John Farrell: Not on the Hot Seat
- Thread starter The Gray Eagle
- Start date
Actually Hanley has been an excellent base runner career-wise (27 base running runs above average).
He used to steal bases at a pretty good rate which helped his base running value. He isn't running anymore, likely due to him putting on more size.
He has made some boneheaded plays which has killed his value in a smaller sample size, but this year is more than likely an outlier due to some costly blunders.
He used to steal bases at a pretty good rate which helped his base running value. He isn't running anymore, likely due to him putting on more size.
He has made some boneheaded plays which has killed his value in a smaller sample size, but this year is more than likely an outlier due to some costly blunders.
Abs makes the argument that Farrell shouldn't be fired because the veterans have been disappointing and the team was poorly constructed:
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/a-disappointing-season-for-red-sox-manager-john-farrell/
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/a-disappointing-season-for-red-sox-manager-john-farrell/
Two thoughts:
1. I'm in the camp of finding a guy who's best to lead the next wave. Young first-time MLB managers such as Matheny, Ausmus and Molitor (who didn't inherit a great team like the others) are enjoying success. Do young managers work better with young players? Who knows. Something for Ben to decide.
2. There's talk of cliques this season. (I think it's been sufficiently noted, so I won't bother adding any Gammo or Edes links). Young guys (Betts, Bogaerts, etc) don't have the standing to get cliquey. Pitchers often do but absent a prima donna like Beckett, Lackey or Lester, I'm doubtful that's the case. Miley's blow-up notwithstanding. Given the chumminess of the Three Amigos of Papi, Hanley and Panda beginning in Spring Training (hell, with the signings themselves), I think that's pretty obviously your clique right there.
So, there was some back-and-forth a few pages back about "Papi's cooked" ... "Not quite" ... "Can't hit a fastball." At any rate, he's nearing the end and certainly will be losing PAs vs. lefties to begin, sliding down in the order. I think we can assume that the inevitable Papi decay won't be a great vibe in the clubhouse. Big man has big ego. He's already getting terse after his two-day recharge and sitting vs. LHPs.
If nothing else, maybe it's not a bad idea to let Farrell wear the black hat and be the guy who tells Papi he's cooked. Take the hit as it turns half the clubhouse against him. Or at least turns half the clubhouse into nodding along with Papi's gripes. Maybe that's in the next three months. Maybe they bounce back and Papimageddon happens next year.
The quetion is, if guys like Bogaerts, Betts, Rusney, Vazquez/Swihart etc seemingly need at least this year and 2016 to cut their teeth, do we really want to bring in a Varitek, Daubach, (fill in the blank) to be the new manager to tell the Living Legend he's sitting 1/3 of the games and hitting 7th? And start out on the wrong foot with Hanley, Panda, whomever else is in Camp Papi. I say let Farrell do it, then hire a new manager for 2017.
1. I'm in the camp of finding a guy who's best to lead the next wave. Young first-time MLB managers such as Matheny, Ausmus and Molitor (who didn't inherit a great team like the others) are enjoying success. Do young managers work better with young players? Who knows. Something for Ben to decide.
2. There's talk of cliques this season. (I think it's been sufficiently noted, so I won't bother adding any Gammo or Edes links). Young guys (Betts, Bogaerts, etc) don't have the standing to get cliquey. Pitchers often do but absent a prima donna like Beckett, Lackey or Lester, I'm doubtful that's the case. Miley's blow-up notwithstanding. Given the chumminess of the Three Amigos of Papi, Hanley and Panda beginning in Spring Training (hell, with the signings themselves), I think that's pretty obviously your clique right there.
So, there was some back-and-forth a few pages back about "Papi's cooked" ... "Not quite" ... "Can't hit a fastball." At any rate, he's nearing the end and certainly will be losing PAs vs. lefties to begin, sliding down in the order. I think we can assume that the inevitable Papi decay won't be a great vibe in the clubhouse. Big man has big ego. He's already getting terse after his two-day recharge and sitting vs. LHPs.
If nothing else, maybe it's not a bad idea to let Farrell wear the black hat and be the guy who tells Papi he's cooked. Take the hit as it turns half the clubhouse against him. Or at least turns half the clubhouse into nodding along with Papi's gripes. Maybe that's in the next three months. Maybe they bounce back and Papimageddon happens next year.
The quetion is, if guys like Bogaerts, Betts, Rusney, Vazquez/Swihart etc seemingly need at least this year and 2016 to cut their teeth, do we really want to bring in a Varitek, Daubach, (fill in the blank) to be the new manager to tell the Living Legend he's sitting 1/3 of the games and hitting 7th? And start out on the wrong foot with Hanley, Panda, whomever else is in Camp Papi. I say let Farrell do it, then hire a new manager for 2017.
