53 replies to this topic

[TomRicardo]

I am not sure how excited I am that we have a pitching coach who blew out his own elbow pitching in the major leagues.

[templeUsox]

Here are some quotes from some Indians' fans on BTF:

Aggghhhhh.

I had really liked him in the Indians' FO. I don't have any statistics or nothing on how well he did (or didn't) perform, but he seemed like a straight shooter, and the Indians certainly have brought a lot of young players to the majors over the last few years, some with large measures of success, others less so. My buddy has spoken with him at Lake County and Akron a couple times, and speaks very highly of him.

This is very dissapointing. I agree with PanRains. One of the things I like about him is how straightforward he is, and he always offers a lot of insight, even to the fans, as to what each particular prospects has to work on.

It is always good to get rid of as many Oklahoma State Cowboys as possible, however.

I too am fond of Farrell. I had to talk with him a fair amount during the summer, and he was unfailingly punctual in returning phonecalls and unfailingly polite in answering questions he had answered 100 times before.

Link

[bowiac]

I am not sure how excited I am that we have a pitching coach who blew out his own elbow pitching in the major leagues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Billy Beane failed to draw a walk in five of his six years in the majors.

[86spike]

OK - so he's a punctual, genial straight-shooter. Got it. Thank you Tribefans.

Now what can this guy do for our pitching staff?

The skeptic in me doesn't see a whole lot of promise in Cleveland as far as successful pitching goes. There's always seemed to be a lot of promise with inconsistent results over there. Did Farrell help produce Sabathia and Lee? Did their kid closer who set himself on fire versus the Sox come up under Farell's program?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

OK - so he's a punctual, genial straight-shooter.  Got it.  Thank you Tribefans.

Now what can this guy do for our pitching staff?

The skeptic in me doesn't see a whole lot of promise in Cleveland as far as successful pitching goes.  There's always seemed to be a lot of promise with inconsistent results over there.  Did Farrell help produce Sabathia and Lee?  Did their kid closer who set himself on fire versus the Sox come up under Farell's program?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you mean Carmona, Farrell is the guy who worked with him after he melted down against the Sox and helped to convert him to a starter back in the minors.

Reading the comments on BTF, Tribe fans there are pretty unhappy to be losing this guy. He's very well-regarded FWIW.

[Paul M]

I think the reason for optimism is the eye for talent and development. Since 2001, they have brought in some good talent while he was there.

[TomRicardo]

Billy Beane failed to draw a walk in five of his six years in the majors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Billy Beane is a GM. He manages payroll and personal not coaches players one on one. There is a huge difference. Billy Beane does not teach players how to get walks, he hires people to do that. I would be upset if Theo Epstein was announced tomorrow as the hitting coach for the Sox.

Farrell has very little experience has a pitching coach. He worked four years as the pitching coach at Oklahoma St. where is his main success story as pitching coach was Scott Williamson. I am not sure how much, but Farrell has some responibility for that delivery that has bounced Williamson on and off the DL for a couple of years.

With three young starters and a couple of young bullpen hands, I would have preferred they hired someone with real MLB experience. What does Farrell know about the opposing major league hitting? With the amount of young pitching the Red Sox have I would have appreciated someone with more of a track record of major league pitching.

[941827]

With three young starters and a couple of young bullpen hands, I would have preferred they hired someone with real MLB experience.  What does Farrell know about the opposing major league hitting?  With the amount of young pitching the Red Sox have I would have appreciated someone with more of a track record of major league pitching.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, Farrell does have experience facing major league hitting.

Second, if you're worried about developing players, I can't imagine a better guy to oversee the pitching than a guy who's been overseeing player development for the past few years.

Is your problem that the guy hasn't been a pitching coach in the majors before?

Edited by 941827, 16 October 2006 - 03:27 PM.

[gcapalbo]

Here's a 2003 article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that give a lengthy mention of John Farrell implementing Indians' GM Mark Shapiro's 'player development plan'

Today, the details of the Player Plan are outlined in a thick, black three-ring binder called the "Player Development Manual." John Farrell, Indians director of player development, calls it the "bible."

Sounds like John is the kind of procedure and numbers oriented guy that John Henry and Theo would approve of.

(The mention of Farrell is about a third of the way through the article.)

It is unclear if Farrell has worked before as a pitching coach. Is this the kind of move we think about Theo making when selecting players, carried over to the coaching ranks, i.e. finding and cultivating undervalued talent?

Farrell has experience specifically developing young talent in general for the Indians, and making him the pitching coach (as he is a former pitcher) seems to be a complimentary move focusing those skills on developing young pitching talent.

[TomRicardo]

Is your problem that the guy hasn't been a pitching coach in the majors before?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My problem with Farrell is that his career has been more a front office type rather than a coach. He was hired to the Indians as a front office person. The director of player development is not a coaching position. Farrell has little to no one on one experience with professional players and zero coaching experience at the major league level. He has been out of major league baseball for ten years and besides the players he developed in Cleveland he would have little to no insight on hitter's scouting.

Farrell would have been a fantastic hire as Director of Player Development or even an Assistant General Manager. However as a pitching coach, I am not entirely convinced he is a good choice. In his career as a pitching coach he has coached three major league pitchers: Scott Williamson, Jon Adkins, and David Maurer. Not a huge amount of experience.

Edited by TomRicardo, 16 October 2006 - 06:29 PM.

[The Burn Factor]

I'm on the side of liking the move.

Farrell has had a direct hand in developing the Indians' recent and excellent crop of players. He also has had a hand in deciding who should come to the Indians and who should go. Grady Sizemore happened under Farrell's watch. (EDIT: Before anyone says: Yes, I know he was originally in the Expos' system. However, I'm sure Farrell recommended this guy, and the fact that Grady has morphed into a superstar should be credited to Farrell. Marlon Byrd was can't miss, but we didn't see Farrell acquire him, did we? He called Sizemore, and he developed Sizemore correctly.)

