John Farrell: Not on the Hot Seat

[Plympton91]

 
I guess I would turn that question around and ask, is there any circumstance you can imagine in which the Sox were losing this much where you wouldn't recommend firing the manager as a response? If it's just a question of being "accountable for the results on the field," there's nothing to discuss, because obviously those results have been abysmal for almost a year and a half now. Sure, he won a World Series, but that was then, this is now.
 
OTOH, if we're going to demand specific evidence that managerial incompetence has been a significant factor in the team's suck, that's a very different bar and a harder one to meet. Maybe he's losing the clubhouse, but the FO would know much more about that than we do, and I think they would not hesitate to fire him if they thought that were the case. That really leaves his in-game decisions, which I know people here love to bash, but honestly, I take that with a grain of salt, because I heard so much bashing of Tito's in-game moves when he was manager. For fans of a losing team, the definition of a good manager is always "the one we don't have right now."
 
In short, absent a clearly toxic clubhouse situation, I think you ride out this year and reassess when it's over.

 
 
There's something in between managing the clubhouse and the in-game decisions, and that's the strategic decisions.  What kind of medium and long-term advice is he giving to the players, front office, and the ownership?  
 
For instance, Rick Porcello has been using more 4-seamers this year and getting fewer groundballs as a result -- What was Farrell's role in that transformation?  Is it working, did Farrell say that such a transformation might have a half-year (and counting) adjustment period in which the contract would look foolish?
 
To what extent is the piss-poor baserunning on this team reflective of Farrell's inherent style or instruction?  The same issue repeatedly came up with his Blue Jay teams.  That seems like a real flaw in his overall approach to game management -- risk and reward more generally -- and that is more than just "in game decision-making."

 

[jimbobim]

I would suggest the overly issue is not with the manager, but rather with the entire organization.  While one could suggest the then-new ownership's practices brought the World Series titles, one could also suggest there's stagnation in the ranks.

Lucchino et al came to Boston in 2002.  Cherington has been part of the organization since 1999.  Apart from 2 seasons in Toronto, Farrell has been with Boston since 2006.  I'm sure others can give specifics on the front office.  Nonetheless, it could be an organizational issue that requires tough decisions involving people the ownership has grown fond of in the past decade and a half.

To me this represents why it is impossible to fire Farrell in season( see stubbornly sticking with Bobby v) while also hard to buy that JH LL BC etc are as calm and collected as they publicly have stated. The press has predictably tarred and feathered and cast Hanley Porcello and Pablo as indicative of a poorly constructed roster ,but IMHO the guys that were fundamental to that 2013 run and earlier include guys that have really hurt by coming up short this year including Ortiz, Napoli, and Victorino.  Also winning championships and the rope that comes with  that I think ,while easy for us to quantify and dismiss, is harder for the FO and ownership to grapple with.
 
 I mean if prior to the season the optimists, me included, were told Nap and Ortiz would fall off the table production wise I'd probably say they were in trouble, That's not even including the struggles of Betts and Swihart which are to be expected with youth. 
 
I'm no huge fan of Farrell and agree with what Chad Finn wrote earlier that if the Sox continue to lose he'll be axed plain and simple. 

 

[MuzzyField]

To answer your question, as that is the point of this thread (as opposed to whether Tito or Farrell is the better manager):
 
The team's problems are with the players on the roster, not the manager per se.  The manager has made some mistakes, but I'm still waiting for that objective comparison between Farrell's mistakes and the same "mistakes" that other managers make on a regular basis (including Tito and His Perfectness Joe F-ing Maddon) before I decide that Farrell is a terrible manager.  And there are many sources that indicate that it's almost impossible to predict team success based on the manager's prior track record.  Farrell never had a winning record until his team, which finished last the prior season, won a World Series.  Joe Torre had a middling managerial record until he was hired by the Yankees.  And so on.  
 
