Will John Farrell still be the manager after the season?

[Doctor G]

Disagree utterly.

Bogaerts has been obviously much better, and the other three IF positions are fielded by vets. Butterfield may be a crap 3b coach (or more likely, following orders to be more aggressive), but XB has gotten decidedly better as an
j IF under his gguidance.

Butterfield has helped Bogey. But i think Bogey has helped Bogey more with the work in AZ.Butterfield is the man in charge of infield positioning which doesn't look great this year. Lots of doubles down the lines plus some bizarre overshifts.

 

[smastroyin]

I think it's probably pretty hard to separate pitchers missing spots from bad defensive alignments.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Still for those you honestly believe that a manager can only make a difference of a few wins (one way or the other), reflect on how the 1967 Red Sox would had performed under Billy Herman, Johnny Pesky or Pinky Higgins.

1. How would they have performed under those guys?
2. How do you know?
 

Finally, there are guys who seem to be "turn around artists" (Dick Willliams probably being one). Sometimes - maybe even often - they wear out their welcome rather rapidly. Nevertheless, for this team to succeed (and by that I am thinking winning more than losing), the FO has to find such a person.

I think that was the idea behind Bobby Valentine.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Butterfield has helped Bogey. But i think Bogey has helped Bogey more with the work in AZ.Butterfield is the man in charge of infield positioning which doesn't look great this year. Lots of doubles down the lines plus some bizarre overshifts.

 
This FO is known for "pushing the envelope" with advanced analytics, so I would strongly suspect Butterfield is implementing stuff he's been given from upstairs. Perhaps more importantly, the poor command of the strike zone displayed by too much of the pitching staff means they too often miss their target and fail to pitch to the shift.
 
Edit: smas already covered it. The 2015 Sox have turned that little axiom on its head: What is thought of as bad pitching defense is often bad defense pitching.

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

I think that was the idea behind Bobby Valentine.

Bobby Valentine was hired because of his name.  It was pure PR.

 

[Doctor G]

This FO is known for "pushing the envelope" with advanced analytics, so I would strongly suspect Butterfield is implementing stuff he's been given from upstairs. Perhaps more importantly, the poor command of the strike zone displayed by too much of the pitching staff means they too often miss their target and fail to pitch to the shift.
 
Edit: smas already covered it. The 2015 Sox have turned that little axiom on its head: What is thought of as bad pitching defense is often bad defense pitching.

Pitch calling has to be integrated thus shifts cant be one size fits all.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Bobby Valentine was hired because of his name.  It was pure PR.

 
And the PR that came with him was he was going to hold players responsible and not put up with nonsense.  Wasn't that the whole philosophy behind screaming at Aviles in spring training? And publicly banning alcohol in the clubhouse and team charter?  All the perceived faults of Terry Francona were going to be solved by the hard-ass anti-Tito, Bobby Valentine.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

Wait...Farrell might get fired? I don't get it...Rembrat, Rasputin, and Bob Montomery's Helmet Hat keep telling me everything's fine. "Small sample size! Porcello was going to be expensive! There were no 3rd basemen available! But but but 2013!"
 
Seriously, though, what's it gonna take for the kool-aid drinkers to wake the fuck up? Last place again next year?
 
 
Your act is getting old.
 
 
This is exactly where I'm at. And every post I see defending the current state of things...telling us we're all overreacting...infuriates me further. "Ooo look at what a contrarian I am! Everyone relax!" 
 
One final tangent: Why does everyone think Farrell is so well-spoken? I don't think he is at all. He speaks in a very halting fashion, and chooses odd word combinations. Take last night for example (talking about Mookie): "He went through some field tests right there, and it was immediate to get him off the field and get him out of the game at that point." Field tests? It was immediate? 
 
He and pizza face Cherington can GTFO.

 
Mea culpa on this. It's poor form to call out other posters by name, especially long-time members. Even more so when they are trying to inject some positivity into an otherwise dreadful 2015 campaign. I respect this board too much to post like this. Apologies to Rem, Ras, and BMHH. This season has just been incredibly frustrating. 
 
