Farrell Watch

[Snodgrass'Muff]

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.

Sorry, I probably recalled it that way because a 16-3 drumming feels like eternity.

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?

I'm not suggesting anything specific, just pointing out that the reason was almost certainly not that Farrell did not know he couldn't sub a player back in once they had been removed from the lineup.

And if you are trying to support the claim that there were multiple incidents of him forgetting the rules, that's an important distinction. You've provided one example where he either forgot or didn't understand one rule. I'm still waiting for a second. This doesn't qualify or you'd certainly have seen an attempt to do it at some point earlier than August 26th in his 5th season in Boston and 7th as a manager overall.

If you want to argue he should be fired, try doing it without hyperbole.

 

[czar]

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.

The irony here being that Paine used pythag to estimate manager WAR.* By 1st order Pythag Farrell was dead on this year and by 2nd/3rd order he provided positive WAR (~5-6 actual wins above projected).

So if you want to cite that study as "managers matter" you essentially say "managers matter and JF stole wins in 2017 relative to the underlying stats."

*he ascribed 50% of pythag over/underperformance in games/162 to the manager over a certain sample size, IIRC.

 

[glennhoffmania]

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?

True. I can't answer the question about the drop in OPS+ and it's not fair to pin it all on Farrell. As for the extra innings issue, the only point I was trying to make, which for some reason Manny found incredibly offensive, was that some people are arguing that he just won two division titles so he can't be that bad. If there's no logical explanation for going 15-3 in extra innings, and I don't think there is, and we assume that they'd perform in extra innings similarly to how they perform in 9 inning games, this team would've won 88 games and a WC spot. Would that change the equation? Because I'd bet a lot of money that if they win 78 games in 9 innings next year and have 18 extra inning games they aren't going to win 93 games again.

If anyone thinks that the talent level on this team is 88 wins then I can see why they would have no issue keeping Farrell. But for those of us who think they're better than that, and Farrell isn't maximizing his roster, another manager makes sense at this point.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm not suggesting anything specific, just pointing out that the reason was almost certainly not that Farrell did not know he couldn't sub a player back in once they had been removed from the lineup.

And if you are trying to support the claim that there were multiple incidents of him forgetting the rules, that's an important distinction. You've provided one example where he either forgot or didn't understand one rule. I'm still waiting for a second. This doesn't qualify or you'd certainly have seen an attempt to do it at some point earlier than August 26th in his 5th season in Boston and 7th as a manager overall.

If you want to argue he should be fired, try doing it without hyperbole.

I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm just not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you're doing. (I refuse to take any argument that he was trying to "sneak" Young back into a 16-3 game in the bottom of the ninth as serious). I'm open to seeing other times during his career when a similar situation arose, if you want to make the "he never did it before" case.

But sure, I'll amend. You asked for proof as to why he's a bad manager. I consider one that doesn't know a very simple rule - mound visits and bringing in a reliever; and one who he himself (and the entire coaching staff he's responsible for) can't remember they pulled Young a half inning prior and that he wasn't eligible to go hit, to show signs of maybe not being a very good manager. If you want to make a distinction between ignorance or inattention, I honestly don't see how the latter helps your case. In fact, I think it makes it worse that he was so checked out that he and his staff "forgot".

 

[tims4wins]

I've purposely not posted in this thread yet since I wanted to cool off from yesterday and try to take emotion out of it. Here are some thoughts.

1) There is no doubt that a manager can have both positive and negative effect on a team, but there is a lot of doubt over A) just how much it is, B) whether the effect is more pronounced in the on-field vs. off-field department, and C) how much year to year consistency there is for a manager (just because a manager was worth X wins one year, doesn't mean he won't be worth negative X wins the following year)

2) While the on-field decisions of a manager do matter, it seems like only a small handful of managers have a significant positive or negative effect, and the rest are somewhere around average. JF is probably somewhere in the lower-middle range from an on-field perspective.

3) While 80-90% of what we talk about with regard to the manager on SoSH is on-field related, I would imagine that the Red Sox front office sees it the exact opposite: 80-90% of his job is the off-field stuff, 10-20% is the on-field stuff; as long as he is somewhat competent in the on-field department, then they want him in that chair so long as the off-field stuff is good.