If they reach the conclusion that Farrell isn't any good at developing the younger players (referring to Leo's first point) and they decide to punt 2016 and look towards 2017, keeping Farrell around next year sounds like an awful idea. Bring in someone who can get the most out of a year of development for the young guys. Whatever problems Ortiz may cause, assuming he doesn't retire, shouldn't influence that decision in my opinion.
threecy said:
Your point being that Molitor's old? Okay, first MLB managing job anyway. At any rate, I would consider the other two "young" in manager terms. Maddon is 61, Clint Hurdle is 57, etc.
Regarding cliques, because I think you're on the right track with clubhouse issues, I don't think it would hurt to have a bilingual manager or someone who has some chutzpah from the Dominican as a bigger influence given the mix of the 25 man roster.LeoCarrillo said:
And I actually think someone like Varitek would have the stones to sit Ortiz given they played together. That's pretty moot though, since that issue will probably be settled before a hypothetical Varitek managing scenario comes up.
glennhoffmania said:
I don't disagree with this. And if the bottom falls out this season, then broom Farrell too.
But as much as we debate how much influence a manager has on W-L (little or a bit more than a little), I wonder too how much effect a manager has on the development of young players at the MLB level. As a past pitching coach, I'd hope he'd have some input for guys like Eddie Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson. But isn't it guys like Butter who's showing Xander how to play SS (sorry to invoke the name, but Jeter even credited Butter as a mentor), and Beyeler is working with the OFs and 1Bs (so he's probably on Hanley Duty nonstop). Catching is probably mostly reps and studying. Hitting coaches fix swings.
Anyway, I'm not sure a big cheese like Farrell is gonna have as much effect on development as 1. the supporting staff and 2. the kids just getting their reps.
I think you're probably correct, but presumably the new guy will want to hire his own staff, so firing Farrell is like firing the rest of the crew anyway (except maybe Willis and Davis who are still new-ish.)LeoCarrillo said:
Danny_Darwin said:
That's why I'm saying keep Farrell, presuming they like Butterfield et al. Let Farrell jump on the Papi grenade this year or next.
It's a simplified thought. But I'm sure with every baseball team, you've got 25 guys each getting varying amounts of benefit from the coaches. Seemingly Butterfield has worked magic with Xander this year. Maybe Beyeler can turn Hanley into a 1B next year. Just spitballing, but the point is that Ben presumably is watching all this and if the endgame is grooming the kids then as long as they're on the right path then I wouldn't topple the apple cart and bring in a new manager -- and his staff, as you say.
LeoCarrillo said:
I agree for the most part, except like others have said, I think it's tough for a manager to win a lot of games but he can more easily lose them. Also he's ultimately responsible, just like the head coach can't blame shitty play on his OC and DC and throw his hands up in the air. If the assistants aren't getting results he should know why and fix it. If he's better at focusing on one thing, like being a pitching coach, then they should find a better macro-manager.
Given JF's experience with the Indians in player development, I thought this would be one of his strengths and it doesn't appear to be at all.glennhoffmania said:
This depends on the role you expect a manager to play or rather where you want the strengths to lie. I'd argue that development is pretty low on the list at the ML level. On-field tactics (at least regular season) seem fairly low as well. The "leader of men" qualities strike me as most important. There does appear to be some argument that he's lacking in this area or at least not standing tall in specific examples. This always struck me as his strength and as the reason to get excited about him.
At this point I can't hold him responsible for the team's plight in a significant manner. If a head should ball it's BC's. That said, I think 2013 really skewed the timeline and we were looking at a ~'16 start to a new run with the interim providing middling results. They've been worse than expected, but 3rd or 5th doesn't really matter much to me.
At this point I can't hold him responsible for the team's plight in a significant manner. If a head should ball it's BC's. That said, I think 2013 really skewed the timeline and we were looking at a ~'16 start to a new run with the interim providing middling results. They've been worse than expected, but 3rd or 5th doesn't really matter much to me.
LeoCarrillo said:
Taking the 3 managers highlighted:
Paul Molitor
Brad Ausmus
Mike Matheny
Where do they stand in the list of criteria?
For example, Matheny benched Craig when he wasn't performing, but he didn't bench any aging icons. Do we know if these guys broke up Caribbean (or other) Cliques? I'm not certain there's a comparison available here.
A better comparison would be the assessment of what they replaced:
Gardenhire
Leyland
La Russa
and how that may have solved some of the problems cited.