To add some substance to the thread..I think Farrell does last the season. I mean, even Valentine lasted a full season, and 2012 was a Chernobyl-level dumpster fire (atmosphere-wise, not record-wise...at least not at first). I'm not sure how much influence he has over the team's current performance, and can understand the need for continuity. Honestly, I loved him as our pitching coach. It's strange how his managerial career has been boom or bust.
 
I do give him credit for the lack of off-field / clubhouse issues thus far. And have no idea who we'd bring in to replace him.

 

[WenZink]

We have all read and heard about (and it has been discussed in this thread) Farrell's alleged failure to hold players "accountable" for poor play in Toronto. Accountability is short hand for you are paid to do your job properly and, if you do not, there will be adverse consequences. In baseball the one consequence with which the field manager has to work is playing time.
 
[snip]...
BTW - and I am confident that many here are weary (to say the least) of tales of yore about the Red Sox. Still for those you honestly believe that a manager can only make a difference of a few wins (one way or the other), reflect on how the 1967 Red Sox would had performed under Billy Herman, Johnny Pesky or Pinky Higgins.
 
....[snip]

 
The 1966 Red Sox had a miserable 1st half, but actually were 2 or 3 games over .500 in the second half.  They were clearly a team on the rise, even under Billy Herman.  Yaz went from a 5.5 WAR player to a 12.5 WAR in 1967.  Unless you have evidence that it was Dick Williams who put him touch with workout guru, Gene Berde in the '66-'67 offseasn, I would say that most of the credit goes to Yastrzemski.  Add to that team the rookie contributions of Reggie Smith and Mike Andrews, and it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that even Dick Williams only added a few wins to the Impossible Dream Team.
 
But, since the Sox only won the League by 1 game, Williams made a huge difference.  But Yaz was THE difference.  After the 1966 season, the Sox almost traded Yaz to the A's for 2b Dick Green.  Green was a pretty good 2nd baseman in his time, but do you think we'd be talking about Dick Williams if he'd taken over as manager of the 1967 Sox without Carl Yastrzemski?

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

And Yaz put in a lot of work with then coach, Bobby Doerr prior to, and during that 1967 season.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
The 1966 Red Sox had a miserable 1st half, but actually were 2 or 3 games over .500 in the second half.  They were clearly a team on the rise, even under Billy Herman.  Yaz went from a 5.5 WAR player to a 12.5 WAR in 1967.  Unless you have evidence that it was Dick Williams who put him touch with workout guru, Gene Berde in the '66-'67 offseasn, I would say that most of the credit goes to Yastrzemski.  Add to that team the rookie contributions of Reggie Smith and Mike Andrews, and it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that even Dick Williams only added a few wins to the Impossible Dream Team.
 
But, since the Sox only won the League by 1 game, Williams made a huge difference.  But Yaz was THE difference.  After the 1966 season, the Sox almost traded Yaz to the A's for 2b Dick Green.  Green was a pretty good 2nd baseman in his time, but do you think we'd be talking about Dick Williams if he'd taken over as manager of the 1967 Sox without Carl Yastrzemski?

I believe FYA did point out in one of his posts recently that the 1966 Red Sox were coming on in the second half. It was one of our "historical" (not to be confused with hysterical) posters . Correct me if I'm wrong, FYA.
 
Here's a mind-blower for you: Jacoby Ellsbury had more total bases in 2011 than Yaz did in 1967, 364 to 360. 

 

[WenZink]

I believe FYA did point out in one of his posts recently that the 1966 Red Sox were coming on in the second half. It was one of our "historical" (not to be confused with hysterical) posters . Correct me if I'm wrong, FYA.
 
Here's a mind-blower for you: Jacoby Ellsbury had more total bases in 2011 than Yaz did in 1967, 364 to 360. 

