No, it shouldn't. This was a strange organizational year and he played with a ton of moving parts. He's still one of the savviest managers in baseball and I can't think of who I'd have in his place. I wouldn't swap him for Maddon.
Paradigm said:No, it shouldn't. This was a strange organizational year and he played with a ton of moving parts. He's still one of the savviest managers in baseball and I can't think of who I'd have in his place. I wouldn't swap him for Maddon.
Also, our beloved owner (I'm sincere in that characterization), who is a master of markets, is now at the mercy of a bursting of the "prospect" bubble, which a couple of our own prospects helped prick this season by their performance. It will be very interesting to see what our prospects fetch in trades this offseason.glennhoffmania said:
You guys need to stop feeding him, and maybe this nonsense will slowly fade away.
But you bring up an interesting point that's been bugging me since the Lester stuff. If Angelos fucked up by thinking he knew more about baseball ops than his baseball ops people, why does there seem to be this idea out there that Henry doesn't like signing pitchers over 30 and that isn't the same thing? If Ben and company want to sign Lester but Henry is vetoing, is this not concerning?
I would say he's close to the polar opposite of this. From my untrained eye, it appears that he relies on hunches far too often and it just hasn't worked out this year. Sure, he's a great manager of people, which can't be completely discounted, but I think he's one of the worst tacticians in the league.. I've long held the opinion that the 2013 Red Sox won despite having John Farrell as their manager.Paradigm said:No, it shouldn't. This was a strange organizational year and he played with a ton of moving parts. He's still one of the savviest managers in baseball and I can't think of who I'd have in his place. I wouldn't swap him for Maddon.
adam42381 said:...but I think he's one of the worst tacticians in the league...
geoduck no quahog said:There should be a stat along the lines of FIP for manager's, something like Performance Independent Managing...that takes out all of the things a manager has no control over (injury, schedule, bad bounces, roster construction - and most important, poor performance on the field) and then tries to compare them.
Statement's like "team doesn't look enthusiastic", or "he left pitcher X in too long" (when there's no predicting the outcome of pitcher Y) are maddening.
In game moves can be statistically judged (although that's not always perfect, considering the personnel that are playing and the game situation) but at least there's something objective to view. My gripe about that is that these in-game choices need to be carried across every game, not just the ones the Red Sox lose...and there must be a relationship between good decisions and bad decisions.
I don't discount the subjective discussion of managers (mostly because it's a very subjective position), but I do discount discussions that never mention other managers in similar situations or never highlight the good moves a manager can make.
I suspect Win-Loss is a very poor way of assessing management.
I think there are two levels of responses to your question. First, at the end of the day, the owners are the ones who have their money at risk (usually) and I don't think any of us question the right of ownership to set organizational philosophy. While fans would generally rather have hands-off owners like Kraft and Biscotti (although look how well that worked for the Lions), as long as an owner sets a reasonable philosophy that is dedicated to winning - like in terms of budgets, contracts, free agents, etc. - I think most fans are fine.But you bring up an interesting point that's been bugging me since the Lester stuff. If Angelos fucked up by thinking he knew more about baseball ops than his baseball ops people, why does there seem to be this idea out there that Henry doesn't like signing pitchers over 30 and that isn't the same thing? If Ben and company want to sign Lester but Henry is vetoing, is this not concerning?
I love the idea you presented earlier. Surely there's someone out there who is smart enough to get this going.geoduck no quahog said:
This is what I'm talking about. Shouldn't a statement like this be backed up by facts and data?
To amplify, there were a dozen years during which two of the worst owners in professional sports in this country were located in Baltimore and Washington.wade boggs chicken dinner said:I think there are two levels of responses to your question. First, at the end of the day, the owners are the ones who have their money at risk (usually) and I don't think any of us question the right of ownership to set organizational philosophy. While fans would generally rather have hands-off owners like Kraft and Biscotti (although look how well that worked for the Lions), as long as an owner sets a reasonable philosophy that is dedicated to winning - like in terms of budgets, contracts, free agents, etc. - I think most fans are fine.
So if Henry asks his baseball ops staff to do research on long-term FA contracts - or if he comes up with that research on his own - people might agree or disagree but it's certainly within Henry's purview to say that the team isn't giving out long-term contracts to pitchers over 30. Just like some management won't give out no-trade clauses; just like some teams won't renegotiate during the season.
What Angelos did went far beyond that. Pat Gillick had set up multiple trades for Bonilla and Wells - and then Angelos vetoed them. If Angelos had told Gillick before he started the process he wanted the Os to compete until they were basically eliminated, that would have understandable, but he didn't do that.