Twins - Jury Out (.432 win% to .531 early)
Tigers basically had the same record (93 wins to 90 wins)
Card's basically maintained the same record (90 wins to 88 wins)
Hard to see cause/effect here.
Tim Britton @TimBritton 2h2 hours ago
Farrell did say that the clubhouse has not run amok, in case you were wondering.
Farrell did say that the clubhouse has not run amok, in case you were wondering.
rembrat said:
Rusney Castillo needs ABs if he's ever going to adjust to playing in the US. Sitting him for the second game in a row because de Aza has 8 PA against tonight's starter is indefensible. I posted in this thread because I assumed Farrell would have a ridiculous reason for sitting Castillo, and I was right.
nattysez said:
Castillo should be treated like JBJ. If he's not going to play everyday, then he needs to be at Pawtucket playing everyday. If they want someone to platoon with DeAza, call up Brentz. I get why they might be peeved as Castillo, but that's even more reason to send him down. This is why you don't want a manager who is fighting for his job playing out the string, he's going to make short-term decisions with an eye on winning today's game rather than managing for long-term health of the ballclub.
The difference between Castillo and De Aza is not that big. Since joining Boston De Aza's line is .267/.290/.433 in 31 PAs. Over the last two weeks and 28 PAs Castillo is at .231/.286/.385. So we're basically talking about 4 points of OBP and 48 points of SLG, assuming one wants to base a decision on about 7 or 8 games of data.
This isn't some anti-Farrell rant. It's an honest discussion of a lineup choice that at a minimum seems questionable, or at least worthy of a conversation.
This isn't some anti-Farrell rant. It's an honest discussion of a lineup choice that at a minimum seems questionable, or at least worthy of a conversation.
glennhoffmania said:
My guess is that Farrell thinks that Castillo is vulnerable to good RHP, and would benefit from a little time watching from the bench. Castillo's not ready yet; de Aza is almost past it. Result = traditional LR platoon.
Laughable statement...the minimal difference between ADA and Castillo has been covered, and didn't even count defense. Plus, the Sox have the second-worst record AND run differential in the majors. Finally, if they ARE going to make a miracle turnaround, they're going to need some star performances, and who's more likely to put it together and do that, the journeyman recently DFA'd or the hotshot with loads of potential?rembrat said:
Then the case for firing Ben Cherimgton gets even stronger.MikeM said:
And it still argues for sending Castillo down to get regular ABs, rather than having him sit on the bench for effectively a third straight season.
Is Castillo going to develop his game at this point, though? He's 27 - soon to be 28 - and not 23. Isn't he already whatever it is he's going to be at this point? I know he hasn't really played that much baseball lately, but that seems like a reason to keep him on the bench to protect his body, which seems prudent given that he's already dealt with some injuries this year.
Danny_Darwin said:
Plympton91 said:
The debate over the lack of Castillo actually playing compared to declaring him a bust based on JF's evaluation ,while on the hot seat, is essentially a debate how truly secure JF feels about his job and his requisite responsibilities. Within those one would assume is the always changing lineup.Toe Nash said:
De Aza may very well look better for a short burst against RHP compared to Castillo ,but in terms of both this year and next finding if Castillo is a starter or an expensive 4th OF Nava type (different skills but same usefulness) is pretty damn imperative from a GM' team building POV. Thought it was notable Castillo got in there last night for an inning. Yasmany Tomas and Guerrero for the Dodgers both have adjusted to part time roles. Bottom line I'd like to see him in there to get a JBJ like view/sample of what we have.
Danny_Darwin said:
As an athlete, yes. He's unlikely to get faster or stronger or develop more bat speed. But he can presumably learn and adapt to MLB pitching, and that will require playing time.
Playing in Pawtucket won't necessarily help that, though. Or are we back to saying the gap between AAA and MLB isn't that big?Savin Hillbilly said:
MikeM said:
Could you link me to a few of these? Literally never saw a single one that referred to him as a 4th OF type.
Danny_Darwin said:
It will if it's an issue of muscle memory and repetition, which could be a big issue given his lack of recent play time over the past few seasons.
Nobody is asserting that the gap between AAA and the majors isn't significant.