I'd heard that before about Ellsbury's 2011.  In spite of both Yaz and Ellsbury playing just about every game, Jacoby had over 50 more PA.s and, of course, Yaz had 45 more walks.  Ellsbury batted higher in the order, and the 2011 Sox had 5% more PA's (as a team) than the '67 Sox.  But still a good trivia question.  And when I look at Jim Rice's 406 total bases in 1978, I'm always amazed that he led the league with 15 triples that year. (and 15 as weill in 1977). 
 
And, yes, going into the 1967 season, the optimists all cited the fact that the 1966 Sox had the 2nd best record (after the World Ch Orioles) in the AL over the 2nd half of the season.  When you're 13 years old, you BELIEVE.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Farrell isn't going to get fired mid-season.  If I were Ben, I'd find someone to replace Farrell - I wouldn't want to put my job in his hands - but since this management team seems to be a high premium on stability, if I was forced to wager, I'd probably bet on Farrell being here next year.
 

Without a manager who can obtain the same, the Boston Red Sox are years from contending, even for a wild card spot.

 
So I guess 2013 never happened.  Such a good dream too . . . .
 
Maybe we need a venting thread so that every discussion doesn't turn into Sandoval is fat; Hanley can't play baseball; Brock Holt should be playing 3B; and everyone in the front office needs to go.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Here's a mind-blower for you: Jacoby Ellsbury had more total bases in 2011 than Yaz did in 1967, 364 to 360. 

 
Well, yes, but a league-average SLG for non-pitchers was .406 in 2011 and .377 in 1967.
 
But I suppose the mere fact that you have to parse the stat to show that it doesn't really mean Ellsbury had better power production than Yaz is kind of a measure of how ridiculously good that season was.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
Well, yes, but a league-average SLG for non-pitchers was .406 in 2011 and .377 in 1967.
 
But I suppose the mere fact that you have to parse the stat to show that it doesn't really mean Ellsbury had better power production than Yaz is kind of a measure of how ridiculously good that season was.

Forgot about that. Yaz led the AL hitting again in 1968 with a .301 BA. Danny Cater was second at .290! Then, the mound was lowered for the 1969 season. 

 

[fineyoungarm]

1. How would they have performed under those guys?
2. How do you know?
 

I think that was the idea behind Bobby Valentine.

Well Higgins reluctantly played a few African Americans in his second (post Williams and Jensen) stint as manager. There is reason to doubt that he would have positively motivated Smith, Scott and Foy (and yes, I know how hard Williams was on the Boomer). Herman was among those who told Earl Wilson to "forget about" the discrimination incident in Florida in 1966, which treatment led to Wilson being traded (whereafter he promptly won 22 for the Tigers in 1967). But that was another time.
 
When Johnny Pesky told Dick Stuart to shorten up his swings in order to get more hits, Stuart effectively told him to go to hell and that he hit homers for a living.  All in all the pre-1967 teams were notoriously unruly. You can look it up. Williams was stern, to put it mildly, which is why Yaz got Yawkey to fire him in 1969.
 
Here are a few for instances, given that the three managed some of the same players that Williams did.
 
The two most important players on the '67 team were Yaz and Londborg.  There is little doubt that Williams, shall we say, prompted Yaz to play at a higher level by taking away the title of captain (which some pundits believe pissed him off, caused him to get in shape and relieved him - CALLING DR. FREUD) and generally pushing him.
 
There is no doubt that Williams read Lonborg the riot act and got him to throw inside, which may have contributed to his 22 - 9 record.
 
Not a peep was heard out of Sal Conigliaro, as later occurred and so distracted the team. I am convinced he was intimidated by Williams.
 
In the must win next to last of the game of the season, the moment Jose Santiago faltered in the first inning, Williams got up two relievers, which Santiago clearly noticed. He immediately stepped it up a couple of notches and pitched a fine game.
 
Maybe it was just dumb luck, but he always seemed to know when to put Jerry Adair in the lineup.
 
Willliams won, essentially, wherever he managed. The three others neve managed anywhere else. Higgins killed a guy while DUI'ing and went to jail. Pesky became a mascot.
 
So, I dare to apply some common sense to reach my conclusions.  BTW, I do not contend that Williams single handidly managed the Red Sox to an additional 20 wins or something like that. However, he was essential to the team getting into a brutal pennant race and prevailing.

