Farrell Watch

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

When you have actual people on your bench and go with Steven Wright to pinch run how in the hell is that defensible? He's a pitcher. He's also a slow one at that. What the hell was he doing pinch running?

Matt Barnes pitched 33 games on the road and had an ERA of 5.28 theres a time and place for these players to work out their issues on the road. The 7th and 8th innings of close games is not one of them. You want to throw him on the road in the 6th when you have a 5 run lead I have no issues with having him work out issues that way.

I'm aware of what Marrero was hitting.against lefties. Still wasn't nearly as good as Devers. You play the guys who helped get you there. Devers hit .400 against lefties. .400. I don't really give a crap what numbers you pull from Marrero. Devers was still the play. If you want a defensive guy in the game like Marrero then by all means put him in during the 7th 8th and 9th innings where defense is crucial. Do not start him over one of your best young players.

"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."

So in a season where the clubhouse acted like a bunch of Jackasses with Farrell driving the bus. Coaches sending players they had no business sending. Starters having a playoff ERA of 11 over the last two seasons. DD having issues behind closed doors with Farrell according to McAdam thus not being on the same page. The lineup severely regressing and yes continuously throwing Barnes out there in the 8th on the road with no rhyme or reason and hoping for a different result. I think its closer to the Gump situation than you're acknowledging. Reed was the logical choice to start the 8th. If you want to go with splits Bregman was hitting .331 against lefties. So why in the holy hell would you keep Sale in when he was just murdered by this same guy a couple days prior when he was rested. Why expect a different result after throwing 60 + pitches.

These are all things that fall on Farrell AND his staff. I want to make it clear I'm not blaming him for everything but holy shit he takes the fall for at least some of this nonsense.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

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.

First, I am not sure Pedro would necessarily put anyone in their place. Managing egos (the main job of a manager when it comes to players) is an art and its not necessarily bestowed on those who have the most talent. Pedro seems like a very personable guy but its unclear what sort of people skills he has to deal with all the random stuff that comes up as an actual manager.

More to the point, DanoooME is spot on. It doesn't matter who is next. If not Tyrone et al, there will be other factions on this board calling for blood the minute that person starts a bench guy with a sub .600 OPS over a regular when the regular is seemingly well rested. Or when that new manager leaves his starter in a batter or two too long during a game in May. Or when he goes to the wrong guy in the bullpen in a high leverage situation.

Or any number of ways a manager pisses folks off on the board - despite the fact that said manager may know that the regular went hard at the bars last night and is almost guaranteed to go oh for whatever or that the starter is working on a new out pitch or that his usual eighth inning/LOOGY/specialist has the runs or whatever. It doesn't matter if the manager has more information than we have about the options at his disposal because he is making a decision that some people here would *never* make given their omniscience.

I want to be crystal clear. I don't love John Farrell and if he is fired, I won't shed one tear. However I refuse to believe that even one single person on this internet messageboard has even a fraction of the information available to him and his staff for their decision making purposes. If I am correct, we can certainly question his moves but being overly critical without that color is MMQB-ing at its worst.

edit: I am an omnidiot

 

[j44thor]

Agreed, this thread should just be pinned since it is perennially the most active thread if the Sox don't at least make the ALCS. We can just swap out the name and keep the same discussion going regardless of who is at the helm. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[streeter88]

....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.

I wish the author of this Fangraphs article were a SOSHer so that it would be an easy call to ask him to update the article for this season's results. Based on bref stats on Red Sox inning by inning RS vs RA, and how the Red Sox seemed to own the late innings vs their opponents, I would think that Farrell's scores for bullpen usage would have gone up this year. However, I would wonder about his actual to ideal lineup scores, and by extension his impact on the dip in results by nearly the entire Red Sox lineup.

Anyway, it would be good to have up to date data to support the argument on his effectiveness.

Not taking a side here, though I would be in favor of at least a reshuffle of the supporting coaches (hitting, pitching), and a serious rethink about the effectiveness of the medical / conditioning staff as well. No need to harp on all the reasons why as they have been covered very well up thread by better baseball minds than mine.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I’m not sure anyone has made the claim that the next guy would be perfect, or that that person even exists. Because they don’t. And of course, whomever they went to would draw his own share of criticism. The argument some are making is that perhaps it’s time for a change of voice or strategy or coaching style or development; and that JF’s track record maybe doesn’t garner him the benefit of the doubt. The World Series ring I think we can agree was a perfect storm, if not an out and out outlier. Back to back division titles is somewhat trivial in the big picture.