So that being said, as with others, there is a mix of positive and negative with JF:

Positive:
- Team bounced back from several challenging situations
- Team "overachieved" on a team level despite individual under-performance
- Extra-inning record
- Held off the Yankees despite a very hot September from them

Negative:
- Seems like there are communication issues. Unclear to what degree. Also seemed to exhibit poor leadership during the Price fiasco, but again the team bounced back
- Individual under-performance by hitters. Unclear how much to blame on JF.
- Baserunning. IMO the biggest black mark against JF. Benintendi is one of the worst baserunners I have ever seen, yet he continued to make awful outs. Most outs on the bases in the majors this year on a team level. See prior posts / quotes from Toronto regarding players making same mistakes over and over and not being disciplined.
- In-game strategy: always seems a step behind and a bit clueless. Again, this is likely viewed as a small part of the job, but I don't think even JF's biggest supporters would argue that he is anything better than average at best and probably below average in this department

All this being said, my personal conclusion is that JF isn't holding them back necessarily, but he isn't helping either. I do think a bad hire could have a negative influence on the clubhouse - a guy like Varitek or David Ross who has no managerial experience could go downhill in a hurry. So if DD is to make a move, it should be for someone with at least some experience. I have similar concerns as others over Martinez since he has never gotten a shot. While Cora is a bench coach, he also hasn't been a manager at the MLB level. But I would probably take a shot with one of them because of the potential upside of getting a better strategist while having similar off-field value.

Bottom line, if the rumors about poor communication are true, then it is a no-brainer to fire JF. Hard to know what the truth is there. I hate Farrell from a strategy perspective, which is why I tend to not even watch a lot of games, to be honest. The team frustrates me a lot. But I know that he is doing a decent job behind the scenes, given how resilient they were. I can't believe I am writing this, but while I would prefer a change, I think it is defensible if they bring him back.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm just not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you're doing. (I refuse to take any argument that he was trying to "sneak" Young back into a 16-3 game in the bottom of the ninth as serious). I'm open to seeing other times during his career when a similar situation arose, if you want to make the "he never did it before" case.

This is akin to asking me to prove a negative.

But sure, I'll amend. You asked for proof as to why he's a bad manager. I consider one that doesn't know a very simple rule - mound visits and bringing in a reliever; and one who he himself (and the entire coaching staff he's responsible for) can't remember they pulled Young a half inning prior and that he wasn't eligible to go hit, to show signs of maybe not being a very good manager. If you want to make a distinction between ignorance or inattention, I honestly don't see how the latter helps your case. In fact, I think it makes it worse that he was so checked out that he and his staff "forgot".

I'm just disagreeing with the claim that there are multiple instances of him not knowing the rules. I don't think you can adequately support that claim. And if you are arguing that the manager of a back to back division winner who has 3 total in 5 years and a World Series title under his belt needs to be fired, you need to bring a strong argument. You haven't. No one here has.

We have multiple people in the thread trying to hang the two last place finishes around his neck while doing everything in their power to not give him just as much credit for the three division titles. If you insist he is responsible for 2014 and 2015, then logically, you have to acknowledge he was equally responsible for 2013, 2016 and 2017's successes, at which point, your argument has already been lost.

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.

Maybe they weren't supposed to be, but they were. There were arguably the second best team in baseball this year.

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.

Apparently our transformation into Yankees fans is complete.

 

[timlinin8th]

And if you are trying to support the claim that there were multiple incidents of him forgetting the rules, that's an important distinction. You've provided one example where he either forgot or didn't understand one rule. I'm still waiting for a second.

Well, there was the time he tried to visit the mound to bring Kimbrel into the game after Willis had already been out there in the same at bat... ;-)

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

First off don’t use that Orange Toads name ever. He’s swine and doesn’t deserve to be acknowledged as human. Call him 45 or bleep out the T word please.

As for baseball. Yes Farrell is supposed to reign in veterans. He’s supposed to manage personalities. He did a piss poor job managing personalities. Is it fiction or is it history repeating itself? I seem to remember something quite similar happening while he was in Toronto and the players started running around with no accountability. You see things like this year and it’s extremely tough to give “The Jaw” benefit of the doubt. Are we also forgetting the anonymous players early in the season who mentioned they liked Louvullo more and Travis Shaw blasting Farrell? I mean of course it could all be a sour grapes agenda by Shaw and others who never got a chance here but arguing with the pro Farrell crowd at this point is like arguing with the OJ is innocent crowd at this point. Despite all logic and reason just dug in.

The 2017 Red Sox has a 200 million dollar payroll and at the time a lot of young potential (still do) they were expected to win more than just the AL East. For you to say Farrell met expectations is fictional at best. Can you honestly sit here and say that John Farrell can make this team better? He’s had a couple years to do it now and they regressed especially on offense.

