wrong" guy up there hits a soft blooper that somehow falls in for the game-winning hit. It's baseball.

I don't disagree that they were, by that measure, successful. However we're talking about JF and Co.'s ability to get the best results out of the available talent, which is far different than just noting results and assuming those results come from some kind of optimal performance.

Well, given the injuries, wasn't this a pretty successful season given the talent?

I don't think anyone who watched the season thinks that the Sox played smart, sound, maximal baseball all season long. While that's aspirational, I don't think Farrell shot closer to the mark than the average manager would have.

You may be right. It's hard to tell. The end result was pretty good. 93 wins, a second division title, with so much going wrong. But maybe this team still should have done more. I don't know.

 

[lexrageorge]

My main issue is they rarely paid crisp baseball. Lots of poor fundamentals, base running, without accountability. In early August, the White Sox were in town and Benintendi, after a leadoff double, tried to take 3b on a grounder to SS. Easily gunned down, and a really embarrassing gaffe. In the dugout Farrell gave him a seemingly encouraging pat on the back. That play stood out to me out of the thousands you have in a season. That Moreland send yesterday too, just inexplicable.

They need to tighten up the fundamentals IMO and not sure Farrell is that guy.

Their record indicates otherwise. But, I don't mind Farrell giving a young player like Benintendi a pat in the back right after a base running gaffe. Baseball is not football, and showing a young player some encouragement says "We both realize you made a mistake. But I'll have your back, as I'm confident you'll learn from this and move on.".

I'd much rather the pat on the back than Farrell screaming at Benintendi and showing him up in front of his teammates and the Fenway fans. It wasn't that long ago we had a manager that did just that, and completely lost the clubhouse as a direct result.

 

[drbretto]

I'm not a Farrell fan, but he's got us 2 straight division titles. Would another manager gotten us further either year? Doubtful. Sometimes its better to stick with the devil you know then the devil you don't.

I just can't respect this. If you have a reason you think Farrell shouldn't be replaced, by all means, make that case. But just about every single player underperformed this season. That, at a minimum, means you need to take a good look at the manager's performance, regardless of what you conclude. Sticking with the devil you know at this point is probably the only truly wrong answer.

Farrell did not succeed at the most basic aspect of his job: putting his players in a position to succeed. His job is NOT to throw up his hands and say "Oh well." His job is to fix problems. He couldn't or wouldn't do it. For that he should pay with his job.

And this is the point where I officially hopped onto the Fire Farrell train. When the team was being criticized for the poor baserunning decisions, all he did was throw his hands up in the air and say "oh well, that happens when you're aggressive". Which is true, but doesn't address the issue of situational awareness issue at all. He didn't understand the problem and deflected it.

Which is a great quality for a manager on a team full of veterans that just don't need the distractions from some pot-stirring media members. But, that's not what they need right now. They have a lot of young players making a lot of dumb baseball mistakes, which is totally normal, but they need someone in there that can actually teach them how to become complete players while they're still malleable.

 

[uncannymanny]

Exactly. Some of the play we saw this year shouldn't be tolerated at pretty much any level above little league, and yet it kept happening. We can get rid of all of the players who did stupid shit, or we can get a new boss who makes them stop doing stupid shit. I think that choice is pretty easy.

Also let's take the 15-3 extra innings record and adjust it to something reasonable like 10-8. I don't think Farrell has any special skills that make him a better extra innings manager than anyone else so I see this year as a lucky fluke similar to the Orioles' ridiculous record in one run games a couple of years ago. Now this becomes an 88 win wild card team. If that was the case does that make it more acceptable to fire Farrell?

If you take away all his positive work and call it a fluke? Ok...

I took away 7 of Devers’ HR, the fluky ones and the ones any JAG would’ve hit. We should sell high on this guy before he regresses to his true .670 talent level.

 

[curly2]

The team got stuck with "odd year Porcello". Porcello's peripherals were closer to his career averages, and noone, not even the coaching staff, can control his 0.324 BABIP this past season.

BABIP can be a fluky stat, but I think Porcello's was high this year because people were hitting rockets off him a lot of the time. When Farrell was hired, people said that while he wasn't known as a great strategist, his past as pitching coach would help immensely, giving the team basically two pitching coaches. But he and Willis had a full year to either help Porcello rediscover his sinker or figure out a better way to pitch without it, and they did neither.