These facts do not mean a manager should never be fired.  Valentine had to be fired.  However, they do indicate that replacing a manager seldom provides the quick fix the fans hope for.  So, my default position would be for the team's management (Cherington, Lucchino, Henry, etc.) to get together and decide what the goals should be for the rest of 2015.  Maybe JBJ gets called up and gets regular playing time for the next 60 days.  Maybe the team tries to trade Hanley and/or Buchholz in an attempt to retool for 2016.  And then the management then discusses with Farrell and decides if JF is the right man for the job for the remaining of 2016.  If he buys in, then he stays until the end of the season, and his performance is reassessed.  If not, then he's replaced with someone that is on board.  
 
Two other thoughts based on other comments in this thread:  first, the Red Sox will always find willing candidates to manage the team.  Second, Farrell has a WS title in his resume; that will be good enough for at least one more managerial position after this one, if not more. 

2014 and 2015 are JF's teams too.  If Joe Torre followed up 1996 with what we've been watching for the past season and a half he'd have been on the express train to unemplyment status.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
I'm no huge fan of Farrell and agree with what Chad Finn wrote earlier that if the Sox continue to lose he'll be axed plain and simple. 

Wait, where'd he say this?

 

[tims4wins]

Wait, where'd he say this?

 
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2015/06/12/john-farrell-should-not-lose-his-job-but-will-red-sox-continue-flail/3y52iSBBdRDLvFUoprYtIM/story.html?p1=well_Sports_main_hp
 

But the blunt reality is this: If the Red Sox, hopelessly lethargic except for when the inept starting pitcher is bickering with the manager in the dugout, don’t turn this around immediately, John Farrell will have to be fired, seasons sooner than anyone could possibly have imagined in October 2013.

 

[OCST]

To me this represents why it is impossible to fire Farrell in season( see stubbornly sticking with Bobby v) while also hard to buy that JH LL BC etc are as calm and collected as they publicly have stated. The press has predictably tarred and feathered and cast Hanley Porcello and Pablo as indicative of a poorly constructed roster ,but IMHO the guys that were fundamental to that 2013 run and earlier include guys that have really hurt by coming up short this year including Ortiz, Napoli, and Victorino.  Also winning championships and the rope that comes with  that I think ,while easy for us to quantify and dismiss, is harder for the FO and ownership to grapple with.
 
 I mean if prior to the season the optimists, me included, were told Nap and Ortiz would fall off the table production wise I'd probably say they were in trouble, That's not even including the struggles of Betts and Swihart which are to be expected with youth. 
 
I'm no huge fan of Farrell and agree with what Chad Finn wrote earlier that if the Sox continue to lose he'll be axed plain and simple. 

 
...all of whom were/are facing entirely predictable concerns with age, injury, and/or injury propensity.  It may be too soon to write any one of them off, but to expect all three to produce as they did in the WS season is wishcasting.

 

[DanoooME]

I'm not against replacing Farrell, I just think it has to be done with more thought than getting him out and seeing what happens.  the problems the team may have are not "plug in random dude and guys will just start playing well" level.

 
What if Bud Black become available?  He would be a worthy replacement worth getting.
 
And, conveniently, the Padres have fired him.
 
Ben, get on the horn.
 
I wasn't exactly in favor of canning Farrell right away because I don't know if it's really useful to do it midseason (and am working on some research in that area), but for the right guy it would be worth it.  I think Black is one of those guys.  His record is not horrible with a team that hasn't really had a lot of talent to work with.

 

[grimshaw]

Among managers who have won a World Series, Farrell:
- has the 6th worst winning percentage. 
-Is 3rd worst among managed teams since 1980 (Tom Kelly and Dallas Green)
-Is 1 of 12 managers to have a career losing record

 

[threecy]

I would suggest that, as long as the front office remains in tact, Farrell perhaps has some job security.  However, if heads start to roll in the front office, I wouldn't be surprised if Farrell goes too.

 

[soxhop411]

“@nickcafardo: Spoke to Jason Varitek couple of weeks ago about managing. Said he eventually wanted to but wanted to spend time with his family.”

 

[jimbobim]

 
...all of whom were/are facing entirely predictable concerns with age, injury, and/or injury propensity.  It may be too soon to write any one of them off, but to expect all three to produce as they did in the WS season is wishcasting.

