Is it safe to discuss John Farrell again?
- Thread starter Captaincoop
- Start date
- Status
Not baseball, but a familiar name.....
Later in the season, on April 2, 2007, New Jersey abruptly terminated Julien, despite the Devils' 47–24–8 record, which at the time was leading the Atlantic Division and tied for the second-best record in the Eastern Conference. Devils General Manager Lou Lamoriello said that despite the team's stellar record, he did not feel Julien had it ready for the 2007 playoffs.[4] Lamoriello himself replaced Julien, the second straight season in which Lamoriello left the front office to coach the Devils at the end of the season.[5] Despite the change, the Devils went on to lose in the Eastern Conference Semi-final to the Ottawa Senators.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Julien_(ice_hockey)#NHL_coaching_career
Later in the season, on April 2, 2007, New Jersey abruptly terminated Julien, despite the Devils' 47–24–8 record, which at the time was leading the Atlantic Division and tied for the second-best record in the Eastern Conference. Devils General Manager Lou Lamoriello said that despite the team's stellar record, he did not feel Julien had it ready for the 2007 playoffs.[4] Lamoriello himself replaced Julien, the second straight season in which Lamoriello left the front office to coach the Devils at the end of the season.[5] Despite the change, the Devils went on to lose in the Eastern Conference Semi-final to the Ottawa Senators.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Julien_(ice_hockey)#NHL_coaching_career
OK, I found another one, Ray Knight had the 1997 Reds out to a 43-36 start, Jack McKeon replaced him and went 33-30 the rest of the way.
I've spent hours trying to parse this post but I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that someone said they thought the post was awesome makes me feel even more inadequate.
He's referencing the Cleveland Cavaliers firing their coach (Lebron basically didn't like him anymore) despite having the best record in the East and giving the job to Tyronn Lue, aka, Lebron's puppet. Because you know Basketball and Baseball are totally interchangeable. It was an awesome post in the sense that it totally sucked.
I also wonder what percentage of those very opposed to Farrell continuing as manager, if asked to answer within 3 seconds, would remember whether we won or lost that game.
The Wright example is an interesting one, because it's one of the few times that Farrell criticism has been directed at a decision he has made in a winning position. Most of the Farrell-sucks-at-game-management arguments this year have been targeted at decisions that he has made when deciding between difficult options in losing positions. Some of the gamethread grousing last night about Kimbrel pitching down a run in the ninth because it's "obvious" that he can't pitch in non-save situations is sort of par for the course. Earlier in the year it was platoon and pinch hitting decisions in late innings of games we were losing by a couple of runs. Same with lots of the criticism over late-game, losing position bullpen management that we saw in the prior fire-Farrell thread.
The reality with the Wright decision is that nothing that Wright might have done in the one-at-bat-too-many that is obvious in retrospect could have taken the Red Sox from a winning position to a losing position. And, ultimately, the poor decision had no impact on the game outcome or much of anything in the end except to teach us a lesson about Wright in the rain -- other than, I guess, forcing use of more premium bullpen in later innings than might have been necessary if the five-run lead had been maintained. I understand the counterargument -- "OMG, but what if he does that in a playoff game or down the stretch against the Orioles" -- and I'm not unduly discounting that argument. But it's just more illustration that the effect of, say, failing to platoon a guy who gives you a .080 OPS advantage in the 8th inning of a 4-2 game (subtracting the corresponding negative of burning a bench player) does not have a huge impact on what matters -- win percentage.
I also think there are psychological forces at play here -- the viewing experience of a game always depends on the score. Angst is higher when we're losing and things are magnified. Travis Shaw committing an error when the team is up 10-2 feels different from when the team is down a run. We don't focus on the decisions Farrell makes up 4 nearly as much as the decisions he makes down 1.
The one that includes the following (edited to keep the focus on the issue raised by uncannymanny):
To Joe Dokes's point (and consistent with some of the results quoted above), there's a chance that a managerial change would have a negative impact, and to - well, lots of people's points - there's a chance that replacing Farrell would improve performance, too. I feel like the team is playing worse than its talent would suggest that it should, and think that the manager should be held accountable for that, but I'm open to counter-arguments (the skill level isn't actually very good, or less persuasively, the manager shouldn't be held accountable).
I think it's interesting that you went with the insult route. The post you quoted includes the following: "Overall, I'd guess most people would agree (regardless of the relevance of W/L debate above) that there is a point at which a change would have to be made. The debate really comes down to, what's the right time? Is it now, or would it be better to let things play out and only make a change if performance sinks to (pick a limit - I haven't seen any of the pro-Farrell crowd indicate that there's any specific point at which a change would be necessary). I'm in the 'time for a change now' camp, but I'd probably be content to wait for "change if/when the record gets to <.500" or "change when the probability of making the playoffs sinks below a threshold" (50%? 40%?)."