The night at Yankee Stadium where he didn't know the rules was embarrassing, but to me his biggest blunder this year was handling Bogaerts' injury. After he was hit on the hand and had to come out the Thursday before the break, Farrell had the perfect opportunity to say, "Do nothing for a week. Let it heal." He could have gotten a week to heal with four of those days being off-days. Instead he plays him hurt for two games before the break and the Sox lose anyway.

Bogaerts became a black hole at the plate because he was playing hurt. If they had gotten ANYTHING at the plate from Bogaerts in July and August, maybe they clinch early and have time to better prepare for the playoffs. But Bogey was put into the lineup hurt* because Farrell wouldn't play Deven Marrero for two games, the same Deven Marrero he started over Devers in a playoff game.

* I'm sure Bogaerts told Farrell he could play, because that's what ballplayers do, but that's where the manager needs to BE the manager and manage the team for the long run.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

Price was managing an injury all season. That's not on Farrell; perhaps on the medical staff, but they don't report to Farrell. .

The medical staff absolutely reports to the manager. This statement is ridiculous.

 

[lexrageorge]

T

The medical staff absolutely reports to the manager. This statement is ridiculous.

The medical and training staff are hired by the organization, not Farrell. Your objection was ridiculous.

 

[MuzzyField]

Aren't the players hired by the organization, too?

 

[EricFeczko]

I'm interested in what you mean by this. Lindor played in 159 games this year, Encarnacion 157, Santana 154, and Ramirez 152. Betts led the Sox with 153.

Sure, different players operate differently. In looking at how Farrell handled the position players, particularly the B's, its clear he handled them very differently. Benintendi was given regular days off throughout the year. Betts didn't take a day off until July. Xander was given a couple of days off, and then more rest after getting hit on the hand.

Oddly, many position players collapsed right around the same time (around mid-late july, which persisted through august), while many of the starters showed a september collapse.

It is probably just coincidence, but I'd be interested in the impact of managing on the timecourse of a player observed performance. On face value, it would appear that managers could be useful in helping facilitate adjustments, while trainers/medical staff may mitigate inury. I'm not so sure the fluctuations in a players observed performance are random, and to me, this is an interesting area to examine.

I don't think this means, "Fire Farrell". Rather if I'm DD, I would be interested in talking with Farrell to see how to improve player management. Given the past two quick exits may be related to player trajectory, as opposed to some static talent level, this would be an interesting place to start.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

How about the times he didn't know the rules of the game?

I can recall one incident in which he tried to make a pitching change when he couldn't. What other incidents are you referring to?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Anyone that says well no one could guide this team to two division titles and that’s the reason Manager John should stay Manager John really needs to think about a few things.

1) Did John Farrell put his team in situations to succeed?
2) Did John Farrell fix problems in the clubhouse or mechanical issues with players?
3) Did John Farrell actually start a .200 hitter in the playoffs over a player who raked the ball in admittingly a small sample size vs LHP?
4) Did John Farrell keep Chris Sale in too long? Especially given the fact he looked gassed coming out the inning before Bregman homered?

A lot of these are rhetorical. Farrell made a lot of mistakes. From not knowing the proper protocol to bring in a reliever on national tv to his management on the biggest stage with game 2 and maybe game 4 with staying with Sale too long to stubbornly continuing to use Matt freaking Barnes on the road in pressure situations. Allowing Xander to play every single day when he was clearly hurt and struggling.

All of this could be forgiven if the club house wasn’t an absolute shit show. You had Price screaming at reporters. Pedroia speaking out. I’d argue that this club house was at the very least almost as bad as the chicken and beer one.

Is John Farrell the only manager to win back to back AL East titles in Sox history? Yes. Is he the only manager in history with back to back division titles? No. Let’s stop treating two AL East titles as this massive achievement with a 200 million dollar payroll. That’s the absolute minimum for him in regards to expectations.

The manager it seems lost the clubhouse and when that happens he needs to go. I get that people here really like him and maybe he is a decent manager but his time should be up. This is the same type of stuff we just went through as Bruins fans with Julien.