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm just not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you're doing. (I refuse to take any argument that he was trying to "sneak" Young back into a 16-3 game in the bottom of the ninth as serious). I'm open to seeing other times during his career when a similar situation arose, if you want to make the "he never did it before" case.

But sure, I'll amend. You asked for proof as to why he's a bad manager. I consider one that doesn't know a very simple rule - mound visits and bringing in a reliever; and one who he himself (and the entire coaching staff he's responsible for) can't remember they pulled Young a half inning prior and that he wasn't eligible to go hit, to show signs of maybe not being a very good manager. If you want to make a distinction between ignorance or inattention, I honestly don't see how the latter helps your case. In fact, I think it makes it worse that he was so checked out that he and his staff "forgot".

While that one (extremely minor) incident in the Orioles game was indeed Farrell's fault, I think you're making it out to be a bigger gaffe than it really was.

It was the 9th inning of a 16-3 blowout; Farrell moves Moreland from first to pitch, and Hanley takes the field at first, taking Chris Young's spot in the lineup. Bottom of the 9th starts, and Chris Young starts by going onto the on deck circle. Yeah, Farrell (or his bench coach) should have checked the lineup card and called Young back. My guess is that they were just ready to get the game over with by then. Also, Devers flied out on the first pitch of the inning, so events did transpire fairly quickly. A momentary lapse of attention in a totally non-critical moment of a blowout that was a couple of minutes from ending is hardly an indication of Farrell being a bad manager.

 

[Stitch01]

First off don’t use that Orange Toads name ever. He’s swine and doesn’t deserve to be acknowledged as human. Call him 45 or bleep out the T word please.

As for baseball. Yes Farrell is supposed to reign in veterans. He’s supposed to manage personalities. He did a piss poor job managing personalities. Is it fiction or is it history repeating itself? I seem to remember something quite similar happening while he was in Toronto and the players started running around with no accountability. You see things like this year and it’s extremely tough to give “The Jaw” benefit of the doubt. Are we also forgetting the anonymous players early in the season who mentioned they liked Louvullo more and Travis Shaw blasting Farrell? I mean of course it could all be a sour grapes agenda by Shaw and others who never got a chance here but arguing with the pro Farrell crowd at this point is like arguing with the OJ is innocent crowd at this point. Despite all logic and reason just dug in.

The 2017 Red Sox has a 200 million dollar payroll and at the time a lot of young potential (still do) they were expected to win more than just the AL East. For you to say Farrell met expectations is fictional at best. Can you honestly sit here and say that John Farrell can make this team better? He’s had a couple years to do it now and they regressed especially on offense.

I dont really think I have enough information to opine on whether or not Farrell did a good job in the clubhouse this year. Im surprised that you think you do.

 

[tims4wins]

Not a "knowing the rules" situation, but the guy did let Workman bat in a World Series game.

 

[JimD]

Ben Cherington was the general manager of the 2013 world champions and oversaw the building of one of the top farm systems in baseball, yet was shunted aside two years ago because ownership decided that a better person was available. I would hope that John Farrell is held to the same standard. If Henry, Dombrowski and others really are convinced that Farrell is the best man for the job, then fine. But if they have doubts or see his job performance as mixed, then they should be aggressively looking to improve. 'Good enough' should not be good enough.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I dont really think I have enough information to opine on whether or not Farrell did a good job in the clubhouse this year. Im surprised that you think you do.

I’m just merely stating the facts that have been out there. Maybe they hated each other. Maybe everyone gave the Jaw a big old hug before leaving every night. I don’t know. What I know is that perception is everything. You had Pedroia speaking out. Price speaking out. Shaw speaking out after he left and blasting Farrell. An anonymous piece where Louvullo was very much missed. These are the type of things you pay a manager for . Just because the manager loses the clubhouse doesn’t mean it’s dysfunctional in the way we all think such as backbiting and clubhouse lawyers. But can honestly sit here and say that he did a good job this year? I get it 93 wins. I get that he won back to back AL East titles. Nice token achievements. But if the team gets run consecutive years, the 2nd year everyone saw coming from a mile away because everyone had down years offensively then who answers for that?

 

[lexrageorge]

First off don’t use that Orange Toads name ever. He’s swine and doesn’t deserve to be acknowledged as human. Call him 45 or bleep out the T word please.

