The baserunning's been excellent this year.
So much for that skill of not throwing your players under the bus. Move him to the front office. Get someone with better decision quality.Farrell says Wright was told to stick to KB before grand slam last night: http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2016/07/john_farrell_says_boston_red_s_2.html. I think even Farrell knows how bad that looked.
Speed does not equal good base running. Speed is a gift, base running is a skill. History is littered with players who could run but who weren't good base runners.The endless debate over attribution could easily apply to base running too. The Red Sox have a lot of young players who can run. They SHOULD be a good base running team.
Meanwhile, we have indeed witnessed some bad decisions of late (to name a few: Hanley picked off, players running into outs like Mookie did last night, Shore picked off).
I'm not smart enough to crack the code on what Farrell's precise impact is relative to base running, but it's wrong to say he's managing this element fine just bc the team is overall a good base running team.
Yeah, I was surprised to hear him say that. Especially coming on the heels of his comment about Price "Having his best stuff of the season" comment. He's clearly feeling the heat. It is showing in his latest interviews.So much for that skill of not throwing your players under the bus. Move him to the front office. Get someone with better decision quality.
I don't understand this. Everyone in the game thread seemed to notice that Wright couldn't get a grip on the knuckleball in the wet.Farrell says Wright was told to stick to KB before grand slam last night: http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2016/07/john_farrell_says_boston_red_s_2.html. I think even Farrell knows how bad that looked.
Speed does not equal good base running. Speed is a gift, base running is a skill. History is littered with players who could run but who weren't good base runners.
If it's "wrong to say he's managing this element fine just bc the team is overall a good base running team," then it's also wrong to blame base running blunders on him. It's one way or the other.
And he couldn't control the fastball or curve either (other than the fastballs grooved down the middle).I posted this in last night's gamethread. You're not paying attention Jawn (or, you and Willis can't tell Wright's knuckleball from his fastball from the dugout).
NESN had a stat though re number of knuckle balls thrown vs. "fastballs" before and after the rain started. After the rain started it was MORE fastballs than knucklers; before, something like 4 or 5 to 1 in favor of the knuckler, or whatever Wright's normal mix is. That should have set an alarm bell off with Farrell and his pitching coach. A Bud Black/his pitching coach would have been out talking to Wright and Vazquez post haste. Farrell threw his pitcher under the bus.
Especially given that Wright himself has complained about that before. And the other bad start from him came when he was absolutely drenched in sweat down in Texas (though he maintained that that one was a grip issue stemming from something else). Knuckleballers are mercurial and if they can identify something that clearly hinders their feel for the ball and ability to throw their pitch, it should be highlighted. Obviously Wright isn't going to ask out of the game, and Farrell may have been able to anticipate the struggles once the rain started. I hope they have someone ready early the next time he pitches in wet conditions.I don't understand this. Everyone in the game thread seemed to notice that Wright couldn't get a grip on the knuckleball in the wet.
Not to take things too far afield here, but "he just sucked yesterday" is an odd way of understanding what happened in the sixth in light of the fact that Wright had thrown five innings of six hit, shutout baseball--chiefly with the knuckler--before the rains came.We all remember when Wakefield used to just lose it...and then sometimes regain it...for no apparent reason. I think Dickey has experienced the same.
Depending on a knuckleballer is a scary business, but sometimes it works out really well. Regardless of Wright's comments, I think too much is being made of the rain, the wind, the temperature, the humidity, the amount of cholesterol and whether or not he had sex the night before. I think he just sucked yesterday.
edit: From the gamethread post (6th inning overview):
Knuckleballs: 7 total - 5 balls, 2 strikes (ironically both to Cron)
Fastballs: 9 total - 4 balls (including a HBP), 3 strikes + 2 hits (double and HR)
Curveballs: 4 total - 3 balls, 1 strike
20 pitches, 12 balls + 2 hits (neither off a knuckleball)
Really this sums it up unemotionally. It begins and ends with starting pitching, defense and bench depth and bullpen. Glaring holes.But on the Red Sox's list of problems, Farrell ranks no higher than sixth, behind Price (4.74 ERA), a staggering lack of starting pitching depth, the inconsistency of 41-year-old setup man Koji Uehara's splitter, a revolving door of left fielders and a perilously thin bench.
None of those issues will disappear if Farrell is replaced by bench coach Torey Lovullo.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/49905/firing-manager-john-farrell-wont-solve-red-sox-real-problems
I think the thinking is that if the Red Sox are going to go deep, then Wright is going to have figure out something in less-than-ideal weather conditions as there's a much higher chance of something like this in the playoffs.I don't understand this. Everyone in the game thread seemed to notice that Wright couldn't get a grip on the knuckleball in the wet.