Are the JF defenders saying "there's a point at which JF should be replaced, but we aren't there yet" or is the JF defense absolute ("none of that W/L stuff is justification enough for a change"). If it's the former, where's the point at which you'd switch camps and say "okay, now it's time?" And if it's the latter...well, then this discussion is even more pointless than it appears so far!
I think to better make your point you'd need to look at teams you think are playing better than their talent would suggest, and see how/if that can be attributed to the manager.
I'm not sure how someone would go about doing that, though.
I'm not either. There was a post (pages ago) that suggested polling recent players and others (front office members, maybe?) about what's most important in a successful manager. That wouldn't answer the question as you've posed it (as many here have pointed out, it would be possible for a manager to be doing the 'right things' and still not be winning consistently), but something like that would at least provide a benchmark that would make these kinds of debates more focused...
Two points.
One, Ray Knight was widely regarded as an utterly terrible manager. In a sport that always recycles failed managers--see Torre, Joe--it's important to note that after Ray Knight was fired by the Reds, he managed one more game in his career and that was for the Reds as an interim manager.
Second, firing a manager has a way of kicking a team into gear. See Magic, Morgan. To make the point that managers have a large impact, you'd have to demonstrate that replacing a bad manager with a good manager means more wins than replacing a bad manager with a manager who is better than the bad manager and not as good as the good manager.
I don't think you can do that. I don't think there are any objective measures that can make fine determinations of how good a manager is.
For me, the former. But short of something like Ron Washington snorting the baselines, there's not a concrete thing I can point to. I think I'll know the time it when I see it.
I snipped out the part from your post, but I dont agree about underperforming the talent level. Not significantly anyway. (Only Price really jumps out at me). I think the guys that have been bad (or at least not consistently good) stood a pretty fair chance of turning out that way before the season started. That's probably the foundation of why I dont think firing the manager is likely to do much good. Writ large, they have a top flight offense, a pretty good bullpen, and somewhere between 2 and 3 reliable starting pitchers (a shortage which often weakens the bullpen). That makes a 540 winning pct seem about right. If that makes me a "defender," so be it. I'm in it for the (mostly interesting) discussion, not the camp-label.
I just feel having an 7expitching coach for a manager has the effect of neutering the actual pitching coach. Now with Farrell Willis and Billingsley you have too man opinions competing to be the guy who solves the problem. Dumping the manager has the affect of empowering then new pitching coach.and creating a singular coherent approach for each pitcher.
Would we be having this discussion if David Price's ERA were 2.64 instead of 4.64? Looking at the game logs, it looks like we've lost three games to Price sucking, and we've won two in spite of Price sucking. Sucking here being defined as allowed five earned runs or more. He's allowing more hits per nine than ever, and more homers per nine than all but his first full season.
If none of that's true, and David Price is pitching like an ace, only occasionally allowing 3 runs or more in a game, this team is in first place despite everything else that has happened.
Do you think David Price is pitching poorly because of John Farrell? Every single analysis of Price I've read concludes that he's not pitching much differently than he ever has, and that the differences in bottom line results are likely random variation. I know people hate the idea that there's luck in this game, but there is, and a lot of it. See also Price's .325 BABIP compared to a career .289, a 3.52 FIP compared to a career 3.22 and a 3.22 xFIP compared to a 3.34 for his career.
I'd hesitate to speak for all the JF defenders, but I'll mention that I wanted Kevin Kennedy fired after the 1995 season.
Of course there is a point at which the manager should be fired. If the manager fails to prepare the team adequately (See Kevin Kennedy, 1996) or if the team fails to play for him at all (See Bobby Valentine) or if the manager is clearly making horrible lineups (See Jimy Williams) or makes the single worst managerial decision in the history of sports (See Grady Little) he should be fired.
I'm saying that John Farrell is a marginally better than average manager due more to the fact that there are a lot of terrible managers than to any particular brilliance on his part. I'm saying that changing managers is a big change for an organization and it shouldn't be done unless you're looking at a clear upgrade. If your manager is Keven Kennedy or Bobby Valentine, that's easy. If your manager is perfectly fine but nothing special, it's a lot, lot harder.
The point at which I say "Okay, now it's time" is the moment DD holds a press conference to announce he's let Farrell go. Because most of the job is something all of us here can't watch on NESN, yet it seems nearly all of the FF ire results from either poor results on the field (heavily featuring retrospective second guessing and confirmation bias) or general malaise over the team record. I trust Dombrowski to weigh the full picture better than I or any of us possibly could, rather than bringing in new management every time someone gets picked off or a reliever gives up a home run.