This whole season has been so frustratingly off-kilter. Early on, this team did not show much of a sense of urgency to win games, in my view. Don’t get me wrong; not saying they weren’t trying to win or anything; that’d be silly. But I rarely got the sense that they were putting their best team and best alignment on the field on any given night. There was always some larger picture, non-performance-related rationale to (in my opinion) not putting your best foot forward. Protecting your assets and the “deep depth”, giving “respect” to veteran Victorino for what he did in 2013, so you send Rusney down. JBJ is your best defensive CF, but you play him in RF so as “not to disrupt Mookie’s rhythm in CF” for a couple of games, playing people against lefties who can’t hit lefties while better options are sitting on the bench, hitting some your best hitters at the bottom of the lineup out of respect for the vets (or because “they have a track record”), etc.
All small, "what's the bid deal" things taken individually; and all things that had some logic in the big picture; and yet, all things that taken together, really had a simple bottom line effect: not putting your best team and alignment on the field, and as such, not doing the maximum to win that one game, on that one night. Early this year, I argued that the whole paradigm of the MLB season as three-thirds (see what you’ve got, make changes, go for it) is really outdated; or rather, it has really changed with the advent of the second wildcard. Now that most teams are in closer and closer to the trade deadline, you really don’t have the first third of the season to see what you’ve got. You have maybe 20%-25% of the season (through Mid-May), after which, you really have to manage to win, first and foremost. If you wait too long to assess what you've got, you're in deep too quickly, and the trade market is too tight to make fundamental changes anyway. This whole season has convinced me of that more than ever. I can’t really quantify how many games the lackadaisical approach lost the Sox; I’m pretty convinced it did.
So to see Farrell say damn the big picture and sitting Castillo to play De Aza just heightens the frustration for me. Oh, so now you’re trying to win, huh? I appreciate that he’s now showing a sense of urgency to win games; I want to see Rusney play, but would feel a little hypocritical criticizing Farrell on this, since he’s doing precisely what I wanted him to do early on. The team losing and his job security being suddenly a little wobbly (regardless of what John Henry said) probably has a lot to do with that. I just think it’s too damn late now. We're pretty much in let's see what we've got for next year now - though I can appreciate that there may be a disagreement there on the precise timing of this new phase.
Logical moves. Awfully out of sync. Terrible year. This probably belongs in another thread, but I’m not sure what they’re doing at ownership and FO level, but it’s really amazing to me the downturn this team has seen. They used to be ahead of MLB trends. Now it’s like they don’t even see them, from having hard-throwers in the Bullpen to the impact of the shrinking strike zone.
All small, "what's the bid deal" things taken individually; and all things that had some logic in the big picture; and yet, all things that taken together, really had a simple bottom line effect: not putting your best team and alignment on the field, and as such, not doing the maximum to win that one game, on that one night. Early this year, I argued that the whole paradigm of the MLB season as three-thirds (see what you’ve got, make changes, go for it) is really outdated; or rather, it has really changed with the advent of the second wildcard. Now that most teams are in closer and closer to the trade deadline, you really don’t have the first third of the season to see what you’ve got. You have maybe 20%-25% of the season (through Mid-May), after which, you really have to manage to win, first and foremost. If you wait too long to assess what you've got, you're in deep too quickly, and the trade market is too tight to make fundamental changes anyway. This whole season has convinced me of that more than ever. I can’t really quantify how many games the lackadaisical approach lost the Sox; I’m pretty convinced it did.
So to see Farrell say damn the big picture and sitting Castillo to play De Aza just heightens the frustration for me. Oh, so now you’re trying to win, huh? I appreciate that he’s now showing a sense of urgency to win games; I want to see Rusney play, but would feel a little hypocritical criticizing Farrell on this, since he’s doing precisely what I wanted him to do early on. The team losing and his job security being suddenly a little wobbly (regardless of what John Henry said) probably has a lot to do with that. I just think it’s too damn late now. We're pretty much in let's see what we've got for next year now - though I can appreciate that there may be a disagreement there on the precise timing of this new phase.
Logical moves. Awfully out of sync. Terrible year. This probably belongs in another thread, but I’m not sure what they’re doing at ownership and FO level, but it’s really amazing to me the downturn this team has seen. They used to be ahead of MLB trends. Now it’s like they don’t even see them, from having hard-throwers in the Bullpen to the impact of the shrinking strike zone.
JohntheBaptist said:
It's been a while since i was actively trying to read up on it, but here's a quick and dirty search mentioning it before heading off to work:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/scouts-update-reports-rusney-castillo/
MikeM said:
Eh. Pretty vague. One line about "some" scouts and a conclusion that doesn't share that opinion. I read up on him quite a bit as well and never came across anything concretely projecting him that way. Doesn't really match the eye test of everything I've seen since the end of last year, either.
Also having a lot of trouble seeing how DeAza is a better option even in the "I might get fired so I have to win today" mode.