 

[fineyoungarm]

 
And the PR that came with him was he was going to hold players responsible and not put up with nonsense.  Wasn't that the whole philosophy behind screaming at Aviles in spring training? And publicly banning alcohol in the clubhouse and team charter?  All the perceived faults of Terry Francona were going to be solved by the hard-ass anti-Tito, Bobby Valentine.

 
Who, unlike Williams, was an unguided missle. If you're going to be a hard-ass, it helps to know whether your players are right handed or left handed. 

 

[fineyoungarm]

 
The 1966 Red Sox had a miserable 1st half, but actually were 2 or 3 games over .500 in the second half.  They were clearly a team on the rise, even under Billy Herman.  Yaz went from a 5.5 WAR player to a 12.5 WAR in 1967.  Unless you have evidence that it was Dick Williams who put him touch with workout guru, Gene Berde in the '66-'67 offseasn, I would say that most of the credit goes to Yastrzemski.  Add to that team the rookie contributions of Reggie Smith and Mike Andrews, and it's easy to arrive at the conclusion that even Dick Williams only added a few wins to the Impossible Dream Team.
 
But, since the Sox only won the League by 1 game, Williams made a huge difference.  But Yaz was THE difference.  After the 1966 season, the Sox almost traded Yaz to the A's for 2b Dick Green.  Green was a pretty good 2nd baseman in his time, but do you think we'd be talking about Dick Williams if he'd taken over as manager of the 1967 Sox without Carl Yastrzemski?

 
A point that I am making poorly is that, even if a smart, tough guy(or even simply a good manager without all the hard-ass baggage) will not cause a team to win that many more games that it would otherwise, poor managers contribute to additional losses. A 10 game swing in record from one to the other attributable to improved management would not be that surprising to me.
 
As for the no Yaz point - of course not. Do you think there would have been An Impossible Dream year with Billy Herman at the helm? (BTW, since we're adding and dropping players from the roster of the team - what would the Red Sox have done in 1967 had they traded Yaz and not traded Earl Wilson? And why were they considering trading Yaz?)

 

[fineyoungarm]

I believe FYA did point out in one of his posts recently that the 1966 Red Sox were coming on in the second half. It was one of our "historical" (not to be confused with hysterical) posters . Correct me if I'm wrong, FYA.
 
Here's a mind-blower for you: Jacoby Ellsbury had more total bases in 2011 than Yaz did in 1967, 364 to 360. 

 
You are not wrong. In fact, you are correct. 

 

[fineyoungarm]

Farrell isn't going to get fired mid-season.  If I were Ben, I'd find someone to replace Farrell - I wouldn't want to put my job in his hands - but since this management team seems to be a high premium on stability, if I was forced to wager, I'd probably bet on Farrell being here next year.
 
 
So I guess 2013 never happened.  Such a good dream too . . . .
 
Maybe we need a venting thread so that every discussion doesn't turn into Sandoval is fat; Hanley can't play baseball; Brock Holt should be playing 3B; and everyone in the front office needs to go.

The 2013 team was more talented on offense, defense and pitching. Guys we still have were younger. Unforeseeable and awful events motivated the team. 
 
However, there are these points. The FO did make some fine off season signings. And, and this is important, Farrell did not get in the way of the team succeeding. Not screwing things up matters.

 

[ShaneTrot]

What is most shocking to me about Farrell's failure the last two years has been he had a reputation as a 'pitcher whisperer' and a bit of a hard ass with the pitching staff. If anything the pitchers are regressing under his and his staff's tutelage. Of course, if I was him I would say that Cherrington gave me nothing to work with. This staff is 28th in ERA and 26th in DIP%. They are flat out awful. 

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

 
And the PR that came with him was he was going to hold players responsible and not put up with nonsense.  Wasn't that the whole philosophy behind screaming at Aviles in spring training? And publicly banning alcohol in the clubhouse and team charter?  All the perceived faults of Terry Francona were going to be solved by the hard-ass anti-Tito, Bobby Valentine.