 

[Sprowl]

Some pro-Farrell observations:

Winning 93 games with a power-starved lineup: If any of the brain trust is to be blamed for the power outage, it would have to be the hitting coach Davis and/or Dombrowski, who composed the roster. Perhaps Farrell should have known to give Bogaerts an extended DL stint to recover better from his wrist injury, but that blame (if blame there must be) would more likely belong to the medical staff.

Getting the best out of a motley crew of relievers: ERA-FIP data suggest that Hembree, Abad, Reed, Kelly, Workman and Scott each outperformed their peripherals, and that only Barnes and Boyer underperformed. Credit for that goes to the manager for putting his relievers in a position to succeed.

Winning in extra innings reflects well on roster management.

He kept the peace in the clubhouse (with the exceptions of the Machado-Pedroia injury and the Price-Eck snarl-off). This is no small achievement for a club still remembered for 25 men, 25 cabs; the petty intrigues in the court of Bobby the Fifth; and the poisonous Boston media. Red Sox chemistry ends up toxic more often than most clubs, and Farrell avoided that successfully. Don't take that for granted.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

All of this could be forgiven if the club house wasn’t an absolute shit show. You had Price screaming at reporters. Pedroia speaking out. I’d argue that this club house was at the very least almost as bad as the chicken and beer one.

Every report that includes input from actual players describes a clubhouse that was united and where the guys got along great. Every. Single. One. The only ones to the contrary were pure conjecture based entirely on external perceptions.

A clubhouse that isn't getting along with the media or broadcasters is not automatically a bad clubhouse. The actual information we have suggests the clubhouse itself was actually great. You might not like Price for the Eck situation, but his teammates apparently loved him. But keep projecting...

Is John Farrell the only manager to win back to back AL East titles in Sox history? Yes. Is he the only manager in history with back to back division titles? No. Let’s stop treating two AL East titles as this massive achievement with a 200 million dollar payroll. That’s the absolute minimum for him in regards to expectations.

This is absolutely preposterous. The lengths people will go to strip Farrell of his successes in order to cast him as a bad manager are hilarious. This one is new at least, though, so bravo for some originality I guess.

 

[Sprowl]

All of this could be forgiven if the club house wasn’t an absolute shit show. You had Price screaming at reporters. Pedroia speaking out. I’d argue that this club house was at the very least almost as bad as the chicken and beer one.
...
The manager it seems lost the clubhouse and when that happens he needs to go. I get that people here really like him and maybe he is a decent manager but his time should be up.

I challenge you to justify that statement. I think this club was noteworthy for a lack of clubhouse rivalries, backbiting, anonymous leaks and other staples of Red Sox clubs past.

Price thought he was defending Edro. Price and Eck both said their piece and moved on.

Pedroia undercut his manager after Farrell tried to retaliate for Machado's reckless slide (which did in fact destroy Pedroia's effectiveness for most of the season). Farrell and Pedroia both moved on.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

T

The medical and training staff are hired by the organization, not Farrell. Your objection was ridiculous.

Sorry for the snark. I get what you're saying: Farrell is not a doctor and does not diagnose, but I have to think the staff takes whatever information they have to JF and they collectively made a decision, especially in borderline cases. Do you honestly think Farrell had no say in putting Nunez back into the lineup (which was botched horribly)? The use of Pedroia (knee), Price (elbow), and late season Sale (fatigue) and Mookie (wrist)?

Maybe we're getting lost in the semantics about what "report to" means. Don't really want to get into a big thing about it. And yeah, the team hires the medical staff, but in terms of actual day-to-day execution of their jobs, they must have a lot of interaction with the manger. When I think "manager" I think of a person who is "managing" most, if not all, the day-to-day aspects of a club. Unless they're reporting to DD, the general manager.

Edit: For the record, I'm agnostic on Farrell.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I can recall one incident in which he tried to make a pitching change when he couldn't. What other incidents are you referring to?

How about when he sent Young to the plate, even though he had been removed from the lineup against the Orioles?

 

[ehaz]

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/23125/more-brushfires-for-john-farrell

Not quite chicken and beer, but we all know how Farrell's last tenure ended.

According to Toronto Sun columnist Steve Simmons, Vizquel said the team allowed its young players to repeatedly make the same mistakes without being held accountable.

