According to Fangraphs 10D was 1.4 in baserunning runs above average. Doesn't jive with the eye test, but that is why stats like these exist. Wonder if anyone here would argue that he is a good baserunner.
Farrell Watch
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
- Status
He, like Tito before him, takes a "marathon not a sprint" approach. Saying there isn't a problem is only silly if you're hyper-focused on individual plays or games. On the season, the numbers do not back up the claim that they were a bad base running team.
Yeah I just posted that this doesn't jive with the eye test - wonder if anyone here thinks he is an above average baserunner.
Edit: I see Pedroia was a -4.7 by comparison... which certainly DOES jive with the eye test
To my eyes he's too aggressive at times, but pretty good for his experience level. He needs to get more used to the speed of the major league game.
As for the comments about Farrell criticizing his players about in-game gaffes, and I'm not sure who brought those up, I would consider a manger not throwing his players under the bus in public a plus. Like many things that happen with the team, we have no idea what happens in the clubhouse, whether it's between a coach and a player or a veteran and a young player or even what they might work on before the games.
I'll have a piece out in the morning on the .com about Farrell. It will include some team baserunning stats that might open up some eyes.
This is the part you're not putting together right now. It is NOT single bits of anecdotal evidence. It's specific observations of him having the wrong approach. Stop assuming everyone is a moron here.
The point, in this one particular example, is that he flat out demonstrated a lack of ability to look into the situation. He instead hand-waved it, deflected it and doubled down. The issue was never corrected. He simply never believed there was an issue. THAT is the problem. And before you start, that is this one particular problem. Not the only problem.
The numbers you posted don't tell anything at all. I'm still not sure what you thought you were demonstrating with them. How the team did as a whole says absolutely nothing about Farrell's contributions in any way. And I, too, take a marathon, not a sprint approach, and that has nothing to do with this.
Edit: Going home, so I'm out for real now.
I'm with drbretto here. JF could give a different answer without throwing players under the bus. It's that he didn't see any problem that is the issue here.
I consider that part of his reply to the question part of not throwing a player under the bus. He could very well see there is a problem and wait to address it away from the microphones.
You've said this a few times. Back it up. What evidence do you have that this same team isn't capable of improving next year?
Looks like you found the answer to your last question. I wasn't trying to point to one stat being the whole answer. Was just throwing another one out there. I can't find any stats that support the claim that the team was a bad base running team in 2017. Did they make bad plays? Yeah, of course. Every team did. On the season, though, they were probably about average.
Yeah, we probably mostly agree. I'm not going to shed any tears if they find someone they think will be better. He's not a great manager. He might be a good one, he may be more likely an average one. He's almost certainly not a bad one, though. At least, not in any way we can measure, and even in a lot of the ways in which we can try to make qualitative arguments once we actually acknowledge the limits of our access to genuine knowledge.
You're doing a great job of displaying that projection I mentioned. You assume because he publicly waived it away, that there was absolutely no discussion or corrective action taken internally. That's a huge leap. And it's not one I'm willing to take as fact.
And again, the general philosophy led to an average base running team with above average results on stolen bases. When he says there isn't really a problem there, he's not wrong. Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, but they are not a bad base running team. That is an objective, factual statement.
Snowflakes? I don’t see where he “threw players under the bus”. These are not Little Leaguers. Grown men under immense scrutiny while they work. Give me a break.
What was wrong with Joe Morgan?
And one of those managers was an interim manager. If you're going to include him, you should also include Lovullo, which might make that list look a little different.
From my limited understanding of BR statistics, they're some amalgam of "what percent of the time did the runner go 1st to 3rd/2nd to home on a single or 1st to home on a double, minus number of times thrown out on the basepaths." It gives a good sense of how valuable the runner is on the basepaths in comparison to the average runner, but doesn't really say how good that runner is compared to, say, how good that runner should be (based on speed or SB's or whatever). Obviously, the worst baserunners by those stats will always be the Frank Thomases of the world who can't run.