I agree the general quality of pretty much the whole pitching staff this year is deficient relative to the other playoff contenders. I don't think I agree that left field is a particularly big problem gong forward or that the bench is all that thin. Hannigan is as good a backup C as you'll find, Hernandez seems solid. if you view LF as a platoon of Holt/Young, the other is on the bench and very high quality. So, maybe you'd like to upgrade the 4th bench slot, but I hardly think that's a determinative factor, especially given that 7 starters are playing very well, with 4 quite All-Star worthy and a 5th (Pedroia) just under that level.But on the Red Sox's list of problems, Farrell ranks no higher than sixth, behind Price (4.74 ERA), a staggering lack of starting pitching depth, the inconsistency of 41-year-old setup man Koji Uehara's splitter, a revolving door of left fielders and a perilously thin bench.
None of those issues will disappear if Farrell is replaced by bench coach Torey Lovullo.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/49905/firing-manager-john-farrell-wont-solve-red-sox-real-problems
He can be ready with a quick hook. O'Sullivan pitched pretty well last time he was up but got tired and fell apart in the sixth. Though he's gone 7 or 8 in most of his Pawtucket starts since then.Well, Sean O'Sullivan is starting today's game. I suspect there's very little Farrell can do to get a good performance out of a sub-major league pitcher.
Farrell hasn't seemed to be able to get his other starters on track, though. At some point the manager has to be considered more than an innocent bystander.
He's managed teams that looked good on paper his whole career and is under .500 lifetime as a manager. The list of guys who would be better should be long.Firing John Farrell is of no use unless you replace him with someone better. Who's that going to be?
The bench depth was brutalized by the injury to Brock Holt because it essentially took the first option from left, the second from second and short, and the third from first and third. Then Swihart gets hurt taking an option out of left and catcher. Then Young gets hurt and we're looking at the fourth best option in left on a regular basis.Really this sums it up unemotionally. It begins and ends with starting pitching, defense and bench depth and bullpen. Glaring holes.
Start naming names.He's managed teams that looked good on paper his whole career and is under .500 lifetime as a manager. The list of guys who would be better should be long.
Yes. We're back to the chicken and the egg. It continues to blow my mind that some people defend Farrell by saying that it isn't his fault that the pitchers are performing like crap. He's the manager and a former pitching coach. If his job doesn't include getting the pitchers to improve then I don't know what the hell he's supposed to be doing.Farrell hasn't seemed to be able to get his other starters on track, though. At some point the manager has to be considered more than an innocent bystander.
But who replaces him? And what would it say to change pitching coaches mid-season twice in as many seasons? Could any active pitching coach get more out of this staff? Firing someone is only part of the equation, but who takes the job? Furthermore, would anyone want it? Also, how much of the issue could be attributed to Vazquéz's game-calling skills (or lack thereof)? Do we know how much the pitchers do or don't go along with his game plan? How do you measure blame in this case?Oh, and in case anyone gets chippy... yes, I think Willis is also a candidate for the ejector seat.
Do you really think Farrell is responsible for the injury to Carson Smith, the injury to Eduardo Rodriguez, the crappy performance of pitchers with a long history of crappy performance (Kelly, Buchholz), the failure of Henry Owens to develop while not being managed by John Farrell, Brian Johnson's anxiety issues, or David Price's inexplicable affinity for throwing gopher balls?Yes. We're back to the chicken and the egg. It continues to blow my mind that some people defend Farrell by saying that it isn't his fault that the pitchers are performing like crap. He's the manager and a former pitching coach. If his job doesn't include getting the pitchers to improve then I don't know what the hell he's supposed to be doing.
And this is in addition to his all too frequent questionable in game moves and the general below expectations team performance that's now in its third season.
I'd be cool with Bud Black. We have no reason to believe Lovullo or Alex Cora is a better manager than Farrell.Lovullo did fine last season. He should get another chance, at least as an interim. I wouldn't mind Alex Cora getting a shot. Or, if you don't want to give a kid the keys to theFerrariFiat, then how about Bud Black for the rest of the season.
Oh, and in case anyone gets chippy... yes, I think Willis is also a candidate for the ejector seat.