Valentine was the strict disciplinarian choice?  Bobby Valentine?  
If they wanted to get a more strict, or even a hard ass no nonsense coach after Tito, there were plenty of real choices they could have made out there, ones that might have actually worked.  Just none that had Valentine's name recognition.  And he was the worst choice they could have made.  The guy was controversy incarnate.

 

[Rasputin]

What is most shocking to me about Farrell's failure the last two years has been he had a reputation as a 'pitcher whisperer' and a bit of a hard ass with the pitching staff. If anything the pitchers are regressing under his and his staff's tutelage. Of course, if I was him I would say that Cherrington gave me nothing to work with. This staff is 28th in ERA and 26th in DIP%. They are flat out awful. 

 
Do you realize you're basing an assessment of what was handed to Farrell in what they have done under Farrell? Wouldn't it make more sense to base an assessment of what was handed to Farrell on what was done before they were handed to Farrell?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

What is most shocking to me about Farrell's failure the last two years has been he had a reputation as a 'pitcher whisperer' and a bit of a hard ass with the pitching staff. If anything the pitchers are regressing under his and his staff's tutelage. Of course, if I was him I would say that Cherrington gave me nothing to work with. This staff is 28th in ERA and 26th in DIP%. They are flat out awful.

What's interesting is that Lester and Miller thrived under his "whispering." Maybe he's better at making good pitchers great than mediocre pitchers good.

 

[nattysez]

 

Brian MacPherson ‏@brianmacp  54m54 minutes ago
Farrell acknowledged that the Red Sox have tried to get Sandoval not to play so shallow, but Sandoval has a "comfort level" playing in.
 

 
 
This is further evidence of the fact that there is no clubhouse strife because Farrell doesn't do anything that would cause such strife.  Farrell can't even get a guy having the worst defensive season of his career to lose some weight or follow simple instruction about defensive positioning?  Seriously?   

 

[rembrat]

This is further evidence of the fact that there is no clubhouse strife because Farrell doesn't do anything that would cause such strife.  Farrell can't even get a guy having the worst defensive season of his career to lose some weight or follow simple instruction about defensive positioning?  Seriously?   

 
The quote said they tried. What should be their next course of action? Should Farrell and Butterfield have a face to face with Sandoval's parents? What would nattysez do?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

We have all read and heard about (and it has been discussed in this thread) Farrell's alleged failure to hold players "accountable" for poor play in Toronto. Accountability is short hand for you are paid to do your job properly and, if you do not, there will be adverse consequences. In baseball the one consequence with which the field manager has to work is playing time.
 
We have a snapshot that provides positive proof that John Farrell does not hold his players accountable - Pablo Sandoval. A competent manager would have benched him long ago, when Sandoval established that he did not care to remain in even marginally good enough shape to play baseball at an elite level. By whom he was replaced would not have been all that important - as long as the replacement played to the best of his ability and gave a damn.

With so many Giants supporters around here, I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not Bochy--an acclaimed manager--ever benched Sandoval for being out of shape. I can't find any stories about this, and I don't remember it happening. But certainly, this isn't the first time he's been fat.

 

[rlsb]

 
A point that I am making poorly is that, even if a smart, tough guy(or even simply a good manager without all the hard-ass baggage) will not cause a team to win that many more games that it would otherwise, poor managers contribute to additional losses. A 10 game swing in record from one to the other attributable to improved management would not be that surprising to me.
 
As for the no Yaz point - of course not. Do you think there would have been An Impossible Dream year with Billy Herman at the helm? (BTW, since we're adding and dropping players from the roster of the team - what would the Red Sox have done in 1967 had they traded Yaz and not traded Earl Wilson? And why were they considering trading Yaz?)