As for baseball. Yes Farrell is supposed to reign in veterans. He’s supposed to manage personalities. He did a piss poor job managing personalities. Is it fiction or is it history repeating itself? I seem to remember something quite similar happening while he was in Toronto and the players started running around with no accountability. You see things like this year and it’s extremely tough to give “The Jaw” benefit of the doubt. Are we also forgetting the anonymous players early in the season who mentioned they liked Louvullo more and Travis Shaw blasting Farrell? I mean of course it could all be a sour grapes agenda by Shaw and others who never got a chance here but arguing with the pro Farrell crowd at this point is like arguing with the OJ is innocent crowd at this point. Despite all logic and reason just dug in.

The 2017 Red Sox has a 200 million dollar payroll and at the time a lot of young potential (still do) they were expected to win more than just the AL East. For you to say Farrell met expectations is fictional at best. Can you honestly sit here and say that John Farrell can make this team better? He’s had a couple years to do it now and they regressed especially on offense.

Can you provide links? I recall Shaw being disappointed at being traded, but I don't recall him actually "blasting" Farrell, the manager who started him over Pablo at the beginning of the 2016 season. Nor do I recall players saying they actually preferred Lovullo over Farrell.

 

[mauidano]

I dont really think I have enough information to opine on whether or not Farrell did a good job in the clubhouse this year. Im surprised that you think you do.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of those who say JF didn't have control of his clubhouse or didn't have his guys ready to play everyday. As if they were on the team or a clubhouse attendant who was inside everyday. FFS, these players are grown men whose job it is to get themselves "ready to play" everyday not Little Leaguers. It was fairly evident as the season went on that the Indians and the Astros were the cream of the crop in 2017. Only one team gets to win it all. So fuck everyone else who didn't?

 

[Stitch01]

I’m just merely stating the facts that have been out there. Maybe they hated each other. Maybe everyone gave the Jaw a big old hug before leaving every night. I don’t know. What I know is that perception is everything. You had Pedroia speaking out. Price speaking out. Shaw speaking out after he left and blasting Farrell. An anonymous piece where Louvullo was very much missed. These are the type of things you pay a manager for . Just because the manager loses the clubhouse doesn’t mean it’s dysfunctional in the way we all think such as backbiting and clubhouse lawyers. But can honestly sit here and say that he did a good job this year? I get it 93 wins. I get that he won back to back AL East titles. Nice token achievements. But if the team gets run consecutive years, the 2nd year everyone saw coming from a mile away because everyone had down years offensively then who answers for that?

The game management issues and some of the poor fundamental play are enough to leave me indifferent at best on keeping Farrell (Basically Im fine moving on and they definitely could upgrade, but think that its adding risk to next season as a meaningful chance they'll end up with a worse guy at the helm). I just dont see the case to say "he did a piss poor job managing personalities". I didnt perceive it as a clubhouse in turmoil or anything.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Can you provide links? I recall Shaw being disappointed at being traded, but I don't recall him actually "blasting" Farrell, the manager who started him over Pablo at the beginning of the 2016 season. Nor do I recall players saying they actually preferred Lovullo over Farrell.

Tried looking for the links on my end. However I was able to find quite a few like this one. Which collaborated the story of Lovullo over Farrell.


https://www.google.com/amp/boston.cbslocal.com/2016/10/13/carrabbis-source-at-least-one-red-sox-player-prefers-torey-lovullo-over-john-farrell/amp/

The Shaw piece I’m trying to find. I think it was on fangraphs or somewhere.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of those who say JF didn't have control of his clubhouse or didn't have his guys ready to play everyday. As if they were on the team or a clubhouse attendant who was inside everyday. FFS, these players are grown men whose job it is to get themselves "ready to play" everyday not Little Leaguers. It was fairly evident as the season went on that the Indians and the Astros were the cream of the crop in 2017. Only one team gets to win it all. So fuck everyone else who didn't?

So are you in the crowd of the managers don’t do anything? Or are you still of the stance that Farrell was the only person who could have led this team to the legendary back to back East titles?

 

[E5 Yaz]

So are you in the crowd of the managers don’t do anything? Or are you still of the stance that Farrell was the only person who could have led this team to the legendary back to back East titles?

You realize those aren't the only two options, right?

 

[mauidano]

So are you in the crowd of the managers don’t do anything? Or are you still of the stance that Farrell was the only person who could have led this team to the legendary back to back East titles?

And if they don't win it all next year with a new manager "you are of still of the stance" that the manager should be fired?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

While that one (extremely minor) incident in the Orioles game was indeed Farrell's fault, I think you're making it out to be a bigger gaffe than it really was.