"It's part of the inexperience," Vizquel said. "If you make mistakes and nobody says anything about it -- they just let it go -- we're going to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We have to stand up and say something right after that mistake happened. We have to talk about it at meetings. We have to address it in a big way in the clubhouse.

"Sometimes you have to punish players because they're making the same mistakes over and over again."

Vizquel never criticized Farrell by name, and cited the team's need for more veteran leadership. But he did admonish the staff.

"I think the coaching staff has a big responsibility to kind of get in there and tie things up a little, have a bit more communication with their players and try to make this thing happen the right way," he said.

"Look, I think a lot of mistakes were let go because it's young guys. You expect mistakes from young guys. It needs to be talked about. It shouldn't just be let go and say, 'Ah, we have another day.' You have to get on it. You have to say, 'I didn't like that play' and let's try and do something different. You have to talk it over and over again and how do you call it, be on top of that."

Farrell did not let Vizquel's remarks go unchallenged. The club held a closed-door meeting Friday, in which Vizquel apologized for his remarks.

Former Blue Jay Gregg Zaun, now a TV analyst, also took a shot recently at the Jays' ways.

"The atmosphere in this clubhouse and in this organization is consequence-free," Zaun said.

 

[uncannymanny]

Anyone that says well no one could guide this team to two division titles and that’s the reason Manager John should stay Manager John really needs to think about a few things.

Who said this, ever? The straw man arguments are really out of hand. I’m not even sure anyone here WANTS him to stay that badly much less this nonsense. Dude, we get it you don’t like Farrell. You polluted every thread all season with it.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Exactly. The manager is not an innocent bystander! There have been a lot of arguments that it's not the manager's fault that every starting pitcher shit the bed in each of the last two postseasons, that his ace reliever suddenly got diarrhea of the ERA when it counted most, that his leadoff hitters got a total of ZERO hits in this postseason, that his entire lineup regressed offensively from last year, that his team continues to run into out after out after out on the basepaths, that his starter-turned-reliever got tired after 4 innings of work and airmailed a changeup to a RH batter when a RH reliever was available to face him and the next two RH batters (Reed).

I think this is the nub of much of the debate on SOSH. The effect of the manager on some of this stuff is very hard to identify and difficult to understand. I'm personally skeptical that the manager has that much of an effect on these things, but probably some. I just don't know and I don't know how to answer the question. What I see, when looking at the forest not the trees, for the 2017 Boston Red Sox team is one that had no business being with the other 9 in terms of the type of offensive lineup that is well constructed to grind out the majority of wins in a 5 or 7 game series.

I see a team that really had no business holding off the Yankees and getting to 93 wins with the kind of offense that they had. And I don't understand why Farrell doesn't get any credit for what enabled them to do it despite horrible power, and one of the lowest OPS and OPS+ in baseball and the worst of any of the playoff teams by a wide margin. He must be good at some of these squishy factors. Maybe the frustrating outs on the basebapths were part of an overall strategy that actually was a net positive and helped them eek out a win or two. Maybe the bullpen and starting pitching management that everyone always wanted to question in hindsight actually was pretty well handled.

The manager is not an innocent bystander, but it seems that fact is pretty much always used as a ratchet that only operates one direction when it comes to John Farrell.

I ask myself why. I think the answer is that we watch 162 games. Great baseball teams lose at least 60 of them, and baseball is the kind of sport where when you do, there's always something to blame. Fans often resort to the refs or the umps. We seem to resort to Farrell hate. Some of it is so absurd that it's not even worth taking seriously. "Everyone knows Barnes sucks on the road." "Everyone knows Kimbrel sucks in non-save opportunities." "He was obviously tiring." Etc. Whenever I watch pretty much any game these days in any sport that doesn't involve Bill Belichick, I find things to be critical of the manager about. Joe Maddon, Joe Girardi, Buck Showalter, even Saint Tito. And I watch like 5 games a year from those guys.

My theory is that we watch 162 games from Farrell, we blame him when we lose, and it leads to this perception that we then use for confirmation bias on very squishy factors that we can't articulate all that well.