Yaz and Herman did not get along, as was stated in Yaz's book in 1990.  The manager spoke of golf in the clubhouse that ticked Yaz off.  Herman would threaten Yaz of course because Yawkey confided in Yaz.  Herman also thought of him as not getting the most of his ability, hitting for some average and not power.  Of course this all changed in 1967.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Because teaching guys how to get back into a game is important for future years.  Butterbrain stomped on an opportunity to put one, maybe two on the board by getting a runner thrown out at home for the first out.  Again.  And the runner was Sandoval, who spent the rest of the night hooked up to an IV bag of saline.  There's "situationally aggressive" and then there's "ideologically stupid."
 
Funny thing; bosses who do their jobs with their heads up their asses frequently get the same types of performances from their employees.

I am sure that this is a stupid question, but here goes. Can Butterfield be hired to teach the infielders but not act as the 3B coach? Because he seems to be great at the former and terrible at the latter. Or, as others have suggested, he is under orders to be aggressive, even with no outs and a fat man at second. If that's the case, it's on the manager, and is another reason he is a bad in-game manager.

 

[fineyoungarm]

With so many Giants supporters around here, I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not Bochy--an acclaimed manager--ever benched Sandoval for being out of shape. I can't find any stories about this, and I don't remember it happening. But certainly, this isn't the first time he's been fat.

Pundits, who follow Sandoval's girth more closely than I, maintain that he is at his career fatest. Maybe so.
 
However, let's simply assume that he has gained weight since the start of the season and/or refused to lose weight after it became obvious that his size was impacting adversely his defense AND that a struggling team needed one of its marquis players (him) to step up. "Not gonna do it." Fine - ride the pine. 
 
Now I am going to research your interesting question.

 

[fineyoungarm]

http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/andrew-baggarly/extra-baggs-sandoval-avoids-weight-related-benching-etc
 
Here is a related story.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Valentine was the strict disciplinarian choice?  Bobby Valentine?  
If they wanted to get a more strict, or even a hard ass no nonsense coach after Tito, there were plenty of real choices they could have made out there, ones that might have actually worked.  Just none that had Valentine's name recognition.  And he was the worst choice they could have made.  The guy was controversy incarnate.

 
As one of those who argued against the potential hiring of BV and predicted it would be a disaster on multiple fronts, I think you need to go back and look. We weren't in the room, but his perceived toughness on player's was his primary asset in the eyes of the Sox braintrust (er, LL).

 

[rembrat]

Well, I would suggest that if no one is listening to Farrell perhaps he isn't the leader of men some think he is. Then again, we need two more years of data to know if Sandoval is having a bad defensive year anyways. Man this year sucks.

 
It's not a question of leadership. From a technical aspect this game is about finding a comfort zone and developing consist motor patterns that sometimes it's really difficult to break a habit. As always, it's not as simple as we're making it out to be.

 

[Rasputin]

 
As one of those who argued against the potential hiring of BV and predicted it would be a disaster on multiple fronts, I think you need to go back and look. We weren't in the room, but his perceived toughness on player's was his primary asset in the eyes of the Sox braintrust (er, LL).

 
I don't know that we know what the front office was thinking, but I think the consensus among us was that being tough on the players was the only thing that made any shred of sense in the Valentine signing.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/andrew-baggarly/extra-baggs-sandoval-avoids-weight-related-benching-etc
 
Here is a related story.

Interesting. Thanks for finding that.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

It always amuses me that the general reaction to bad performance starts with "get tougher". I'm not singling anyone out.
 
Iran pisses you off? Get tougher.
Kids unruly? Get tougher.
Crime rampant? Get tougher.
Team sucks? Get tougher.
 
It's the easiest and least nuanced of any response. I fall into that trap all the time.

 

[nattysez]

 
The quote said they tried. What should be their next course of action? Should Farrell and Butterfield have a face to face with Sandoval's parents? What would nattysez do?

 
Are you kidding me?  What other job does a manager have other than making the players do things that optimize victory?  If you are incapable of making a player position himself properly on defense, you are not a good manager.  
 
Edit -- And it doesn't have to mean "getting tough."  It means finding the best way to get through to a guy. 

 

[tomdeplonty]

It always amuses me that the general reaction to bad performance starts with "get tougher". I'm not singling anyone out.