It was the 9th inning of a 16-3 blowout; Farrell moves Moreland from first to pitch, and Hanley takes the field at first, taking Chris Young's spot in the lineup. Bottom of the 9th starts, and Chris Young starts by going onto the on deck circle. Yeah, Farrell (or his bench coach) should have checked the lineup card and called Young back. My guess is that they were just ready to get the game over with by then. Also, Devers flied out on the first pitch of the inning, so events did transpire fairly quickly. A momentary lapse of attention in a totally non-critical moment of a blowout that was a couple of minutes from ending is hardly an indication of Farrell being a bad manager.

Fairly quickly? As you just noted, the move came in the top of the inning, during which the Orioles sent 5 hitters to the plate. The AB happened after there was already an out in the bottom of the inning. I don't really care if they were trying to get the game over with, such a simple lack of attention or delegation of responsibility to subordinates speaks to bigger issues with the overall job of the man being paid to manage the team. I'm not saying he should be fired simply for that, I'm saying it likely is not an isolated issue. And if he can't keep from checking out in a blowout, why should I think he is good at the rest of the duties he has off the field?

 

[drbretto]

And if they don't win it all next year with a new manager "you are of still of the stance" that the manager should be fired?

This particular argument, that this is all a reaction to not winning the world series or whatever, is dumb. It's been a straw man since the beginning.

Your question is nonsense. If they hire a new manager, we'd need to see what he does to evaluate whether or not he should stick around. I don't think anyone on the side of change has used the final placement as evidence of anything. That's come from the defenders only, arguing against their preconceived notions that people are just having an emotional reaction to the season ending.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of those who say JF didn't have control of his clubhouse or didn't have his guys ready to play everyday. As if they were on the team or a clubhouse attendant who was inside everyday. FFS, these players are grown men whose job it is to get themselves "ready to play" everyday not Little Leaguers. It was fairly evident as the season went on that the Indians and the Astros were the cream of the crop in 2017. Only one team gets to win it all. So fuck everyone else who didn't?

I mentioned this yesterday, but think about the three 100+ win teams - all tremendous teams (Cle, Hou, LA). At least two of them (and maybe all three of them) are going to go home severely disappointed, having failed to win the WS. And at least one 100+ win in the AL won't even make it to the WS, guaranteed.

Can you imagine if this was the fan base of one of those teams - We won 101 games and couldn't even get to the freaking World Series?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Can you imagine if this was the fan base of one of those teams - We won 101 games and couldn't even get to the freaking World Series?

The 1993 Giants won 103 games ... and didn't make the playoffs

 

[Green Monster]

A couple more of Farrell's memorable moments:
- Putting Steven Wright in to pinch run and subsequently dislocating his shoulder diving back into second
- Being "Unaware" of the Sox players using an iWatch in an effort to steal signs.

For me personally I tend to give all managers the benefit of the doubt, assuming they have more information than I do. However, I think the time has come for the Sox to move on.

 

[drbretto]

Can you imagine if this was the fan base of one of those teams - We won 101 games and couldn't even get to the freaking World Series?

Honestly, truly, and I may be naive here, but I think to that scenario would be pretty sedated, provided they didn't look like total garbage up there. I think most people here are perfectly capable of recognizing that the competition is tough and that we got beat by a better team. This isn't about getting beat. It's about how they got there.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You realize those aren't the only two options, right?

Yeah I was referring to the poster who yesterday said no one could have led this team to back to back titles except Farrell in the game thread. But yes there are other options

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

And if they don't win it all next year with a new manager "you are of still of the stance" that the manager should be fired?

It depends.

If the manager takes a guy who has a road ERA of 5 and continues to pitch him in key situations on the road.

Or

If the manager decides to use an all star starting pitcher during a game in July as his own version of Ricky Henderson then perhaps. I mean it’s bonehead stuff like that that his supporters some how continue to support. Can you see any avenue where John Farrell leads this team to a World Series again? With the payroll they have that should be the goal every year. If they don’t want those expectations then rebuild and take a few steps back. Because it seems like this team is going to be swapping places with the Yankees very soon unless a shakeup happens.

 

[BestGameEvah]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of those who say JF didn't have control of his clubhouse or didn't have his guys ready to play everyday. As if they were on the team or a clubhouse attendant who was inside everyday. FFS, these players are grown men whose job it is to get themselves "ready to play" everyday not Little Leaguers. It was fairly evident as the season went on that the Indians and the Astros were the cream of the crop in 2017. Only one team gets to win it all. So fuck everyone else who didn't?