To be very clear, I am guilty of the same. I have a strong suspicion he has weaknesses, and that it might be time to take a chance on someone else and see what happens. But I also feel very strongly that is a very big gamble, and is much more likely to go wrong than go right. Maybe the Yankees are going to be so good in the next few years that it's time to gamble. But that's what it is.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I challenge you to justify that statement. I think this club was noteworthy for a lack of clubhouse rivalries, backbiting, anonymous leaks and other staples of Red Sox clubs past.

Price thought he was defending Edro. Price and Eck both said their piece and moved on.

Pedroia undercut his manager after Farrell tried to retaliate for Machado's reckless slide (which did in fact destroy Pedroia's effectiveness for most of the season). Farrell and Pedroia both moved on.

You just justified it. Pedroia speaking out. Price speaking out. The chicken and beer clubhouse was United as well. They all liked drinking eating Popeyes and playing video games. Farrell wasn’t able to reign anyone in. Never punished anyone. The inmates loved being in that asylum. Why would anyone be mad about a consequence free environment? Joe Torre and Tito always said managing personalities was the biggest job of a manager. Farrell failed to do so.

Sox could theoretically keep him Willis Davis etc and go for an unpresidented 3rd straight AL East title! But that’s all you should expect because it’s going to be the SOS in the playoffs. Overmatched manager that doesn’t know what to do with the players he has.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Who said this, ever? The straw man arguments are really out of hand. I’m not even sure anyone here WANTS him to stay that badly much less this nonsense. Dude, we get it you don’t like Farrell. You polluted every thread all season with it.

You weren’t on the game thread all that much I take it. A few posters mentioned this.

It’s also not about not liking the guy. I’m sure he’s a good guy and he deserves all the credit in the world for fighting cancer etc...but it’s about opening your eyes and seeing that this team cannot go any further with Farrell.

 

[Marbleheader]

The argument that the manager doesn't matter that much is not a reason to keep Farrell around. Managing and coaching do matter and It's time for him to go. My guess is he gets kicked upstairs to a front office role.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Is John Farrell the only manager to win back to back AL East titles in Sox history? Yes. Is he the only manager in history with back to back division titles? No. Let’s stop treating two AL East titles as this massive achievement with a 200 million dollar payroll. That’s the absolute minimum for him in regards to expectations.

He plays in a division with some other big spending clubs.

And, though this isn't my argument, I think the basic argument is not just winning back to back division titles, but the fact that he has been with the club 5 years, won 3 division titles, and a world series.

I know that people have all sorts of answers to that. I don't even disagree with much of what they say. But I'd hope we all can at least start with the premise that when a manager wins 3 of 5 division titles in the AL East and a championship, the burden is on those opposing them to start the discussion why he should be fired with some pretty compelling stuff.

 

[tims4wins]

The argument that the manager doesn't matter that much is not a reason to keep Farrell around. Managing and coaching do matter and It's time for him to go. My guess is he gets kicked upstairs to a front office role.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The argument that the manager doesn't matter that much is not a reason to keep Farrell around. Managing and coaching do matter and It's time for him to go. My guess is he gets kicked upstairs to a front office role.

I think it's asking too much to expect anyone to have a reasonable or rigorous discussion around (paraphrasing) "it's time for him to go" the day after the season ends.

There's just so little rigor to this discussion. It doesn't seem to have any rules other than emotion. Maybe I'm trying to over-lawyer an emotional decision.

But at least let me try to start the discussion this way. Let's take your first sentence. Is there even an agreement on SOSH about which side of the debate bears the burden of persuasion? You seem to suggest it's on those who want to keep him, which strikes me as exactly backwards. It strikes me as obviously so. The burden seems to rest on those who want to get rid of someone who has had success in a tough city in a tough division. Or is the argument really as simple as "any year we don't win the world series, the discussion needs to begin with those who wish to keep the manager"?

 

[glennhoffmania]

If you take away all his positive work and call it a fluke? Ok...

I took away 7 of Devers’ HR, the fluky ones and the ones any JAG would’ve hit. We should sell high on this guy before he regresses to his true .670 talent level.

Perhaps you can point out what special skill Farrell has that applies to extra inning games that would account for the historical .833 winning percentage instead of bringing up a totally irrelevant issue that's really nothing but snark. All I did was apply their overall winning percentage to those 18 games and recalculate. But please, tell us all what you know about Farrell's unique talent and why they instead only went 7-7 in 2015 and 7-4 in 2016.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

He plays in a division with some other big spending clubs.