As some have noted, even those defending him are lukewarm, relying on ‘there’s no evidence to fire him’ and yet don’t give a hearty endorsement. As others have noted, he’s in the last year of his deal, so they kind of have to shit or get off the pot. Fire him or extend him. But there’s a level of ‘it has to be one of the other’ because having a lame duck already rumored to be on the chopping block and getting excoriated in his office by the GM isn’t helping anything for 2018. The writing appears to be on the wall and I think it’s a foolish idea to extend him in that environment.

Yes, the next guy will garner criticism, just like Tito did at times. And yes, the next guy might* be worse. But stasis isn’t always good and this team has enough talent to compete for a title. If firing a competent, but flawed, manager is the sacrifice that needs to be made then so be it. I in no way want to see him extended so I’d obviously lean towards firing him, but we obviously don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors and reasonable minds can differ I guess on what kind of distraction it would be to have him on the last year of his deal.

Frankly, I’d rather see some fresh blood. No retreads or guys that failed out elsewhere. Go younger to mesh with your core. Cora. Ross. Callaway. Kapler. But if they fill with Farrell again and are ready to eat his salary with another disappointing season (and no, I’m not being emotional about losing yesterday, I didn’t expect them to make it very far anyway) then sure. But don’t send him back in on a one year deal.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

However I refuse to believe that even one single person on this internet messageboard has even a fraction of the information available to him and his staff for their decision making purposes. If I am correct, we can certainly question his moves but being overly critical without that color is MMQB-ing at its worst.

Two counter-points.
1. This same argument (in the italics) was used by people defending GW Bush's invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMD. We know how that turned out. I never trust this argument. I think people paying close attention from afar, even with incomplete information, can be tuned in enough to get a feel for a situation. Think about Tango's Fan Scouting Report. The fan's doing the grading aren't professional experts and don't have all the information available, but their collective wisdom has value.
2. At risk of being pedantic, every person on this messageboard does have a FRACTION of the information available to Farrell. The question isn't whether we have a fraction, but how large that fraction is. (For these purposes I'll express the fraction as a percentage.) None of us has 100% of the info Farrell does, and none of us has 0% of the info Farrell does. Thanks to the internet and fantastic sites like FanGraphs, Baseball Prospectus and the many others, we have a very large percentage of the same statistical info that Farrell has. Whether that's 70%, 80% or 90% we don't know, but we know it's a large percentage. So what we don't know is mainly limited to up-to-the-minute personal information of the sort noted by DBMH. Let's crowdsource how often we think stuff like that might be a factor.

What's most interesting to me is whether bringing Sale out for the 8th inning proves to be Farrell's "Grady & Pedro" moment. As I noted in another thread, Lou Merloni on the radio broadcast had pointed out that Sale was dangerously missing his location inside the strikezone in the 7th inning, a sign of fatigue and potential trouble. Turns out he shouldn't have been brought out for another inning. Similarly, everybody in the world (except for Grady) knew that Pedro was gassed and shouldn't have been brought out for another inning. So I see two main questions here.
1. How comparable was the Sale situation to the Pedro situation? Did everybody know he was gassed? Or were Merloni's powers of observation singularly more astute than anyone else's? (I was only listening to the game, not watching, so I don't have my own impression to go on. Whereas in 2003 I was watching and knew Pedro was gassed.)
2. How much of that decision was Farrell's? He had been ejected from the game several innings earlier. By rule, he is supposed to "take no further part" in the game. Is that what really happens? Was the decision to bring Sale out for the 8th inning Farrell's or was it DiSarcina's?
If it was Farrell's decision, and if it was apparent to most observers that Sale should not have been pitching the 8th, I think that's a fireable offense. If not, then I'm ok with him staying or going. Here I agree with DBMH: "I don't love John Farrell, and if he is fired I won't shed one tear."

PS: I believe you mean "omniscience," knowing everything, rather than "omnipotence," having unlimited power.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Two counter-points.
1. This same argument (in the italics) was used by people defending GW Bush's invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMD. We know how that turned out. I never trust this argument. I think people paying close attention from afar, even with incomplete information, can be tuned in enough to get a feel for a situation. Think about Tango's Fan Scouting Report. The fan's doing the grading aren't professional experts and don't have all the information available, but their collective wisdom has value.

We can agree to disagree on this point and I am not sure your comparison of Bush pushing into Iraq holds here. Regardless, I simply cannot agree that, outside of their records, we have perfect information or even enough perfect information to adequately judge how truly well Farrell or other managers have done. That said, you are what you are and I can see an argument that Farrell isn't worth retaining on his record alone.

2. At risk of being pedantic, every person on this messageboard does have a FRACTION of the information available to Farrell. The question isn't whether we have a fraction, but how large that fraction is. (For these purposes I'll express the fraction as a percentage.) None of us has 100% of the info Farrell does, and none of us has 0% of the info Farrell does. Thanks to the internet and fantastic sites like FanGraphs, Baseball Prospectus and the many others, we have a very large percentage of the same statistical info that Farrell has. Whether that's 70%, 80% or 90% we don't know, but we know it's a large percentage. So what we don't know is mainly limited to up-to-the-minute personal information of the sort noted by DBMH. Let's crowdsource how often we think stuff like that might be a factor.