Love this observation. I get the feeling that this team thought they were better than they were.
Lots of media reports and Dave O'Brien 'lauding' individual players excessively in my opinion.
An article in Herald quoted Mookie:
“We played with more of a sense of urgency,” said outfielder Mookie Betts, who went 1-for-4 with three strikeouts.
“We understand it’s kind of a do-or-die and go-home situation,” Betts said. “I think every game we should play with this sense of urgency.”

I don't understand that they don't understand playing full throttle.
Makes me think the dancing stars are a little soft, not hungry enough, content with the $$ they make, and believe all the 'star' superlatives thrown their way. Most underachieved.

When asked why is the team less likeable, NESN ratings down 15% ,empty seats in the stadium, more booing than I can remember...This is my reason. Not enough 'gamers'.

 

[Stitch01]

Honestly, truly, and I may be naive here, but I think to that scenario would be pretty sedated, provided they didn't look like total garbage up there. I think most people here are perfectly capable of recognizing that the competition is tough and that we got beat by a better team. This isn't about getting beat. It's about how they got there.

Ha, yeah, I think that's probably naive. Patriots are coached by Bill Belichick, but not a loss goes by where the Pats arent deemed "unprepared" . Some of that sort of noise is bleeding into the fire Farrell argument which, as you point out, can be cogently made based on the body of work and not that Kimbrel or Sale didnt close out Game 4.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Ha, yeah, I think that's probably naive. Patriots are coached by Bill Belichick, but not a loss goes by where the Pats arent deemed "unprepared" . Some of that sort of noise is bleeding into the Farrell argument which, as you point out, can be cogently made based on the body of work and not that Kimbrel or Sale didnt close out Game 4.

Sale was gassed after 3 innings and was allowed to come back out and face a guy who hammers lefties...most recently Chris Sale. Who decided that was a good idea?

 

[BaseballJones]

The 1993 Giants won 103 games ... and didn't make the playoffs

I know...crazy.

Honestly, truly, and I may be naive here, but I think to that scenario would be pretty sedated, provided they didn't look like total garbage up there. I think most people here are perfectly capable of recognizing that the competition is tough and that we got beat by a better team. This isn't about getting beat. It's about how they got there.

As reactionary as this board is....I have a hard time seeing it. But maybe you're right.

 

[drbretto]

Ha, yeah, I think that's probably naive. Patriots are coached by Bill Belichick, but not a loss goes by where the Pats arent deemed "unprepared" . Some of that sort of noise is bleeding into the fire Farrell argument which, as you point out, can be cogently made based on the body of work and not that Kimbrel or Sale didnt close out Game 4.

Ok, yeah, the more I think about it, I'm definitely being naive, lol.

I do want to believe that through the noise and after a mourning period, cooler heads would prevail. But, I want to believe a lot of things.

 

[Bergs]

I feel like baseball games have an ebb and a flow...a rhythm if you will. And I often get the sense that he doesn't feel it. He isn't the worst in-game manager in the world, but he's made enough decisions that go against my understanding of the game I have loved for over 40 years that I can't in good conscience refer to him as a "good" in-game manager. That includes - but is not entirely driven - by his more egregious and public gaffes.

Apart from in-game stuff, his mismanagement of X's injury was off-the-charts bad. The evident lack of discipline on the basepaths is the likes of which I have never seen. He was banging a sideline reporter. He started Devin Fucking Marrero in a playoff game.

I watch between 100 and 120 Red Sox games a year. I do this because I love being entertained by baseball games. Things that get in the way of that entertainment annoy me. Dave O'Brien annoys me. The NESN production team annoys me. Most of all, seeing John Farrell's face annoys me.

I recognize another manager might not be a lottery ticket to a better season, but I'm willing to take whatever attendant risk may be accompanied by jettisoning Farrell in service of finding out.

 

[Devizier]

I'm really pretty ambivalent about Farrell.

Of all the complaints levied against him, the baserunning gaffes are the only one that really pissed me off this year. The offense generally underperformed, obviously, but I have no idea how much of that can be attributed to Farrell.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of those who say JF didn't have control of his clubhouse or didn't have his guys ready to play everyday. As if they were on the team or a clubhouse attendant who was inside everyday. FFS, these players are grown men whose job it is to get themselves "ready to play" everyday not Little Leaguers. It was fairly evident as the season went on that the Indians and the Astros were the cream of the crop in 2017. Only one team gets to win it all. So fuck everyone else who didn't?