And, though this isn't my argument, I think the basic argument is not just winning back to back division titles, but the fact that he has been with the club 5 years, won 3 division titles, and a world series.

I know that people have all sorts of answers to that. I don't even disagree with much of what they say. But I'd hope we all can at least start with the premise that when a manager wins 3 of 5 division titles in the AL East and a championship, the burden is on those opposing them to start the discussion why he should be fired with some pretty compelling stuff.

I understand that he’s in a division with big spenders. You’ve also seen the last two years of the Yankees and somewhat Jays/Orioles going through rebuilds. The Yankees weren’t supposed to be a threat. The Jays lost Price and EE. The orioles never had pitching and the Rays fell apart once Maddon left. None of those 4 teams have loaded up more than the Boston Red Sox. Expectations were very high and ultimately it’s up to the manager to prep his team to meet those expectations. You have a GM who has drained his entire farm system to win a title and the best this team can manage is 1st in the division. With the payroll the way it is the expectation is to improve every year. Not get bounced in the ALDS in consecutive years. At least this year they fought after game 2.

So we’re left wondering when is it okay to finally make a change? Even if Farrell stays somehow can anyone on here with a straight face justify keeping anyone other than maybe say Butterfield in a different role on this staff? A team that has a young core like the Sox shouldn’t feel like they’ve peaked. Feels very Bruins/Julien like from a few years ago after they traded Seguin.

 

[Traut]

The argument that the manager doesn't matter that much is not a reason to keep Farrell around. Managing and coaching do matter and It's time for him to go. My guess is he gets kicked upstairs to a front office role.

How can anyone on this site argue managers don't matter?

538 suggests managers are worth +2 to -2 in WAR. I have read elsewhere as much a 3. In 2015, I WAR was worth 7.7 million. A 4 game swing is worth 30.8 million in WAR in 2015 dollars.

Managers matter. Though figuring which manager is worth +2 and which is worth -2 in any given season is a tough call.

 

[uncannymanny]

Perhaps you can point out what special skill Farrell has that applies to extra inning games that would account for the historical .833 winning percentage instead of bringing up a totally irrelevant issue that's really nothing but snark. All I did was apply their overall winning percentage to those 18 games and recalculate. But please, tell us all what you know about Farrell's unique talent and why they instead only went 7-7 in 2015 and 7-4 in 2016.

Cherry picking results is no good now?im sure you also did this for the games they lost by small margins, right?

 

[TheoShmeo]

I would fire Farrell.

One, I suspect that he is not as good as he is reputed to be in the clubhouse. Things like the Eck-Price incident, Pedey mouthing "it's not me, it's them" and the Apple watches incident when he was supposedly not in the loop all speak to a team that he does not have adequate control of.

Two, that team made a lot of mental mistakes over the course of the season. The excessive outs on the basepaths is an obvious example and while I get that Butterfield bears the responsibility for sends at home base, the base running gaffes were all over the diamond.

Three, I don't think he's good enough at Xs and Os. There are so many examples and I wish I had kept a running list. In the last series, benching Devers for game two seems like a panic move and I hated it from the get go. I was hoping they would start Nunez but I'd like to think that if I was in JF's shoes and had all the information he had, that I would not have made that mistake. If we assume that Farrell was pushing the buttons from the dugout yesterday, sending Sale out for the 8th was dangerous and as Lou Merloni (and others) pointed out, Sale was missing his spots in the 7th by a good amount.

Four, that the team seemed to have more life and play better under Lovullo is hard to ignore.

Five, 1-6 in the last two ALDS is pretty bad. Of course, it's not all on the manager but if we are going to credit him for two AL East titles and a WS, we have to also allow him to be blamed for his record in consecutive ALDS.

Six, my sense is that this young team would do well with a young, innovative baseball mind. Alex Cora is the hot choice but at the risk of following the crowd, I think he would play better with this group of players than Farrell, and do better on Xs and Os. I used the word "think" rather than "know," but that is my gut.

Those who point out that they won a WS and consecutive AL East titles under JF of course have a point. Then again, they are also ignoring two last place finishes or at minimum, discounting them. Also on the keep Farrell side is that the problems with this team run beyond the manager. That his starters so shit the bed in the last two ALDS is something those hurlers own. And the GM could have done better. So could have the young core, as is well known.