Now, for a GM who's trying to put together a team, that's a useful stat because it tells you how many runs a player will cost/give you on the bases. For a stat like WAR, it's also useful for the same reason - player speed is part of a player's value. For measurement of pure baserunning savvy (or baserunning management), however, I don't see it as particularly useful because it's so heavily colored by speed. 10D is probably not going to be -5 runner unless he starts running around the bases backwards because he's young and relatively fast and is going to score from second on a single most of the time.
If I'm misunderstanding the stat, I'd love to be corrected. But I'm not sure that those BR stats tell us anything other than "the Sox are a young team with fresh legs."
Reed gave up 5 homers in his brief stay with the Sox. For comparison's sake, Matt Barnes gave up 7 homers over the entire season. Sale vs. Reed just isn't something to get too worked up about in either direction.
Why does the burden fall on those wanting to get rid of him and not those wanting to retain him? He’s a lame duck and this isn’t a court of law. The options are get rid of him or extend him. Make a statistical case for extending him. Citing a WS or division titles simply doesn’t qualify.
I was kind of wondering what the reaction was in here to this. I was watching the game on a little desktop window while working so it wasn't getting my full attention. I thought it was odd he came out for that fateful inning when SOP for his job there was to get it to the good part of the bullpen, which he did but stayed in. But like I said, I wasn't able to pay enough attention the game to trust in my opinion on the non-move.
I’ve said a lot of things you’ve ignored. Seems like I’m not the only one. But I know I’ve said this a few times to you specifically and you ignored it. How does John Farrell make the Boston Red Sox a better team?
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, and this isn't a defense of Farrell, but isn't the first base coach often responsible for teaching base running?
We often hear of the contributions of Butterfield, Willis, Chili... but what exactly did Ruben Amaro do around here?
We often hear of the contributions of Butterfield, Willis, Chili... but what exactly did Ruben Amaro do around here?
That’s honestly a very good question. I was under the same assumption actually.
I really cannot wait to see your posts when the Sox trot out 72 year old Jim Leyland as their manager next season. Not just you but everyone who assumes there is a lot better than Farrell out there.
While I am sure there are a few people who actually are better, they aren't likely to come to Boston. This job has other rigorous demands beyond in game strategy and that includes a fan-base comprised of a significant number of people who are convinced they know better than the actual Sox manager despite not having anywhere near the same amount of information about the organization, the players and other factors.
So you'll get your way with Farrell gone but don't hold your breath for a true "difference maker". Instead the Sox will get a retread whom management trusts with its expensive roster and someone who doesn't GAF about what the media and fans think.
Team has an ownership that has won and I believe does want to win. The alternative is extending Farrell since he’s going into a contract year. You’re taking the risk that things decline as well. I respect your point though. A guy like Alex Cora played here and won. He’s an interesting candidate. Hale coached under Tito and has been ready for a long time. I get going with the devil you know but I disagree.
Not that I think it's even remotely realistic, nor am I rooting for it, but I'm wondering what Leyland's age has to do with anything? Jack McKeon was....72 when he took the young Marlins to a ring.
There's no reason to think the job isn't attractive. Every market has fans second guess the manager, we just like to fancy ourselves smarter than most and we're more obnoxious at times with an antagonistic media. But there's only 30 of these jobs and no one is turning it down. It's not offering them a shit situation, it's offering them a stacked team that needs a tweak and has a motivated ownership with deep pockets. It's not offering them the job in Oakland.
And frankly, I'd embrace someone that doesn't GAF about what the media and fans think.
The reality is a new manager would in all likelihood perform within +/- 5-10 percent of JF. He would have different strengths, different weaknesses, and we would all still find things to bitch and moan about. But they would likely be different things, and I think SoSH is ready for a change, though the players and organization may not be.
I remember looking into this a few months back and having roughly the same understanding. To me, both the numbers and the eye test suggest that the Sox are a team with good speed whose overall baserunning performance is somewhat depressed by running into too many outs... a team with good baserunning that could be great based on talent / speed. But I haven't done a deep dive into the methodology... I will eagerly await the .com piece before commenting further.