This works both ways though. If the defense of him is "in game decisions don't matter all that much, the biggest job a manager has is to manage the personalities and the clubhouse", then those people don't have a leg to stand on either, unless they themselves are on the team or a clubhouse attendant. Further, if these players shouldn't need leadership because they're not LLers, then what does Farrell bring to the table there (assuming those saying he's good at it are correct)?

I tend to agree that the players shouldn't need a ton of motivating, but at the same time, they need strategy, coaching, game plans, etc. It doesn't seem from the outside they're a particularly well prepared or well coached team. Farrell has had his tenure in Toronto criticized for his clubhouse management (especially with young players). He's had players like Shaw criticize him. We had the Price blowout.

So if the primary defense of him is "there's more to managing a team than making in game moves" and we agree that other than public spats or leaks (which we've had), we won't ever really know, then how does one get behind that?

As to your last point, there's no reason they couldn't compete with the Astros and Indians. Anything can happen in a series. When was the last time the "best" team in the league won the world series? It's not how it plays out in almost every season. As someone else said, it's not where they finished, it's how they got there.

 

[czar]

It makes me sad that the 2011 SoSH thread on Francona's firing doesn't seem to exist.

Here's OTM's Francona obituary. I tend to think of OTM having some degree of overlap with SoSH, particularly as SoSH seems to have nudged away from a more analytical mindset.

Of particular note are the numerous commenters taking issue with Francona's terrible bullpen usage and even some mentioning that Toronto's circa 2011 manager could have guided the team far better. Sounds familiar.

If Francona came out and said he'd manage in Boston again, I wonder how well a "fire Farrell for Tito" poll would do...

 

[JimD]

Sean McAdam has a piece on the Boston Sports Journal site which indicates that while Farrell has the support of John Henry and Sam Kennedy, Dave Dombrowski may not be his biggest fan;

While Farrell and Dombrowski have maintained a professional relationship in the public eye, it’s less smooth behind the scenes, sources indicate. On occasion, Dombrowski has been known to upbraid Farrell immediately after games in his office, questioning his tactical moves during games. At times, that pointed criticism has been overheard in the clubhouse, which can’t help Farrell’s standing with players.

https://www.bostonsportsjournal.com/2017/10/10/farrells-fate-determined-soon-stakes-high/

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I don't know how this team made it so far. It's a testament to both players and management.

Not a stats guy - but whatever the run differential was - it must have included a bunch of extremes that skewed the total differential because I recall so many close-ish games. Not a lot came easy to them this season. They had to survive flu and Sandoval. They had to survive Price missing spring training and then going down. Ortiz gone. Two consequential injuries to what should have been a league leading bullpen. Pedroia getting creamed by Machado. Bogaerts and Ramirez getting hurt and a bunch of guys having sub-par years at the plate. They stole wins from games they should have lost. They won more than another AL East team that scored runs at will and had a fantastic bullpen. Etc.

I'm focusing on what's impressive because they excelled in adversity and won games on the field instead of at bat. I'm not certain why Farrell and his staff get so much heat here. Chili Davis and Rodriguez didn't all of a sudden turn into rotten coaches when the team hitting was so good last year.

It seems to me that so much manager criticism (all teams) comes from little pieces of partial information available to fans and scribes coupled with the way glaring mistakes stick in one's memory (versus un-glaring successes).

So...what makes Bochy such a beloved manager? What makes Showalter so ingenius? Maddon? Francona? And why are they often considered the best in the game? Is it always W-L?

In my opinion, this team out performed itself. That's mostly on the players. That they didn't out perform more is not necessarily on the manager.

 

[drbretto]

It makes me sad that the 2011 SoSH thread on Francona's firing doesn't seem to exist.

Here's OTM's Francona obituary. I tend to think of OTM having some degree of overlap with SoSH, particularly as SoSH seems to have nudged away from a more analytical mindset.

Of particular note are the numerous commenters taking issue with Francona's terrible bullpen usage and even some mentioning that Toronto's circa 2011 manager could have guided the team far better. Sounds familiar.

If Francona came out and said he'd manage in Boston again, I wonder how well a "fire Farrell for Tito" poll would do...

I would expect that if Tito was available, we'd love to give him another shot. That doesn't necessarily mean his exit was a mistake at the time*. I agree with his own assessment that the Sox needed a new voice. It wasn't that Tito isn't a capable manager. It's that he had lost the team and it was time for something new (the "something new" that we got is, and should be a cautionary tale as well, though).

But, now, several years later, with a nearly completely new team, Tito could well do an amazing job. I actually wish that scenario was even 1% plausible right now.