Also, after the Gillick incident(s), Angelos actually became the sole decision-maker. There are lots of stories about this, but the basic problem is that the GM had to set up the trade and then go to Angelos for a decision; after a certain point, people didn't want to deal with the Os anymore.
If people really think that Henry is anything like Angelos, they need to read up more on AAngelos.
No, I see the same things.Reverend said:Am I the only one that questions the premise that the players aren't trying hard. I see frustration, but I've also seen what appears to be a lot of life and determined effort from the players despite being out of contention. Pedroia for starters, continues to be a machine. Holt continues to hustle. Vazquez is animated. Victorino is hanging out in the clubhouse even though he's out for the rest of the season.
I think some people are conflating frustration with a lack of passion and effort. the latter would be unacceptable, but the former is very understandable.
Also, failure doesn't mean none of the rookies are developing; developmental progress is not linear.
I'd certainly prefer seeing Hembree in Taz's spot for the rest of this year. get Taz some resttbb345 said:I don't think Farrell's seat should be warm at all, but at the same time I think he needs to re-adjust the way he is managing this year. There is no reason to be running out Junichi Tazawa every night. This team is a dumpster fire that is going nowhere. Take this time to throw your young guys in high-lev situations.
For example, tonight. Why the fuck throw Breslow in the 10th? The guy might not even be on the team next year. Does this win mean anything at all in the long run? Throw Heath Hembree. Give him the chance to get a save and get his feet wet in the majors. If he wins, that's great. If he loses, it's a learning experience that helpfully helps him become better in the long run.
Farrell is a very good manager who won the World Series last year, but I think his managing this year has been incredibly tone deaf and not aware of the situation the team is in
Agree with the sentiment, but it's possible Farrell fears that Hembree isn't ready and wants to ease him in for his own sake.tbb345 said:I don't think Farrell's seat should be warm at all, but at the same time I think he needs to re-adjust the way he is managing this year. There is no reason to be running out Junichi Tazawa every night. This team is a dumpster fire that is going nowhere. Take this time to throw your young guys in high-lev situations.
For example, tonight. Why the fuck throw Breslow in the 10th? The guy might not even be on the team next year. Does this win mean anything at all in the long run? Throw Heath Hembree. Give him the chance to get a save and get his feet wet in the majors. If he wins, that's great. If he loses, it's a learning experience that helpfully helps him become better in the long run.
Farrell is a very good manager who won the World Series last year, but I think his managing this year has been incredibly tone deaf and not aware of the situation the team is in
nattysez said:Two diametrically opposed thoughts:
(1) Using Uehara tonight ticked me off. Given the scenario, there was no reason not to go lefty-righty starting with Bautista and trying to get the save without using Taz or Koji. Farrell's refusal to show any kind of imagination or an understanding that Koji might need a few days in a row off is very frustrating. His ongoing refusal to give Holt a day off, even as his numbers plummet, is similarly frustrating.
ScubaSteveAvery said:
I don't think this is accurate at all. At the Saberseminar Farrell spoke about Koji's usage in a way that said that he is way in tune to usage patterns of Koji. He was crucified for not sending Koji out for a second inning after a 7 pitch initial inning a week ago, and now he's getting trashed for using him too much. He understands his players, but is constrained by factors that aren't public knowledge or he plays the odds and loses. Koji will be bad until he is good again. We just don't have the foresight to know which outing will be the one that turns it around.
Reverend said:
Is bref no longer accurate or are people just not watching games and just conjecturing at this point?
twibnotes said:Agree with the sentiment, but it's possible Farrell fears that Hembree isn't ready and wants to ease him in for his own sake.
Of course, that thinking is at odds with the fact that he arguably ran JBJ and X out there indiscriminately when they could have used days off etc
nattysez said:FWIW, as of tonight's win, Farrell is one game below .500 in his managerial career.
adam42381 said:I would say he's close to the polar opposite of this. From my untrained eye, it appears that he relies on hunches far too often and it just hasn't worked out this year. Sure, he's a great manager of people, which can't be completely discounted, but I think he's one of the worst tacticians in the league.. I've long held the opinion that the 2013 Red Sox won despite having John Farrell as their manager.
Qualitatively, the team last year seemed to have much greater overall value than the underlying talent would suggest. This year, the exact opposite. I don't know if you can answer how much of that is the manager's responsibility without testing each of these metrics (or others you might propose) against actual data before/after individual managers take over different teams to determine which are actually correlated with manager presence.