I will say, though, that as someone who has been a JF pessimist overall, DD dressing him down in earshot of the players is a bad look (even though I probably agreed with some of those critiques DD was allegedly making on the merits). I don't know a ton about clubhouse culture relative to the management culture in other workplaces, but I would never dress down a subordinate for a good-faith judgment error in front of his direct reports. If he was deviating from an agreed-upon organizational practice, ok maybe. But overall I think that kind of thing is corrosive and makes things much harder on the manager.
In smoker's years Jim Leyland is 103...seriously, who smokes in a dugout? Jim Leyland, that's who.
He's also on the record as retired, and enjoying it. Doesn't want the travel and wants to spend time with his family.
In a clubhouse that seems to be overly sensitive to fan and media criticism that last part needs to be a must. Not Scorched earth like Valentine but we need someone who will be able to control the clubhouse and keep the noise out from the media. Let’s face it Shank will unfortunately be there. Drelich will be there. Carrabis Tomase and others as well. All have been crtitical at times of this team. The manager cannot give a crap about the fans or media.
Because you are the ones arguing for a specific thing to happen. The onus is on you to make a compelling argument, not on me to make the polar opposite argument or accept your position in defeat.
Same goes for Tyrone. I'm mobile the rest of the night so I'll leave it at that.
That’s a cop out.
You have also yet to reply to my question from hours ago in regards to how John Farrell makes the Red Sox a better team. I doubt I’ll get an answer from you on it because out of 200 + posts someone would have came up with a better argument than “his replacement might be worse”.
Either way this team is in serious trouble if they bring back the staff as is. Willis and Davis at the very least need to go.
I'm 45 and I when I was a kid people smoked everywhere, including coaches in little league dugouts. But some of the younger MLB players today, if their parents didn't smoke, may have spent almost no time in close proximity to people smoking other than walking in and out of buildings, I can't imagine what their reaction would be if Leyland lit up in the dugout today.
Please don't post again until you understand the difference between jive and jibe
I don’t believe I’ve even once made the statement I think he should be fired in this thread, but once you get back to a laptop feel free to quote me.
Your argument is that there’s no proof he’s a bad manager, yet you ignore direct points or play semantics when people bring up examples.
The bottom line is that in no way shape or form should be brought back next year without an extension. So if you think he should get one, make the argument. Otherwise he probably should go. You and I almost always agree on most points here, but you’re just deflecting if you refuse to back your stance. Some of us are genuinely open to being convinced we are wrong at times.
Yeah I obviously should have, that was a silly oversight, but I don't think it changes the point. Lot of bad manager seasons in there. To me, this doesn't seem like a Grady like situation where they can name someone at random and its probably an upgrade. So if they do move on, it should be because the FO has candidate A (and hopefully B and C) in mind that they really like.
Logically, how is this possible? Given he is the current manager, he's set the baseline. How can anyone 'prove' how he makes the Sox a 'better' team. Better than what?
Subjective debate only works when the points being raised or challenged are logical. That question is not.
I'm of the opinion that Dombrowski should share in some of the blame for the back to back early exits. Having said that, I suspect Dombrowski stays and Farrell goes. Off the top of my head, some candidates to replace Farrell:
Demarlo Hale
Alex Cora
Sandy Alomar
Brad Ausmus
Jason Varitek
Gary DiSarcina
Torey Lovullo (I know he's with Arizona, but if he's interested I would be too).
Demarlo Hale
Alex Cora
Sandy Alomar
Brad Ausmus
Jason Varitek
Gary DiSarcina
Torey Lovullo (I know he's with Arizona, but if he's interested I would be too).
Sandy Alomar is 73 years old and hasn't coached in the majors since 2009. Why exactly is he on your list?
I guess this makes us even in the "hitching someone to a position they didn't take" column.
Logically you can make a column of pros and cons for anyone in their position. If the pros outweigh the cons then there’s your answer. I can’t really think of one pro not tied to the 2013 WS or the back to back AL East titles that would warrant Farrell staying let alone an extension on top of it since let’s face it they can’t have a lame duck manager.