 
I hope this isn't too off topic, but the economist Daniel Kahneman wrote something very interesting that might be pertinent to this:
 
"I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, “On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don’t tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case.” This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency."

 

[fineyoungarm]

It always amuses me that the general reaction to bad performance starts with "get tougher". I'm not singling anyone out.
 
Iran pisses you off? Get tougher.
Kids unruly? Get tougher.
Crime rampant? Get tougher.
Team sucks? Get tougher.
 
It's the easiest and least nuanced of any response. I fall into that trap all the time.

Fair point and obviously, I suffer from that disease.  And its roots are in days of yore. 
 
In reality - and although it is such a cliche - what is needed is "accountability". I don't care how that is achieved. But I do think that expectations should be set by the manager and consequences be had, if they are not met.
 
Last time I'll say it - Sandoval is Exhibit 1 in the case that Farrell does not appear to hold his players accountable (or accountable enough). A fair question to me would be "and how many need to be held accountable for the team to be more successful?". Ready for this? I do not know. But I doubt that it is only Sandoval.
 
Of course, all the accountability in the world is not going to make up for the team's overall lack of talent. But it is one thing that could be managed better (IMO), while the FO tries to put together a better team.
 
(How did they get it so wrong when it comes to pitching? It is almost inconceivable.)
 
The short article I posted about how Bochy handled Sandoval is worth reading, BTW.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Definitely worth reading.

 

[Sprowl]

That's fair. I do think the Sox have been burned in recent years by thinking they are going to change aspects of a veterans game. Sandoval is who he is; giving a guy $95M and expecting to then convince him to lose weight, play deeper, give up switch hitting, is probably unrealistic.

 
It appears to be realistic to have expected him to give up switch hitting, because he has given up switch hitting.
 
That, or it was miraculous. Either way works for me.

 

[benhogan]

 
It appears to be realistic to have expected him to give up switch hitting, because he has given up switch hitting.
 
That, or it was miraculous. Either way works for me.

you obviously didn't get the memo...
 
expectations are the new results 
 
jeesh, results are no way way to measure performance

 

[Lars The Wanderer]

With so many Giants supporters around here, I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not Bochy--an acclaimed manager--ever benched Sandoval for being out of shape. I can't find any stories about this, and I don't remember it happening. But certainly, this isn't the first time he's been fat.

 
In 2010, he lost his job to Juan Uribe. And yes, this is as big as I've ever seen Pablo.

 

[In my lifetime]

 
I hope this isn't too off topic, but the economist Daniel Kahneman wrote something very interesting that might be pertinent to this:
 
"I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, “On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don’t tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case.” This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency."

 
This is an interesting tidbit, which on my first incorrect reading I completely disagreed, that is, interpreting that the moral of the story was the point being made by the seasoned instructor ----- "that punishment is more effective than praise."  On closer reading, I realized the brilliant point being made is that regression to the mean fools some people into thinking that punishment is more effective than praise.  
 
I have never seen this point made in this fashion. Very well done.
 
 
Now back to the topic ---
Ironically the one single move that mystified me the most out of all of Farrell's moves (not including letting Workman bat instead of pitch hitting Napoli), actually worked out very well for the team.  That is the decision to abandon the Gomes/Nava platoon in favor of Gomes during the 2013 playoff/WS run (in 1 WS game - he played Nava vs Righty instead of Gomes, other than that Gomes played against all righties, albeit one game when Victorino was out).
 
This link examines some of the nuances: http://www.overthemonster.com/2013/10/23/4867746/world-series-2013-on-daniel-nava-vs-jonny-gomes.
 
The RS won, and Gomes helped with a critical HR off a RHP in Game 4. However, in both the ALCS and WS, Gomes batted under .200 with 2 hits in both series.  It just always bothers me when a manager ignores the numbers and plays a hunch.  Then when the hunch works ----> see I had a feeling.  When the hunch doesn't work, you never hear about it except if it is the specific cause of the loss.
 