We can also agree to disagree here, however I need to clarify. What I mean about information is not the splits etc that are readily available for anyone willing to dig or the more than a few here that can use their own stats. I am speaking more to the idea that Farrell/the coaching staff (or any other manager) has information about how the players - actual live human beings - are feeling on any given game day. Sometimes guys have tired arms, others there are family stresses, and other times guys are hung-over or in a shitty frame of mind - let's call them "human issues". Fangraphs isn't going to have that information and I suspect that human issues are, at least some of the time, a key driver in managerial decisions.

PS: I believe you mean "omniscience," knowing everything, rather than "omnipotence," having unlimited power.

You are correct - thank you for pointing out my idiocy.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

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.

The problem with evaluating the manager is we just don't have the data to do it. Your basic question is: how does Farrell make the Red Sox better? Better how and better than what? What is the baseline? As an example: It's been said (and mostly accepted, I think) that the most important job of the manager is to manage the personalities on his team. You said yourself (I think it was you; I'm not re-reading the thread to be sure) that the Price/Eck/Pedroia incidents are almost as bad as chicken and beer. So, Farrell has improved the team relative to Francona in that (the most important) respect, no? Is he an improvement on Bobby V in that regard? Another example: Farrell has been the manager for 5 seasons now. He has presided over 432 regular season wins, 3 AL East titles, 12 playoff wins, and a World Series title. In the previous 5 years, the Sox won 438 regular season games, 0 AL East titles, 6 playoff wins, and 0 World Series. I believe their results under him have improved. These are two criteria that could be used to evaluate the manager. Another example: The hitting in 2017 was worse than 2016. But the pitching was better. David Ortiz retired, Chris Sale was added, and plenty of other factors certainly played a role. Did Farrell have any effect on either result? Was he the driving force? What evidence is there to prove this? As the manager, he's ultimately responsible for the team's performance. Did he make them better or worse?

You've posted several negative examples of his decisions/performance, with which I mostly agree. Do they add up to being fireable offenses? How do you/I/we/the FO compare that to the performance of another manager? If we watched 162 yankees, Orioles, Indians, or [insert team] games each year, we could come up with a bunch of examples of poor performance by those managers, too. Would there be more or less? Would they be more egregious? What if those managers were placed in the exact same circumstances as Farrell? It is impossible to quantify. Even the in-game tactics (which I don't think JF is very good at) can't be compared to another manager's, and they're a hell of a lot easier to see than all the other aspects of a manager's job - which I happen to believe are more important. I think JF is better than Bobby V and worse than Tito on that aggregate front, but that's only perception. I really have no idea what goes on in the clubhouse, at FO meetings, in pre-game preparation, on the plane, or in practice.

A manager should not be kept on in a lame duck status, as others have asserted. The choice here, then, is to either fire JF or extend him. But, extending him only means continuing with him as manager. So it's really fire him or keep him. If kept, he could be fired in May, or at the end of 2018, or extended again. Therefore, the onus is on those who wish to disrupt the status quo to show cause. Personally, I think it's a very difficult case to make, based largely on how nebulous the job of a manager is. That's also why I'm ambivalent about whatever decision the FO makes. If anything, I lean toward bringing in someone new that I find more enjoyable to listen to talk about baseball - a purely subjective reason.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

I wrote up a piece for the .com about firing or keeping Farrell for your reading pleasure. Fire away.

 

[BroodsSexton]

I wrote up a piece for the .com about firing or keeping Farrell for your reading pleasure. Fire away.

You don't justify your conclusion explicitly, but implicitly it seems that your central criteria, expressed in different ways, is "how did the team perform relative to individual player performance"? So, for example, you credit Farrell for (1) runs scored and overall wins and losses, in spite of individual underperformance in hitting; (2) an aggressive baserunning philosophy that leads to a reward of extra bases, notwithstanding the material risks associated with that approach (i.e., the "boneheaded" errors are a feature, not a bug, of an approach that also benefits from the risk-taking); (3) handling the pitching and the pen in a manner that has objectively favorable outcomes relative to individual performances.

I think this is a reasonable analysis, based on the information we have. It is limited, of course, because we can't measure the effects of a manager on individual performance--which would shift the range of the entire analysis, and which we assume is a key function of the manager, i.e., getting the most out of his players/putting them in a position to succeed.

I wonder, if using your approach, there are teams which have had objectively "good" seasons, where this analysis would suggest that the manager should nonetheless be fired. And if so, whether we would observationally agree that the manager should have been replaced.