In the end, the negatives win out in my eyes, and while I truly hate quoting Tony Mazz for anything, his point that it's really down to firing JF or extending him (so as to avoid lame duck status in 2018) resonates with me, and I would easily choose the former.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

How can anyone on this site argue managers don't matter?

View attachment 17876

And this guy:

Apparently it’s different because Grady and Tito never won back to back AL East titles. I’m not sure. But I’m pretty sure we saw a mini Gump moment yesterday with leaving a gassed Sale in the game to face a guy who owned him game 1 and hits lefties fairly well. Not being talked about nearly enough because Kimbrel proceeds to come in a tie game and throws up over himself.

 

[drbretto]

Or is the argument really as simple as "any year we don't win the world series, the discussion needs to begin with those who wish to keep the manager"?

This keeps coming up, but absolutely no one is saying that at all.

This didn't just come up. It's been talked about all season long, and last season as well. The season being over is just the prompt to finally have the conversation, and there are a TON of great points in these threads that I swear some people are skipping right over.

This isn't an emotional reaction. This has been brewing for a long time.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

How about when he sent Young to the plate, even though he had been removed from the lineup against the Orioles?

You mean the move no one in the entire stadium noticed? And that wasn't forgetting the rules. It was either forgetting who had played already in a long extra innings game, or an attempt to sneak him in again hoping no one would notice.

Was there really any indication that Farrell didn't know you couldn't put a player back into a game after he's been removed from the lineup?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

You mean the move no one in the entire stadium noticed? And that wasn't forgetting the rules. It was either forgetting who had played already in a long extra innings game, or an attempt to sneak him in again hoping no one would notice.

Was there really any indication that Farrell didn't know you couldn't put a player back into a game after he's been removed from the lineup?

It wasn't a long extra inning game, they were losing by 13 runs and whether you believe it or not, Showalter said after that he noticed but the game was out of hand and he didn't say anything.

Are you honestly suggesting he was somehow trying to be strategic? If you want to argue that he "forgot", how is that any better, that neither he nor anyone on his coaching staff had a red flag go up?

 

[timlinin8th]

You mean the move no one in the entire stadium noticed? And that wasn't forgetting the rules. It was either forgetting who had played already in a long extra innings game, or an attempt to sneak him in again hoping no one would notice.

Except it wasnt an extra inning game, it was a nine inning blowout and he had literally just removed CY from the game at the top of the inning so Mitch Moreland could pitch.

 

[Sprowl]

You just justified it. Pedroia speaking out. Price speaking out. The chicken and beer clubhouse was United as well. They all liked drinking eating Popeyes and playing video games. Farrell wasn’t able to reign anyone in. Never punished anyone. The inmates loved being in that asylum. Why would anyone be mad about a consequence free environment? Joe Torre and Tito always said managing personalities was the biggest job of a manager. Farrell failed to do so.

Bullshit. Whom should Farrell have reined in? What personalities did Farrell fail to manage? Two veterans with opinions said their pieces once, and if there was more dirty laundry, we didn't hear about it -- which is the way it should be. If punishment is to be doled out, people outside the clubhouse should never hear about it. You seem to want some medieval morality tale in which The Jaw smacks down his subordinates and makes them into public scapegoats. Leave that kind of mismanagement to Trump.

Tito failed at managing the chicken-and-beer fiasco, as he acknowledged at the end. Farrell wasn't around for that failure. I can see blaming Farrell for some lineup decision hunches, some early failures from May and June to recognize bullpen roles, and for being behind the curve in anticipating late-game matchups. But the attempt to cast him as an enfeebled klutz is more Tyrone fiction.

This 2017 Red Sox kept it together, beat the bad teams they were supposed to beat, got hot enough and won enough close games to win the division race.

 

[soxfan121]

the same Deven Marrero he started over Devers in a playoff game.

This. I would have fired him before the game. There is no baseball argument in existence where Marrero should have started over Devers in a playoff game.

Put aside everything else, all the other noise. Does ANYONE think Deven Marrero should be starting a playoff game where there is a viable alternative?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Look, Farrell doesn’t get as much credit for the pitching because he’s not beginning with a tabula rasa.