I get where you’re coming from but if the person keeps arguing that someone is good at his job and can’t really provide any specific examples countering any negative ones then I don’t know what to tell you.
I would actually like to hear evidence on Farrell being a good manager because I’m open to being wrong. But there just really isn’t much.
Last edited:
You know that Roberto Alomar wasn't his only son, right? I'm talking about Sandy Alomar Jr who used to be Cleveland's bench coach.
That's changed goalposts. You can answer any question when you change it to suit your outcome.
Honestly and to that clear point, I find any answer that contains the phrase 'I can't really think of one pro not tied to the 2013 WS or the back to back AL East titles etc etc' hyperbolic and impossible to consider. Because, apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what has John Farrell ever done for us?
It's not a cop out. That's how debate works. You take a position, it's on you to prove it, not on other people to prove the opposite or accept your position. Prove your case or shut the fuck up. And repeating the same baseless assertions over and over is not providing evidence. You want to argue the team is bad at base running, provide actual data (not just anecdotes) to that effect.
You want to argue he's bad at bullpen management, dig up stats to support it (again, not just anecdotes).
Hell, you want to argue he's just a shitty manager, bring something, anything other than "that one time..." or "they clearly can't get better with him at the helm" with no data to support it.
Again, it's on you to prove your case, not to insist someone else prove the antithesis or admit you are correct.
But just for the sake of making you shut the fuck up, I think Farrell makes this team better than the average manager, and would even argue he's likely a good manager. Here's a link to back it up:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-should-we-evaluate-a-manager/
I don't agree with the conclusion that Farrell is among the very best, but there is some pretty compelling data in there and frankly, I don't see you one could read that and come away with the belief that he's a bad manager.
Okay. We can agree to disagree here. But I fail to see how this team has excelled under Farrell other than those two things. With this you’ll get a lot of hyperbolic on all points. But mixing in what has Farrell done for us and naming everything under the sun not related to baseball is kind of ridiculous no?
A manager is there to put a team in position to succeed. Not play a guy hitting .200 in a do or die game on the road. Not pitch a guy who can’t pitch on the road in a set up role. Not use a pitcher as a pinch runner. I get other managers make mistakes but these are pretty boneheaded ones.
I really don't care one way or the other about Farrell, but I'll just point out that the Sox could hire the managerial equivalent of Jesus Christ and half of this board is going to hate him and shit on him and his performance even if he won 5 straight AL East titles. Pedro and Papi could both go get managerial experience somewhere, come to Boston to manage in 5 years and get proverbially run out of town in another 2-3 by some people on this board. It's absolutely ridiculous.
I'm at the point where they just need to fire Farrell already just so we can see how everyone responds when the next manager is hired.
It's become the sports equivalent of V&N and Trump in here. Farrell's name just incites responses so opposed there's no possible middle ground, there's no listening to each other's points, and it's mostly emotional responses instead of rational thoughts.
This is the world we live in now.
I'm at the point where they just need to fire Farrell already just so we can see how everyone responds when the next manager is hired.
It's become the sports equivalent of V&N and Trump in here. Farrell's name just incites responses so opposed there's no possible middle ground, there's no listening to each other's points, and it's mostly emotional responses instead of rational thoughts.
This is the world we live in now.
Oh I’ve given specific examples. You’ve just chosen to ignore them. Devin Marrero starting of Devers in a do or die game 2. Devers was hitting LHP at a very impressive clip in a SSS but yet because the pitcher was tough on lefties you sit him. Despite the hitter being able to hit left handed pitching. You sit him for a guy who hits .200.
I mean his bullpen management was fine if you take out the fact he continued to pitch Barnes on the road despite his ERA being over 5 in that setting.
The clubhouse at times was run by the players with no consequences what so ever for throwing teammates under the bus (Pedey) or belittling staff (Eck) screw players grown adults can’t get away with that stuff at their jobs. I get that the club house could always be worse such as the players legitimately hating each other and the manager but there has to be a happy medium.