 

[Bigpupp]

When you have actual people on your bench and go with Steven Wright to pinch run how in the hell is that defensible? He's a pitcher. He's also a slow one at that. What the hell was he doing pinch running?

Because he didn't have actual people on the bench. It was an NL game and they had already used most of their bench at that point. Farrell's only choices were to pinch run a pitcher, the backup catcher, or the only pinch hitter left (and the pitcher spot was guaranteed to come up again). Shit happens but he didn't really have a choice.

 

[JimD]

The Grady Little comp is an interesting one. Little managed the team to 93 and 95-win seasons and got the Sox to Game 7 of the ALCS. The players had his back after that loss and it was not unanimous that the disastrous Pedro decision merited his dismissal. Theo disagreed, of course - by all accounts Little's unwillingness to share his GM's beliefs in the value of statistical analysis has been a point of contention and Epstein wasted no time in taking advantage of the ALCS controversy to dump him and commence a search for a manager who shared his thinking.

Dave Dombrowski is in the same boat. He may have inherited John Farrell as manager but he will own this upcoming decision either way. He decided (or was forced) to keep Farrell after the manager's cancer treatments but there is obviously a shelf life on such considerations. If DD is not convinced that Farrell is the best manager for the 2018 Red Sox, then he should absolutely be allowed replace him with a manager that he believes in.

I can't speak for others who are advocating Farrell's dismissal, but I fully recognize that there would be risk in firing him and potentially losing the clubhouse leadership and other qualities that have helped make postseason contenders of the 2016-17 Red Sox. I would hope that people who aren't convinced that Farrell should be dismissed would acknowledge in turn that hiring the right new manager could very well be an upgrade. I've come around to thinking that making a change is worth the risk.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Because he didn't have actual people on the bench. It was an NL game and they had already used most of their bench at that point. Farrell's only choices were to pinch run a pitcher, the backup catcher, or the only pinch hitter left (and the pitcher spot was guaranteed to come up again). Shit happens but he didn't really have a choice.

My mistake about not having anyone on the bench. Still doesn’t change the fact that a pitcher doesn’t have any business pinch running.

 

[charlieoscar]

What's most interesting to me is whether bringing Sale out for the 8th inning proves to be Farrell's "Grady & Pedro" moment. As I noted in another thread, Lou Merloni on the radio broadcast had pointed out that Sale was dangerously missing his location inside the strikezone in the 7th inning, a sign of fatigue and potential trouble.

I thought that Sale was losing it back then, too, and remarked about it to my wife. But it was not just that instance with Sale; I've seen other times in the season when the pitcher either just didn't have it or was losing it and took a nearly complete meltdown before he was pulled. There were a number of times when I wondered how a manager, who had been a pitching coach, couldn't manage pitchers.

 

[BestGameEvah]

I wrote up a piece for the .com about firing or keeping Farrell for your reading pleasure. Fire away.

And those questions should be raised; after all, the Red Sox were second in the league in Outs On Base at second (25) and led the league in OOB at third (19) and at home (29). But they were also second in Extra Bases Taken% at 43% and highly ranked in other baserunning stats.

Just reviewed the outs at home thread I posted mid season.
Of the 29 outs at home and the 1 out at home vs Astros:

13-14? on contact. Predetermined from Farrell on bench before the pitch.
3 ran through stop sign. <Actually had 4, but d'Arnaud got in under the tag>
I have 8 runners actually waved. Which is not what the avg fan thinks when they hear 30 runners gunned down.

The only team with more outs at 2nd than us(25) is the Yankees with (28)

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

He's gone. New thread started. Go there.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

You don't justify your conclusion explicitly, but implicitly it seems that your central criteria, expressed in different ways, is "how did the team perform relative to individual player performance"? So, for example, you credit Farrell for (1) runs scored and overall wins and losses, in spite of individual underperformance in hitting; (2) an aggressive baserunning philosophy that leads to a reward of extra bases, notwithstanding the material risks associated with that approach (i.e., the "boneheaded" errors are a feature, not a bug, of an approach that also benefits from the risk-taking); (3) handling the pitching and the pen in a manner that has objectively favorable outcomes relative to individual performances.

I think this is a reasonable analysis, based on the information we have. It is limited, of course, because we can't measure the effects of a manager on individual performance--which would shift the range of the entire analysis, and which we assume is a key function of the manager, i.e., getting the most out of his players/putting them in a position to succeed.

I wonder, if using your approach, there are teams which have had objectively "good" seasons, where this analysis would suggest that the manager should nonetheless be fired. And if so, whether we would observationally agree that the manager should have been replaced.

Thanks broods. That would be an interesting approach to evaluating managers. Something to look into in the offseason.