This is not to say Farrell's perfect; he makes mistakes sometimes, and I've never seen anyone on this board argue otherwise. If Bruce Bochy said he wanted to come to Boston I'd probably hope it could be arranged. But even if he did, I get the distinct impression that if we fielded a bad team and had a losing season or two we'd soon be hearing the same chorus starting up again.
Just a few comments:
In 2011 when TF, by his own admission, said he had lost control of the team and the players did not seem to hear him anymore - remember the "Chicken Incident" - was the year JF went to Toronto.
In 2013 under JF the Sox won the WS after a terrible year under Bobby V.
In 2014 we were disappointed when all the players who played amazing in 2013 actually played to their expected levels and the team traded Lackey & Lester that JF did not win.
In 2015 with the team in transition and JF fighting cancer they did not win.
In 2016 JF has the Sox with a record of 45-38 and one of the ALWC candidates while dealing with injuries and a generally disappointing rotation (Porcello & Wright excluded) & lackluster pen.
Some how I think JF has had some positive impacts on the team and has dealt with adversity, transition and disappointment well. Is he the best manager in baseball, no. Is he a terrible manager, no. Is he a little above average, probable.
One key component which may not be obvious in all this is that when he has players who are playing the game at a high level and playing as a team (2013) he wins and when they are not he loses. I think it is indicative of what has been said many times in this thread - the players, their talent and the ability to play as a team can make or break a manager.
In 2011 when TF, by his own admission, said he had lost control of the team and the players did not seem to hear him anymore - remember the "Chicken Incident" - was the year JF went to Toronto.
In 2013 under JF the Sox won the WS after a terrible year under Bobby V.
In 2014 we were disappointed when all the players who played amazing in 2013 actually played to their expected levels and the team traded Lackey & Lester that JF did not win.
In 2015 with the team in transition and JF fighting cancer they did not win.
In 2016 JF has the Sox with a record of 45-38 and one of the ALWC candidates while dealing with injuries and a generally disappointing rotation (Porcello & Wright excluded) & lackluster pen.
Some how I think JF has had some positive impacts on the team and has dealt with adversity, transition and disappointment well. Is he the best manager in baseball, no. Is he a terrible manager, no. Is he a little above average, probable.
One key component which may not be obvious in all this is that when he has players who are playing the game at a high level and playing as a team (2013) he wins and when they are not he loses. I think it is indicative of what has been said many times in this thread - the players, their talent and the ability to play as a team can make or break a manager.
The issue I have with that is you mention a generally disappointing rotation and attribute none of that to Farrell. My biggest criticism of Farrell is that he's a former development guy and pitching coach, so one would think that his biggest impact would be fixing pitchers, both young and veteran. I've seen none of that since 2013 and that's why I wouldn't be sad to see them move on.
The Baltimore Orioles since about August 2011. I do not understand how Buck keeps that team above .500, let alone wins division titles.
Division title, singular. Baltimore has one one division title in that time frame. And last year they were a .500 team.
Yes, I read those posts, in context even. I'm trying to fathom how you get to "managers don't matter much" from them.
How much worse than their talent level do you think they're playing?
I'm also wondering why you, and others, keep propping up statements like this as if someone had argued it. I'd be confused too if I was projecting these things onto other posters.
Lester in 2013-14, Edro last season and Wright and Porcello this season, but I guess he hasn't fixed Owens.
Wow, so the 85 guys who have more appearances than him so far this year must be really screwed.
My issue, as it is with any discussion of managers (or coaches, or whomever) is that we really don't have any insight into the day-to-day workings of the job. In other words, we don't actually see them manage, which is arguably the most important aspect of a team leader in a sport where players and coaches live and work in close quarters for 8 months out of the year. The fan experience of the manager is limited to his lineups and substitutions. And we can apply efficiency metrics to determine how optimal those choices are. But even that approach fails when you consider unseen causes for variance (injuries, particularly).
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you here. Ray Knight was offered as one example where a team over .500 replaced its manager midseason. Another example was the 1988 Yankees. For both of these clubs, the winning percentage was lower with the new manager. The notable counter-example is of course Morgan Magic in 1988 where the Sox were 43-42 when McNamara was dismissed. I would welcome other examples that folks might be aware of.
It's entirely possible that I have taken brief naps while reading the thread.
I think this is an interesting point. I recall reading around that time that Farrell was actually Tito's "enforcer" in the clubhouse; e.g. the muscle guy of sorts who Tito leveraged to put problem players in their place.
Have to bump this... left SOS in for at least 2 batters too long if not 3 as the ASB approaches, almost a complete metldown. Eck was pretty much all over it live.