Sale: 4, 4, 3, 5, 6
Price: -, 2, 6 -, 1
Porc: 1, -, -, -, -
Kimb: -, -, 9, 6, 5

These are the placing finishes in CY voting of the top 4 pitchers on the staff. So the 2017 Red Sox staff was stocked with at least 2 of the top-6 CY candidates in each of the previous five years running.

It would be harder to make the pitching not succeed, given the track record of consistent excellence.

 

[BaseballJones]

Perhaps you can point out what special skill Farrell has that applies to extra inning games that would account for the historical .833 winning percentage instead of bringing up a totally irrelevant issue that's really nothing but snark. All I did was apply their overall winning percentage to those 18 games and recalculate. But please, tell us all what you know about Farrell's unique talent and why they instead only went 7-7 in 2015 and 7-4 in 2016.

That's a great point.

On the flip side, what unique "talent" does Farrell have that caused these ops+ numbers this year:

Pedroia: 101
Bogaerts: 95
Bradley: 89
Betts: 108
Hanley: 95
Leon: 68

And what unique "talent" does Farrell have that cause those same guys to have these ops+ numbers the year before:

Pedroia: 117
Bogaerts: 111
Bradley: 118
Betts: 133
Hanley: 126
Leon: 122

Or could these performances be due to things other than Farrell's unique "talent", whatever that is?

This. I would have fired him before the game. There is no baseball argument in existence where Marrero should have started over Devers in a playoff game.

Put aside everything else, all the other noise. Does ANYONE think Deven Marrero should be starting a playoff game where there is a viable alternative?

I agree that this move was just mind-boggling in every way. No defense for it that I can find. Unless Devers was vomiting before the game and Farrell just didn't want to tell anyone.

 

[lexrageorge]

Sorry for the snark. I get what you're saying: Farrell is not a doctor and does not diagnose, but I have to think the staff takes whatever information they have to JF and they collectively made a decision, especially in borderline cases. Do you honestly think Farrell had no say in putting Nunez back into the lineup (which was botched horribly)? The use of Pedroia (knee), Price (elbow), and late season Sale (fatigue) and Mookie (wrist)?

Maybe we're getting lost in the semantics about what "report to" means. Don't really want to get into a big thing about it. And yeah, the team hires the medical staff, but in terms of actual day-to-day execution of their jobs, they must have a lot of interaction with the manger. When I think "manager" I think of a person who is "managing" most, if not all, the day-to-day aspects of a club. Unless they're reporting to DD, the general manager.

Edit: For the record, I'm agnostic on Farrell.

My apologies for the snark as well. I'll expand on my intended point a bit. The medical and training staff are a separate tree of the organization from the manager and coaching staff. Hypothetically, if the manager feels the training staff is totally incompetent or insubordinate, there is nothing he can do about it, nor would it be reasonable to hold the manager accountable for the failures of the medical/training staff. It is very fair to hold the manager accountable for the performance of the hitting, pitching and 1B/3B coaches, however.

Of course, in real life, it is incumbent upon the manager to establish a working relationship with the medical staff, and also to use their input when deciding who should play where and when. As for the Nunez situation, I will add, that these game time decisions are not always so black and white. Medical information can have a lot of uncertainty around it. If the medical staff told Farrell that they think there's a 10% chance of Nunez re-injuring his knee, and Farrell takes the risk and plays Nunez, it would be difficult to fault the manager in that situation. It was, after all, a playoff game. It may not even be the fault of the medical staff; 10% risk of injury does mean an injury will happen 1 out of 10 times; the fact that it happened doesn't mean they were wrong. Of course, we don't know what information was provided to Farrell about Nunez, nor are we likely to ever know, nor should we. It was probably a lot less definitive and precise than my hypothetical example.

I don't fault Farrell at all for Price's usage. Price clearly had (has) a difficult to diagnose problem, one that by nature has a ton of uncertainty around it. I would expect that the timing of bullpen sessions, simulated games, rehab starts, etc. is very much determined by the training staff. Price was getting into a nice groove in July for 5 straight starts, including a nice shutout of the Yankees at Fenway, until he felt discomfort in Anaheim. I don't think there's any manager or managerial candidate that would have used Price any differently.