O I agree on Vic and Nap being useless for the rest of this year. Further, I do think the Sox are going to have to get downright cold with Ortiz. He can't hit a fastball now and that option is going to be an interesting game of chicken.

 

[LostinNJ]

Firing the manager isn't necessarily a statement that the mess is his fault. It could just mean the situation is unacceptable and something needs to change. The way contracts go in MLB these days, you can't expect a managerial firing to motivate players, but you can say that the organization has much higher expectations than this. Whether that message is best sent now or in October is an interesting question, but it will come sooner or later. They cannot start 2016 with this leadership team intact.

 

[lexrageorge]

O I agree on Vic and Nap being useless for the rest of this year. Further, I do think the Sox are going to have to get downright cold with Ortiz. He can't hit a fastball now and that option is going to be an interesting game of chicken.

3 HR's and a 1.288 OPS the past week say otherwise. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

 

Mike Lynch ‏@LynchieWCVB  18s19 seconds ago
Farrell held a team meeting today. Only way we get out of this situation is to have each other's backs
 

 

[Harry Hooper]

3 HR's and a 1.288 OPS the past week say otherwise. 

 
 
I don't want to bury Ortiz yet either, but to be fair you conveniently ignored the "He can't hit a fastball now" portion of that post.

 

[moondog80]

 
 
I don't want to bury Ortiz yet either, but to be fair you conveniently ignored the "He can't hit a fastball now" portion of that post.

 
Slice it however you want but he's 288/398/547 against RHP this year.  If it were as simple as "he can't his fastballs", I think the league's righties would have figured that out.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
 
I don't want to bury Ortiz yet either, but to be fair you conveniently ignored the "He can't hit a fastball now" portion of that post.

 
Sure looked like a fastball he deposited into the bullpen yesterday (pitchfx says 92).

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
Slice it however you want but he's 288/398/547 against RHP this year.  If it were as simple as "he can't his fastballs", I think the league's righties would have figured that out.

 
A lefty batter can get away more with cheating on fastballs vs. RHPs than LHPs

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
A lefty batter can get away more with cheating on fastballs vs. RHPs than LHPs

So... he can hit a fastball. He's just "cheating." WHERE WILL THE GOALPOSTS MOVE NEXT?!

 

[grimshaw]

The other two homers were on a knuckleball and curve to be fair.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Fastball runs above average (wFB), 2010-2015:

18.8, 23.0, 22.8, 20.0, 17.8, -8.6

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Sure looked like a fastball he deposited into the bullpen yesterday (pitchfx says 92).

 
 

So... he can hit a fastball. He's just "cheating." WHERE WILL THE GOALPOSTS MOVE NEXT?!

 
It's possible that a 92 mph fastball isn't a problem for him yet, but that elite velocity is too much for him to catch up to without cheating.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
 
 
It's possible that a 92 mph fastball isn't a problem for him yet, but that elite velocity is too much for him to catch up to without cheating.

 
No shit.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

For all of you who want Farrell gone because the Red Sox are giving you constipation and change for change's sake is good:
 
- It appears Farrell is generally a player's manager. He doesn't typically throw guys under the bus. No complaints are leaking out from clubhouse
- When you get your wish, there's could very well be a civil war in the clubhouse - with players who liked Farrell blaming the under-performers and assholes for getting him fired. That always makes for good results.
- Maybe some of you would love to see a "disciplinarian" because it's nice to see someone spanked. I'm sure that would also go over real well...
- New faces sometimes work. I'd like to see some examples of that for mid-season changes, because the only reason you should want Farrell and staff fired is to improve the quality of play on the field and make the summer more enjoyable in an incredibly sucky AL East. Why would any other outcome be relevant?
 
I appreciate the frustration against the manager of a ridiculously shitty team with no quality pitching, a suspect bullpen, a couple of players who simply can't field their positions, rookies doing rookie things (including a 29-year old rookie), an aging DH and a head-case DH-to-be...and an enjoyable mix of Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Swihart and some others. 

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

Man, it really sounds bad when you get to make up all the reasons and outcomes of it to fit your opinion.
And if you somehow don't know about Morgan magic, or for some reason think it was just too long ago to count, there's also Jack McKeon winning the World Series in 2003.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

And if you somehow don't know about Morgan magic, or for some reason think it was just too long ago to count, there's also Jack McKeon winning the World Series in 2003.