 
I don't have a Farrell "must go now" viewpoint yet.  I could understand a move after this season, or alternatively them giving him 1 more year.  If I had to bet, I would say how the RS finish the season will determine his fate. A continued collapse, which looks probable will seal his fate. A turnaround of playing ~.500 ball with the short-handed team as it now exists would probably save his job.
 
As far as Cherington, although no one would agree with every move, after the off-season there was a strong feeling among SoSH members, baseball pundits, various projection models and Las Vegas odd setters that the RS had a good shot to win the division and a decent chance to win the WS.  I think, most including myself, figured they were just waiting to see how the season unfolded before they would undoubtedly trade for an ace.  This strategy made sense to me. Of course, the fact that most thought the RS made good moves, doesn't get BC off the hook, since he should have more information than any of those groups.  Perhaps Panda needed a weight clause, HRam should spend 3 months doing nothing but take fly balls or even hit him a few and see how he does before christening him a left fielder, and maybe let Porcello prove himself for 1-2 months before resigning him for a contract worthy of a true #2 starter.  Those criticisms notwithstanding, reading the board and I get the feeling it is Lemmings jumping off the bandwagon. However, there wasn't of prospective criticism about the moves, and what criticism there was mostly directed that they should have signed Lester no matter what the price (and of course --- the problem with the signing is not when he is 31, but paying him so much when he is 35/36) and that Sandoval and Porcello got 2-3 more million per yr than was wise. Even with Lester leading the staff and Sandoval/Porcello making less $, I don't think the result this year would substantially change.  Too many things just went very badly.   

 

[patinorange]

 
In 2010, he lost his job to Juan Uribe. And yes, this is as big as I've ever seen Pablo.

j

Juan Uribe would have been a better signing. And cheaper.

I should say acquisition. I don't think he was a free agent.

 

[nattysez]

[SIZE=10pt]On the other hand, for the second day in a row, free agent-to-be Alejandro De Aza was in the Red Sox lineup ahead of Rusney Castillo. Mike Napoli likewise was playing first base, with young corner infielder Travis Shaw watching from the bench.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]"It's a balance," Farrell acknowledged.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Castillo is expected to be in the Boston lineup on Thursday against CC Sabathia and again on Friday against Detroit lefty Daniel Norris. But that De Aza would play over Castillo on any sort of regular basis -- let alone as the big half of a strict platoon -- seems especially strange, given Boston's $72.5 million investment in Castillo. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Farrell seemed to indicate that De Aza and Napoli were getting playing time in part out of respect for their stature as veterans in the game, even if neither would appear to have a future with the Red Sox. It might take an August waiver trade to free up more regular playing time for Castillo and Shaw.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]"We've got two players that have been contributors here," Farrell said. "It's a balance to give the appropriate number of at-bats to all-involved."[/SIZE]
 

 
For the sake of my sanity, I am going to assume the real answer here is that the Sox are hoping to create some kind of trade value at the waivers deadline and Farrell is obfuscating by necessity.  

 

[86spike]

For the sake of my sanity, I am going to assume the real answer here is that the Sox are hoping to create some kind of trade value at the waivers deadline and Farrell is obfuscating by necessity.

Rick Sutcliffe spent some time scratching his pointy head about this mid game tonight. He then mentioned that he thinks Lucchino leaving means big changes coming from Kennedy.

 

[JimD]

 
For the sake of my sanity, I am going to assume the real answer here is that the Sox are hoping to create some kind of trade value at the waivers deadline and Farrell is obfuscating by necessity.  

 
We have to hope so.  Placating veterans should be a fireable offense for a team in this situation.

 

[KillerBs]

 
We have to hope so.  Placating veterans should be a fireable offense for a team in this situation.

Agreed, but it is hard to see fathom how any return on a deAza or Napoli deal could justify a month or wo of lost development/assessment time for Bradley, Castillo even Shaw. 

 

[Plympton91]

Napoli has been hitting well for a few weeks, so a few more weeks would maybe build legitimate trade value if a team thought they might get 2013 Napoli for a playoff run. That's a reasonable gamble.

Alejandro De Aza is not going to develop reasonable trade value by having a hot two weeks. His value is what it is.