Steven Wright as a pinch runner.
That’s not even including leaving a gassed Sale in during Game 4 where he was allowed to face a guy who hammers the hell out of lefties and murdered Sale in Game 1. When they were able to milk 60 + pitches out of him and everyone watching the game knew he was gassed. If you want a lefty in there for the 8th go with Pomeranz ERod hell even though he’s a righty that’s what you have Reed for.
If you want me to list the gripes with his coaching staff we’ll be here all night starting with Willis and Davis. Butterfield sending players and getting them thrown out in key situations. I’d be open to keeping Farrell but his whole staff at the very least needs to go.
On the "dressing down" point, I do recall from Francona's autobiography that Tito mentioned that he and Theo often had heated discussions about strategy and tactics in his office after a tough game. The McAdam article sounds like the classic collection of anonymously sourced stories that always seem to surround this team after a disappointing finish. Dombrowski and Farrell have a heated discussion, similar in nature to some of the disagreements here, and some random clubhouse douche runs to the press and say he's heard Dombrowski "dressing down" Farrell.
Maybe it's real, but there's a chance it may not be either. Now back to the discussion on whether we should fire Farrell....
If you're going to quote SSS stats as part of your "specific examples," you probably should at least include the fact that the "guy who hits .200" actually OPS'd .944 against lefties this season. And that Devers was 3 for 27 heading into that game, in which, by the way, he got 2 at bats(0-2)
Pedro would put these kids in their fucking place when needed and command immense respect of the veterans.
That's all I have to say about that.
That's all I have to say about that.
1) If that's a reference to Marrero, he hit .291 with a .944 OPS vs. LHP this season. Foolish of Farrell to think Pomeranz might actually pitch well in a close game where defense could be crucial.
2) This refers to Barnes? Since half your games are on the road, no manager can really shelve a guy depending on where you're playing. Whitey Ford pitched in a whole different era.
3) Umm, umm...OK, I said Farrell was making a stupid mistake putting Wright on the bases right as he did it, so yeah.
Edit: too slow.
Deven Marrero batted .291 with a 141 wRC+ against lefties this year. Citing his .200 (sic) overall BA is incredibly misleading in this context. I also disagreed with that choice, but sitting a 20 year old LHB against a tough lefty pitcher in the playoffs is justifiable whether you like it or not. And this is still anecdotal.
How do you get a hitter out of a slump? You get them out there and have them work things out. You might sit them for a few days to clear their head, but you have to get them back on the horse. Farrell had to either get Barnes to figure it out on the road or prove conclusively he couldn't before the season ended. Running him out there was necessary, even if it was maddening from a fan's point of view.
And the bullpen still managed to have some of the best results in the majors while the team won enough games to take the division. So he clearly didn't do this to an overwhelmingly detrimental degree. This doesn't really do much to move the needle. And it's anecdotal, so try harder.
Purely anecdotal and 100% speculative. This is worthless.
It's been debated a ton, but once again Wright had crashed back to Earth way before the injury and given the situation, the decision was absolutely defensible. This is one of those things that people like you love to wave around because the results look so ugly, but the chances that he would get hurt like that and to that degree were microscopic.
Yep, he was too slow on the hook. I'm not sure that's a fireable offense, though. And before you go there, Gump wasn't fired for that one decision alone. It was a nice exclamation point his season, but his dismissal was about his approach to managing more than anything else. By all accounts, the Sox front office and Farrell are on the same page with regard to prep, information processing and dissemination, strategy, the basics of lineup construction, how to utilize a bullpen, etc. So I wouldn't consider the two scenarios all that comparable.
No, I want you to provide data. All of this is anecdotal and plenty of it is you making assumptions that support your preconceived notions. This simply isn't a compelling argument.
And look, I'm not saying anecdotal evidence has no place in discussions. But when all you have is anecdotes, you might want to ask why that is.
The case for Farrell being a bad manager is a poor one. The case for his firing being imperative is simply ridiculous.
- Status