 
Right, but there's a built-in bias there. When a new manager takes over and the team just kind of chugs along in an unremarkable way, maybe playing just as badly or a little better but not enough better....nobody notices. When Morgan Magic happens it's news. That's what we remember. And this dovetails with our normal human tendency to conflate correlation and causation. We will never ever know whether the Sox would have had the exact same hot streak in 1988 if MacNamara had stayed on. Maybe they would have gotten even hotter. And maybe they would have gone on to win the Series 16 years ahead of time.

 

[jon abbey]

an incredibly sucky AL East. 

 
Sorry, but this really isn't the case anymore. Divisions by combined run differential coming into tonight:

AL East: +63
AL Central:  -12
AL West: +6
 
NL East: -125
NL Central: +38
NL West: +30

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Sorry, but this really isn't the case anymore. Divisions by combined run differential coming into tonight:

AL East: +63
AL Central:  -12
AL West: +6
 
NL East: -125
NL Central: +38
NL West: +30

 
To further the point….
 
Non-Red Sox AL East: +123

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Betts getting picked off first. Porcello and Leon bouncing balls to the backstop all game long. How many meetings can the team hold before they realize nothing's working?

They're losing again tonight with stupid play and non-existant offense. At this point I'd fire Farrell now. The manager is not an innocent bystander.

 

[The Napkin]

 
I would also note that according to Fangraphs, the Sox are actually a slightly above-average baserunning team if you omit Hanley's stats. I certainly don't think it's Farrell's fault that Hanley sucks on the bases, nor do I think we have such a speedy team that we should be disappointed with essentially average baserunning.

What happens if you omit the worst base runner for all the other teams too? Or do only the Red Sox get to cherry pick stats?

 

[Van Everyman]

I've really not been in the "Fire Farrell" camp simply because I usually think managers bear a disproportionate amount of blame for player underperformance. But given how unbelievably poorly they're playing right now and for impossible to understand reasons, I'd consider it.

Put another way, at a certain point even tho Farrell may not be part of the problem, it's clear that he isn't really part of the solution either.

Perhaps this has been asked but could they pull a reverse Dan Jennings and put JF in the front office? By all accounts he is a really sharp baseball mind. Before he became a pitching coach he was on track toward becoming a GM. And everyone seems to believe that Henry/Ben/etc. think very highly of him and have consulted with him on personnel moves.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
Right, but there's a built-in bias there. When a new manager takes over and the team just kind of chugs along in an unremarkable way, maybe playing just as badly or a little better but not enough better....nobody notices. When Morgan Magic happens it's news. That's what we remember. And this dovetails with our normal human tendency to conflate correlation and causation. We will never ever know whether the Sox would have had the exact same hot streak in 1988 if MacNamara had stayed on. Maybe they would have gotten even hotter. And maybe they would have gone on to win the Series 16 years ahead of time.

 
 
Of course, the ultimate twist there was that Lou Gorman had already gotten Joe Torre to agree to be the next Sox mamager for '89, and then Morgan Magic happened.

 

[radsoxfan]

Perhaps this has been asked but could they pull a reverse Dan Jennings and put JF in the front office? By all accounts he is a really sharp baseball mind. Before he became a pitching coach he was on track toward becoming a GM.And everyone seems to believe that Henry/Ben/etc. think very highly of him and have consulted with him on personnel moves.

 
I'm not sure if this is true or not.
 
But if Farrell has been consulted on personnel moves recently, if anything, that's probably a good reason to want Farrell nowhere near the front office. 

 

[Harry Hooper]

If the ownership/FO really does stand behind Farrell, they have to deliver that message in person to the team, sort of Twins/Tom Kelly style.

 

[mauf]

What happens if you omit the worst base runner for all the other teams too? Or do only the Red Sox get to cherry pick stats?

