Unless you're studying S&MI don't think there's a lot to learn from the Martin-Steinbrenner psychodrama, however.
Unless you're studying S&MI don't think there's a lot to learn from the Martin-Steinbrenner psychodrama, however.
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.The Red Sox are playing too well to fire Farrell. It's not like there's a recent example in professional sports where a head coach, despite having his team in first place, was fired and replaced by his assistant in the middle of the season, only for the team to win the championship, solidifying the all-time credentials of a beloved local star. Sure that hypothetical team might have just been blown out by twenty points by a team from California, but it would be absurd to fire a coach in those circumstances and promote his assistant. You don't win championships by having three difference coaches in three years. Too much instability. Maybe hypothetically it works in other sports, but teams that promote their assistant coach - whether it be a bench coach or a former pitching coach - never win Word Series, especially not in the first year after going through a bunch of managers in the previous few years.
What thread are you reading, honestly?The debate has taken kind of an odd turn, though, with some folks (mainly pro-Farrell) claiming that managers don't matter much, and others (mostly anti-Farrell) saying that they do,
If the manager doesn't matter much, what's the point of the impassioned defense of Farrell?
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'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.
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.Take the game Wright pitched against the Angels. The key decision in the game--as in many games--was when to remove the starting pitcher and I think it was pretty clear to most of us that the rain had picked up and Wright was simply unable to get enough grip on the ball to have anything resembling control of the knuckler. The 6th inning went double, HBP, wal. I--and I assume most of y'all--would have pulled Wright right there before he faced Cron.
But...it's not like Matt Barnes is super awesome shutdown guy. Other than Kimbrel, the Sox don't really have a super awesome shutdown guy. Meanwhile, we've all seen knuckleballers find it and lose it and find it and lose it in a freakin' heartbeat. Farrell told Wright and the catcher to stick with the knuckleball and they didn't. Knuckleballs get a lot of soft contact. A popup or double play on a knuckleball is, you know, not an unreasonable thing.
That's one of the clearest decisions you get in this game and not only is it not remotely 100% clear what the right decision is, the actual events that led to the home run involve the players not doing what the manager told them to do. You want to tell me the manager should have a little more control over the players than that, I'd not really disagree, but no manager is ever going to have perfect control, so what do you do?
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.
The one that includes the following (edited to keep the focus on the issue raised by uncannymanny):What thread are you reading, honestly?
"...Farrell is what many of us suspect him to be--a thoroughly average manager who has had little to no effect, positive or negative, on the team's record.
...Won loss record is useless. Do you really think a different manager would have made a difference in 2014 and 2015? With all the young guys that struggled to make the transition to the bigs, all the significant acquisitions that had craptacular seasons, do you really think Torey Lovullo or Bud Black or whomever is going to make a damn bit of difference?
...First and foremost, the manager doesn't produce the results on the field. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. How do people who have seen more than five baseball games think the won loss record is on the manager? The manager doesn't produce the results on the field. The manager doesn't produce the results on the field. In the list of people who influence the results on the field, the manager ranks behind all the players who play in the game and conceivably behind the third base coach...
It's largely accepted that today's manager is essentially an empty figurehead...
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).Where is your proof that managers "produce results" on the field?
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 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'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...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.
Two points.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.
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!
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.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'd hesitate to speak for all the JF defenders, but I'll mention that I wanted Kevin Kennedy fired after the 1995 season.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!
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.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!
The Baltimore Orioles since about August 2011. I do not understand how Buck keeps that team above .500, let alone wins division titles.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.
Yes, I read those posts, in context even. I'm trying to fathom how you get to "managers don't matter much" from them.The one that includes the following (edited to keep the focus on the issue raised by uncannymanny)
How much worse than their talent level do you think they're playing?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
or less persuasively, the manager shouldn't be held accountable
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.or is the JF defense absolute ("none of that W/L stuff is justification enough for a change"
Lester in 2013-14, Edro last season and Wright and Porcello this season, but I guess he hasn't fixed Owens.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.
Wow, so the 85 guys who have more appearances than him so far this year must be really screwed.Kimbrel will need TJ at this rate by August
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.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.
It's entirely possible that I have taken brief naps while reading the thread.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.
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.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.
Come on, where's the gif of that?The look of Farrell tonight as he was trying to get his bullpen ready.
View attachment 2650
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.So I think JF is off the hook today given that :
“@bradfo: Kimbrel unavailable due to knee issue felt during BP. Will probably be unavailable for ASG. Went for mri”
“@PeteAbe: Kimbrel (left knee) and Tazawa (shoulder) were not available”
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).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.
I'm not sure appearances should be the guide. Among MLB relievers:Wow, so the 85 guys who have more appearances than him so far this year must be really screwed.
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.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.
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.
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."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.