Ok let's flip it around. What do you think is fair to hold Farrell responsible for? If his job doesn't include fixing Price, Kelly, Buchholz, etc. then what does fall under his job description? I'm honestly asking.Do you really think Farrell is responsible for the injury to Carson Smith, the injury to Eduardo Rodriguez, the crappy performance of pitchers with a long history of crappy performance (Kelly, Buchholz), the failure of Henry Owens to develop while not being managed by John Farrell, Brian Johnson's anxiety issues, or David Price's inexplicable affinity for throwing gopher balls?
Lovullo put up a .636 winning percentage over the last 49 games of the 2015 season, with substantially the same team Farrell had gotten to a .439 winning percentage over the first two-thirds of the year.We have no reason to believe Lovullo or Alex Cora is a better manager than Farrell.
I think it's a bit off that the Red Sox are getting pilloried for not having enough pitching depth, when what they actually have is not enough pitching performance.
Here's how Red Sox pitchers ERA through today lines up when compared to their preseason 2016 ZIPS FIP.
- - Wright (-2.08), Hembree (-1.44), and Barnes (-1.26) have certainly exceeded expectations.
- - Kimbrel (-0.12), Tazawa (-0.05), Porcello (+0.08), and Layne (+0.25) have basically met expectations.
- - Owens (+0.70), Ross (+1.65 after last night), Price (+1.81), Uehara (+1.89), Ramirez (+2.44), Buchholz (+2.47), O'Sullivan (+2.81) Kelly (+4.47), Rodriguez (+5.07), Elias (+11.60), and Light (+17.89) have done notably worse than expected.
- - Carson Smith's elbow was obviously never right physically, so I've excluded him.
Approximately 60% of the staff has performed about average or better than they were expected to. No less than 40% of the staff has performed markedly worse than they were expected to. The Red Sox defense has been better than average, with Fangraphs ranking them 6th in MLB
- - Cuevas wasn't projected by Fangraphs to pitch for the Sox before the season started, so I've given him a pass.
But the only starter who's doing significantly better than expected is a knuckleballer who was only expected to make the team out of spring training because he was out of options. The only relievers who are doing significantly better than expected are middle relievers the opposition isn't game-planning around.
And only two key members of a 12-13 man pitching staff have injuries they could blame.
I echo SJ -- at some point, the management of the pitching staff has to be considered more than an innocent bystander when performance is this bad. Accountability falls on the pitchers, the catchers, the pitching coach, and the manager.
But you can't fire everybody.
Lovullo did fine last season. He should get another chance, at least as an interim. I wouldn't mind Alex Cora getting a shot. Or, if you don't want to give a kid the keys to theFerrariFiat, then how about Bud Black for the rest of the season.
Oh, and in case anyone gets chippy... yes, I think Willis is also a candidate for the ejector seat.
This is what I keep coming back to. Most people agree he's at best a mediocre in game manager who doesn't always put his team in the best position to win. If he's below average in that part of his job, what exactly does he do well to offset that? They've fallen below their expected Pythagorean win percentage each year he's been at the helm, so what aspect of the team is he improving?Ok let's flip it around. What do you think is fair to hold Farrell responsible for? If his job doesn't include fixing Price, Kelly, Buchholz, etc. then what does fall under his job description? I'm honestly asking.
Not too long ago, Baseball teams were dictatorships and the manager was the Supreme Leader. He controlled all of the in-game strategy and many of the day-to-day operations of his unit. He chose who played and how often, who pitched and how much—while generally shaping the identity of his club.
Between the rise of data-driven decision-making, the inflation of player salaries and the increased influence of the front office, field managers have largely transformed into middle managers. And the old dictatorship has become more of a democracy.
Gibbons pointed out that managers traditionally have had more flexibility in handling their bullpen. Recently, however, even that has gone away to some extent, as teams have moved toward building super-bullpens filled with multiple relievers with defined roles—like the Yankees’ “big three” of Dellin Betances (seventh inning), Andrew Miller (eighth inning) and Aroldis Chapman (ninth inning).
Even new aspects of baseball that seem to be in the manager’s purview aren’t really his responsibility at all: When to ask for a replay review, for instance, largely comes from a video coordinator, while defensive shifts are usually decided by information compiled by a team’s analytics department.
“Baseball’s not like some of the other sports where it’s all X’s and O’s,” Gibbons said. “A lot of people are going to do the same things at the same time. The game dictates a lot of the stuff.”
So what makes a skipper good at his job in 2016? After all, teams pay their managers millions of dollars a year to do something.
Asked that question, Bautista rattled off a list of characteristics he believes make a successful manager, barely touching on anything involving actual baseball maneuverings.