Hanley is the 2nd-worst base runner in MLB per Fangraphs; the 15th-worst player (i.e., roughly the median worst base runner on an MLB roster) is as close to league average as to Hanley. IIRC, the numbers were even more stark when I initially posted several days ago. And I don't think those numbers would be shocking to anyone who has regularly watched the Red Sox this season; even to the untrained eye, Hanley's base running stands out.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I'm not in a hurry to fire Farrell anytime soon but it seems clear that Farrell is going to be gone sooner rather than later. It's not his fault, but managers are paid to maximize the players' performances, and that's really not happening. It may not be happening because the players aren't good enough or because the players have tuned him out or because they really want to get rid of him, but for whatever reason, Farrell is going to take the fall. That's pretty much his job description.

As the old axiom goes, it's easier to fire one manager than 20+ players.

I have no idea who the next manager should be, but it's got to be someone who can get the best out of Hanley. I refuse to believe that he's really this bad.

 

[The Napkin]

That's an answer. It isn't an answer to the question that was asked. But it is indeed an answer. So partial credit I suppose.

 

[mwonow]

Firing the manager isn't necessarily a statement that the mess is his fault. It could just mean the situation is unacceptable and something needs to change. The way contracts go in MLB these days, you can't expect a managerial firing to motivate players, but you can say that the organization has much higher expectations than this. Whether that message is best sent now or in October is an interesting question, but it will come sooner or later. They cannot start 2016 with this leadership team intact.

 

I've really not been in the "Fire Farrell" camp simply because I usually think managers bear a disproportionate amount of blame for player underperformance. But given how unbelievably poorly they're playing right now and for impossible to understand reasons, I'd consider it.

Put another way, at a certain point even tho Farrell may not be part of the problem, it's clear that he isn't really part of the solution either.

Perhaps this has been asked but could they pull a reverse Dan Jennings and put JF in the front office? By all accounts he is a really sharp baseball mind. Before he became a pitching coach he was on track toward becoming a GM. And everyone seems to believe that Henry/Ben/etc. think very highly of him and have consulted with him on personnel moves.

 
QFT. The arguments being made in support of Farrell are wrong-headed. With all due respect, I care about the Sox, not the current manager. Results show that whatever JF's strengths/weaknesses, we're back in Butch Hobson territory: it may not be his fault that the team is playing this badly, but they could play this badly with a stuffed monkey on the bench. At this point, changing up the manager isn't a vote for or against JF, it's a vote against the current state and direction of the team. Many managers in all industries have been pushed out the door because results were unacceptable. Time to add JF's name to the list.


 

 

[teddywingman]

I'm not against replacing Farrell, I just think it has to be done with more thought than getting him out and seeing what happens.  the problems the team may have are not "plug in random dude and guys will just start playing well" level.

No shit.

If they aren't doing that--even without planning to fire JF--then they're not doing their job.

 

[Lowrielicious]

No shit.

If they aren't doing that--even without planning to fire JF--then they're not doing their job.

There is a lot of that going around lately.

 

[teddywingman]

For all of you who want Farrell gone because the Red Sox are giving you constipation and change for change's sake is good:
 
- It appears Farrell is generally a player's manager. He doesn't typically throw guys under the bus. No complaints are leaking out from clubhouse
- When you get your wish, there's could very well be a civil war in the clubhouse - with players who liked Farrell blaming the under-performers and assholes for getting him fired. That always makes for good results.
- Maybe some of you would love to see a "disciplinarian" because it's nice to see someone spanked. I'm sure that would also go over real well...
- New faces sometimes work. I'd like to see some examples of that for mid-season changes, because the only reason you should want Farrell and staff fired is to improve the quality of play on the field and make the summer more enjoyable in an incredibly sucky AL East. Why would any other outcome be relevant?
 
I appreciate the frustration against the manager of a ridiculously shitty team with no quality pitching, a suspect bullpen, a couple of players who simply can't field their positions, rookies doing rookie things (including a 29-year old rookie), an aging DH and a head-case DH-to-be...and an enjoyable mix of Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Swihart and some others. 

Almost every part of this post is either pointing a finger with no specific point; or just plain wrong.

 

[threecy]

I'm not sure if this is true or not.