I mean, we can win the World Series with a terrible tactical manager. We did in 2013! But John Farrell is a terrible tactical manager.
In 2013 John Farrell was unbelievable, he pushed every right button. Ironically, every player on the team seemed to play up to each situation negating his managing skills if one is to believe that the coach doesn't have much of an impact. I still feel that he has had plenty of head scratchers the past three seasons.
Dozens of people not named Bobby Valentine just needed to stay out of the way of that 2013 team and win big and compete for the WS. JF just happened to be the guy along for the ride and has taken advantage of that gift by delivering back-to-back underperforming teams that sank and didn't swim. Why did DD have to keep him? He didn't take the job thinking he was hooking up to the JF managerial wagon. If not for JF getting sick DD wanted who to manage his team?
Come on, where's the gif of that?
I gotta say, watching that live, it was not Farrell's finest moment. Every manager's gonna have some, but....oof.
This is a good example of what many on this board have been saying - we don't always know enough about what's going on inside the dugout to reasonably judge a manager on every move he makes. Farrell not going to Ross seems like a horrible move at the time, but with both Kimbrel and Tazawa unavailable it now seems perfectly reasonable to want the starter to get through as many innings as possible.
SOS had nothing left and could have easily given up 8 runs instead of 4. Even with the thin bullpen I think you have to be prepared to go to Ross or whoever after Longo.
See, this is bullshit. The decision worked. If you're going to micro-analyze these moves with absurdly limited information, you can't have a scenario where you say, "well I decide it was a bad decision even though he ended up being 'right'." He knew he was stretching the guy, but his strategic decision was to roll the dice. And it worked. And let's be honest, the inverse--an ostensibly "good" decision that goes bad--never goes in his credit (quite the opposite).
Couple that with the extreme lack of contextual information that he has and you don't (in this case--he actually had a short 'pen), and this gets silly really quick.
I'm not sure appearances should be the guide. Among MLB relievers:
He's tied for 87th in innings pitched.
He's tied for 98th in batters faced.
He's tied for 81st in pitches thrown.
Can someone intercut this scene but replace Orson Welles with Farrell and make JF black & white? We'd probably win an Oscar in the shorts category.
After going 7-2 in July into the All-Star break, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Farrell's job is probably safe for a little while. It could certainly change with a huge losing streak, but unless there's some kind of personal scandal I bet Farrell is the manager at the end of the season.
It's funny, after that meme of Farrell watching a crushed foul ball and not having his bullpen ready I really thought there was a chance he'd be fired midseason, but after hearing the explanation for it and the Red Sox sweeping the Rays, I don't think the FO will do it.
It's funny, after that meme of Farrell watching a crushed foul ball and not having his bullpen ready I really thought there was a chance he'd be fired midseason, but after hearing the explanation for it and the Red Sox sweeping the Rays, I don't think the FO will do it.
Last edited:
I'm really disappointed. There was a time when someone would have come up with a VORM formula by now, and we'd be debating that instead.
I've come to the conclusion that he's a version of Grady Little. He's a SABR savvy guy, which distinguishes him from that dinosaur, but we are just going to have to live with the knowledge that there's going to be a tournament game where Tommy Layne is pitching to a right handed hitter with the potential winning run on 2nd base or Ric Porcello is throwing his 116 pitch with Tazawa ready in the bullpen. Or Brandon Workman is hitting in a tie game.
Was he tactically unsound in the 2013 postseason, or in meaningful late September games? I'm willing to forgive the occasional tactical misstep during the regular season, on the assumption that navigating a 162-game schedule requires occasional tactical decisions that are puzzling to an outsider with incomplete information.
For me, evaluating Farrell has less to do with in-game tactics than weighing the credit he presumably deserves for the hitters' performance against the blame he presumably deserves for the pitchers' performance. In-season managerial changes are typically the hallmark of a poorly run organization, so I lean toward letting Farrell finish the season and evaluating him then, but in light of the unusual circumstances of last offseason (i.e., there's zero chance he's still manager if he didn't have cancer), I understand why others feel differently, even if they would agree that in-season changes are normally a bad thing.
Back like 10ish years ago, I recall some media members taking Tito to task for lineup management during the season. He essentially put forward a managerial philosophy that I think Farrell uses (paraphrased): "Managing for the season and postseason are different. Right now, I'm managing for 162 games so we get there. Sometimes, I need to give guys rope so they know I trust them - because I do. I'm not trying to win every game; I'm trying to win the season."
In a single-game context, some of Farrell's decisions don't make sense. But in the larger context, they make more sense. Not overwhelming and amazing. But mostly justified and justifiable. Sometimes you leave a guy in to prove himself.
- Status