*Note: I'm also not trying to argue that running him out of town was the right move, either. Just not exploring that in detail at all right now

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It makes me sad that the 2011 SoSH thread on Francona's firing doesn't seem to exist.

Here's OTM's Francona obituary. I tend to think of OTM having some degree of overlap with SoSH, particularly as SoSH seems to have nudged away from a more analytical mindset.

Of particular note are the numerous commenters taking issue with Francona's terrible bullpen usage and even some mentioning that Toronto's circa 2011 manager could have guided the team far better. Sounds familiar.

If Francona came out and said he'd manage in Boston again, I wonder how well a "fire Farrell for Tito" poll would do...

I agree. But it probably wouldn’t do well. Farrell led this team to back to back AL East titles. Tito never did that.

I’d give anything for Tito’s return.

 

[drbretto]

I agree. But it probably wouldn’t do well. Farrell led this team to back to back AL East titles. Tito never did that.

I’d give anything for Tito’s return.

Dude, seriously, that was old back in the gamethread. It's not helping anything now.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I agree. But it probably wouldn’t do well. Farrell led this team to back to back AL East titles. Tito never did that.

I’d give anything for Tito’s return.

The change in playoff structure can't be ignored in that comparison. There was more than one season that Tito knew he had the Wild Card locked up and let his foot off the gas. There's much more urgency to winning the division now (as designed).

 

[Stitch01]

Sale was gassed after 3 innings and was allowed to come back out and face a guy who hammers lefties...most recently Chris Sale. Who decided that was a good idea?

I guess. He had K'd two of last three batters to end the 7th and had thrown, what, 59 pitches? I didnt think it was some egregious error or anything

 

[soxhop411]

I agree. But it probably wouldn’t do well. Farrell led this team to back to back AL East titles. Tito never did that.

I’d give anything for Tito’s return.

Tito chocked away a series lead in the WS last year and is about to do the same this year.

Seriously. The Tito worshiping here is absurd.

 

[BaseballJones]

I agree. But it probably wouldn’t do well. Farrell led this team to back to back AL East titles. Tito never did that.

I’d give anything for Tito’s return.

Tito is a great manager. If he came back here, we'd love him in many ways, but there'd be major bitching in game threads for some of the decisions he makes.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I guess. He had K'd two of last three batters to end the 7th and had thrown, what, 59 pitches? I didnt think it was some egregious error or anything

He had had Reed up in the pen for how long at that point? He pushed his luck and it didn't pan out. Not egregious, but also not the smartest move.

 

[Drek717]

I'm not a big John Farrell fan personally. I loved Francona and he had a terrific, comparatively long run here, and now he's doing great in Cleveland. The Valentine period was short and followed by a WS win so easily forgotten. Now we see Lovullo having a great season in Arizona.

So it stings that the two most likely candidates as who "should" be in Farrell's place are arguably two of the premier managers in all of baseball today. It feels like missing out. Sure, I totally get that.

But the Sox weren't firing Farrell coming off beating cancer, so Lovullo wasn't an option. You can't un-ring the bell on firing Francona in the first place. Where is this year's Torey Lovullo? I don't see one.

So I'm not a big fan of the guy, but I have a hard time seeing where we do better. Replacing him now is change for the sake of change. Is Farrell the reason why all of the young guy, hitters and pitchers, regressed substantially this year? I don't see how. Maybe Dombrowski and co. know something we don't about how the clubhouse is working and if they decide to make a change I'm sure they'll have had their reasons, but I'm not privy to that. From what I can see this club isn't likely to find someone better than Farrell and the talent on the roster now shouldn't have these next few years muddling about trying to find that person. Farrell is good enough to win a WS, he's done it before. He might not elevate good to great but he doesn't drag great down to simply good.

Want to win in the playoffs? Fix 1B, DH, and get a RH bat to pair with Bradley and Benintendi who can actually hit. Find a worthwhile 3rd and/or 4th starter depending on what happens with Price this winter. Fix the assets before trying to fix the guy who manages those assets because it's not like Farrell had other options to go to.

And maybe stop trading highly rated prospects/young controlled players for relievers with injury concerns? Second GM in a row convinced that's how you build a bullpen. Really not working out so well.

 

[tims4wins]

I agree with the comment that some of the players seem to think they are better players than they are.

Also, fully agree with Farrell not being very in tune with the ebb and flow of the game.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Who was the highly rated prospect that DD traded for a reliever with injury concerns?