I doubt he's asked for his opinion on every move, but we do know that he was involved, even during his pitching coach days, as he was one of the key reasons Lester did not get dealt to Minnesota years ago.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Hanley is the 2nd-worst base runner in MLB per Fangraphs; the 15th-worst player (i.e., roughly the median worst base runner on an MLB roster) is as close to league average as to Hanley. IIRC, the numbers were even more stark when I initially posted several days ago. And I don't think those numbers would be shocking to anyone who has regularly watched the Red Sox this season; even to the untrained eye, Hanley's base running stands out.

 
If Hanley is so bad at base running shouldn't the coaches work with him and get him to improve?  I don't understand this idea that when evaluating a coach we can exclude the most unfavorable data because even though he's responsible for the whole team it's not fair to hold him responsible for the worst performer of a given area.

 

[The Tax Man]

I'm not sure this is a fire-able offense, but in my mind its another nail in his coffin. Today on www.sonsofsamhorn.com, Cuzittt looks at Farrell's recent inexplicable decision not argue on Sunday:
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/john-farrell-and-the-inexplicable-decision-not-to-argue/

 

[rembrat]

If Hanley is so bad at base running shouldn't the coaches work with him and get him to improve?  I don't understand this idea that when evaluating a coach we can exclude the most unfavorable data because even though he's responsible for the whole team it's not fair to hold him responsible for the worst performer of a given area.

Has there ever been an example of a bad baserunner, at this level, being coached into becoming a better one? Bobby Valentine made that his primary concern when he got here and we didn't see any results.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Torey is in charge of baserunning.  The coaches say it comes down to awareness, being engaged and ready to move up 90 ft.  Even if a player has decent speed, if those other attributes are missing, you'll have a poor baserunner.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Has there ever been an example of a bad baserunner, at this level, being coached into becoming a better one? Bobby Valentine made that his primary concern when he got here and we didn't see any results.

 
That may be true but my overall point was that whatever aspect of the game we're talking about, if we're going to evaluate someone based on the results, throwing out certain data points to help one side of the argument doesn't seem very useful.  If the coaching staff shouldn't be judged on the base running because of the point you raise, that's fine.  If they should, let's look at everyone including the worst of the bunch.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm not sure this is a fire-able offense, but in my mind its another nail in his coffin. Today on www.sonsofsamhorn.com, Cuzittt looks at Farrell's recent inexplicable decision not argue on Sunday:
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/john-farrell-and-the-inexplicable-decision-not-to-argue/

 
I'm glad he wrote this and the GIF is perfect.  As someone no longer writing for ESPN used to say, "I mentally wrote down "game over" when this happened" and I turned off the game

 

[Plympton91]

I was thinking the same thing last night after the bunt/HBP that went against the Red Sox.  Remy seemed convinced the umpires got the call right, but to me, that bat was in the hitting zone when the ball hit him on the hands.   He squared to bunt and didn't get out of the way in time.  Should have been a foul ball, IMHO.  It may have been the right call by the letter of the rules, but not by the spirit of them.
 
At this point, they either need to fire John Farrell, or make about 5 roster changes, with at least 2 of them being significant.  Kelly to the bullpen to be the primary set up man, with Brian Johnson (who hit 4 batters in the last start, mind you) coming up to be in the rotation. Or put Steven Wright back in the rotation, he was doing fine.  DFA Breslow to make room for Johnson, but maybe that's the Masterson roster spot, who should be in long relief, not the rotation.  Call up JBJ and play him in RF everyday; send down Castillo as a message that you have to play the game right.  As someone mentioned elsewhere, the Sandy Leon farce has gone on far too long.  I would trade for Carlos Ruiz, as it's not clear that Swihart and Vazquez don't need to be in AAA in 2016 anyway, but at a minimum go find someone who has at least one major league ready skill to put behind the plate.   I don't know what the fifth move would be.

 

[joe dokes]

Has there ever been an example of a bad baserunner, at this level, being coached into becoming a better one? Bobby Valentine made that his primary concern when he got here and we didn't see any results.

 
Some players lack speed; some lack good throwing arms.  Some lack "instincts" (or whatever you want to call it.).  It may not be a teachable/coachable thing.