These ranged from “making sure there’s a good atmosphere in the clubhouse, on the flights, in the team travel, at the hotels,” to fostering an environment “where people can be themselves” to ensuring that players are “able to fully just go out and play in a relaxed way where their talent can be on full display.”
It's insufficient data is what it is. You can't draw conclusions from insufficient data. That's what the insufficient part means.Lovullo put up a .636 winning percentage over the last 49 games of the 2015 season, with substantially the same team Farrell had gotten to a .439 winning percentage over the first two-thirds of the year.
I'm not saying that's sufficient data, but it's something.
Obviously he's responsible for everything. His ability to impact many things is very limited, though. The things he has the most control over are:Ok let's flip it around. What do you think is fair to hold Farrell responsible for? If his job doesn't include fixing Price, Kelly, Buchholz, etc. then what does fall under his job description? I'm honestly asking.
Be careful what you wish for. One thread on whether to fire Farrell may be better than a dozen threads, each on a given potential hire. For 2017.I found this article very interesting considering what Farrell is being held accountable for around these parts.
Link
I want him canned simply so we can move on from this discussion.
Obviously he's responsible for everything. His ability to impact many things is very limited, though. The things he has the most control over are:
Team morale. If the team stops playing hard, or never starts playing hard--see Kevin Kennedy--that's on the manager.
Lineups. If the manager is making excruciatingly bad decisions--see Jimy Williams--that's on the manager.
Other strategic decisions. If the manager is consistently making terrible strategic decisions--see Butch Hobston--even after allowing for the fact that we, as fans, have imperfect information, and allowing for the fact that we're not always going to agree with every decision--that's on the manager.
With John Farrell, the team is playing hard, the lineups aren't always optimal but are generally reasonable, the strategic decisions are mostly defensible.
Really. I must be watching another team. The team is playing sloppy, the lineups are often not optimal, his strategic in game management is indefensible on a regular basis.With John Farrell, the team is playing hard, the lineups aren't always optimal but are generally reasonable, the strategic decisions are mostly defensible.
This is where I am on the subject.I want him canned simply so we can move on from this discussion.
I totally agree. Baseball is entertainment. Fans invest their hard earned money to be entertained. I would love to be entertained but this team is frustratingly hard to watch. I find myself watching less and less.This is where I am on the subject.
It's pretty clear there are a bunch of vocal defenders of the Farrell and a bunch that want him hung from the tallest tree. There's also a huge silent majority that just doesn't care one way or the other and wishes we had something better to talk about.
It's really not. People who say this have, for whatever reason, made up their mind that Farrell is at fault for things that aren't remotely his fault and are considering perfectly reasonable moves as indefensible. It's nonsense, and a sign that you aren't thinking rationally.Really. I must be watching another team. The team is playing sloppy, the lineups are often not optimal, his strategic in game management is indefensible on a regular basis.
There is no reason to think Lovullo is a better manager. Maybe he would be. We don't know. Jim Leyland is about 150 years old. If the Sox were to replace Farrell with Black, I'd be cool with that.There are reasonable managerial alternatives that have been pointed out above. Lovullo, Black, Leyland.
I propose addressing issues that can make a difference and not just making changes to soothe a rancid fanbase. That starts with getting healthy. It means getting some more reliable pitching in here.What do you propose? Do nothing and have another month like June and dig ourselves further into a wildcard hole.
There aren't many fan bases who have had it better over the past fifteen years. If you think this organization hasn't delivered, you're delusional, and you're exactly the kind of overly entitled fan that is making the rest of us look bad.This fan base deserves better from the entire organization...ownership, management, coaches and players.
I completely disagree. Making trades to try to make a crapshoot one game playoff is an easy road to a very bad decision. I would rather have this team sell than give up assets to try to make the wild card. If the division is in play--and it probably will be--that's another story, but even then I'm not really interested in spending any of our big time assets on rentals.The Sox as of this writing have a tenuous grip on even the play-in game. Using season stats to date, they have a 49% chance to make the playoffs and a 38% chance to make the division series (factoring in the chance of winning the play-in game). Fangraphs' projections are a little rosier as they don't seem to like the Orioles much, but even those give them just a 49% chance to make the division round. Moreover, these odds have dropped from 85% on May 31, and 73% as late as June 19. This is precisely the type of team that should be aggressive and "do something." Additionally, Baltimore and Toronto are in similar positions and may make a move or two.
If the price for a front-line starter or two are too high, changing the management could have a similar effect (especially if DD thinks they are underperforming).