I believe this is a positive. Farrell seems like the kind of guy who can find talent, and as a former pitcher, has experience in this. As a future GM candidate, he easily has the brains to do the job. If he can be a GM, the former pitcher who also oversaw one of the best farm systems in the majors over the last several years can be a pitching coach.

With all the young pitchers the Sox have/will have, this seems to be a move towards integrating and assimilating these pitchers into the major leagues.

I find it hard to find someone better qualified than Farrell, who has a pedigree in development, a history in pitching, and the reputation as a future GM.

Edited by The Burn Factor, 16 October 2006 - 06:48 PM.

[Pumpsie]

Let's face it, we don't know who the heck this guy is. We also know that we needed some kind of change after the last season of Nipper and Wallace. Gotta give Theo credit for not hiring from the same old pool of pitching coach retreads. I say we let the guy's results speak for him. Let's wait and see.

[soxfaninyankeeland]

Francona and Farrell played together on the 1988 Cleveland Indians.

[Paradigm]

I don't understand why you're so vehemently opposed to this.

It's tough to quantify the contributions of pitching coaches. Let's just use one example: Brad Arnsberg is Toronto's pitching coach. In 2005, Josh Towers and Gustavo Chacin had decent years: ERA's under 4, 13 wins apiece, 200+ IP. Ted Lilly had a 5.56 ERA. This year, Chacin has an ERA over 5, Towers is the worst pitcher in baseball, and Lilly posts a pretty good season and his strikeout rate also increases pretty significantly.

So, is Arnsberg doing a good job, or a poor one? Does the fact that he has, as you put it, "one on one experience with professional players" make him a better option?

Dave Duncan's Cardinals led the NL in ERA+ in 2005. Any chance they'll do that again this year, with practically the same stable of pitchers? Of course not. Injuries played a big role, but so did the collapse of Jason Marquis (how'd that happen? Who is to blame) and Mulder's poor work when he was active.

Also, coaches have to get a start somewhere. Mike Maddux stopped pitching in 2000 and seems well-regarded as Milwaukee's pitching coach. Why should the Red Sox follow the company line and hire a "veteran" pitching coach who might not have much success? After all, if such a successful coach existed, wouldn't he already be hired?=

Outside of Rick Peterson or Leo Mazzone, there are no celebrity pitching coaches. And also, how do you know exactly how much work that Farrell has with Cliff Lee or CC Sabathia? How much work does he have with Jeremy Sowers? Rafael Betancourt? In my view, you've jumped to some big conclusions without any evidence.

Who would you have preferred to hire?

[possumbait]

Farrell would have been a fantastic hire as Director of Player Development or even an Assistant General Manager. However as a pitching coach, I am not entirely convinced he is a good choice. In his career as a pitching coach he has coached three major league pitchers: Scott Williamson, Jon Adkins, and David Maurer. Not a huge amount of experience.

Ahhh, feck experience. What's it good for? He's a coach. On that basis, I ask only a few questions:
1) Can you interact with players?
2) Can you interact with management?
3) What are your plans for improving the team's pitching?

I like him without knowing very much, because he has had success in areas where the Sox as an organization have been demonstrating weakness. It's what we have been talking about for the last few weeks: Why have a number of players been better off the Sox than on the Sox? His job with the Indians indicates to me he might be able to help answer that. If he can do so in uniform and engender a day to day relationship with the players on the field while doing so, so much the better.

[DieHard3]

You've gotta give the benefit of the doubt on this one for a while anyway. Little external data to go on, but a front office with a reputation for methodical analysis and going outside the box successfully in many areas. I like that they didn't go the safe route among the retreads. If a marquis name wasn't available, then better to go with new blood in search of the next star than just hire a caretaker.

[The Long Tater]

If a marquis name wasn't available, then better to go with new blood in search of the next star than just hire a caretaker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if a big name had been available (remember Leo Mazzone), I'm in favor of branching out. I favor younger coaches who may have new ways of approaching problems and who will have a desire to succeed, because it may lead to bigger things. Let's give the guy a chance.

[staz]

We also know that we needed some kind of change after the last season of Nipper and Wallace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I like this if for no other reason than it wipes the slate clean. Thanks Al. Thanks Dave. We're moving in a new direction. My hope is that he can get to know his pitchers well enough to hit the ground running in Ft. Myers (to the extent that's even possible at this point).

[TheoShmeo]

Outside of Rick Peterson or Leo Mazzone, there are no celebrity pitching coaches. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know enough about Farrell to really know if I like this move or not, though I do understand the trepidation of those who point to his relative inexperience coaching major leaguers.

That said, three points. One, Farrell made a good impression on me during his press conference today. He sounded smart, confident and likable. What that exactly means, I don't know, but I'd rather hear a new coach sound like him than how Jimy Williams sounded during his first press conference as Sox manager. Two, Rick Peterson's deal with the Mets expires after this year and I wonder if they considered going after him. Three, Leo Mazzone didn't exactly light the world on fire this season with the O's pitching staff. True, it was only one year, but it does point out that there are so many variables involved and only so much a pitching coach can do, especially in the short run.

[BS_SoxFan]

Three, Leo Mazzone didn't exactly light the world on fire this season with the O's pitching staff.  True, it was only one year, but it does point out that there are so many variables involved and only so much a pitching coach can do, especially in the short run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And while I understand that Mazzone was able to resurrect the careers of pitchers such as Jaret Wright and Jorge Sosa during his tenure, and also manage to lead a Braves staff that really never had a true closer for the majority of his time with the team (with the exception of Smoltz's stint), it never hurts a coach to have three of the greatest starting pitchers of the last generation (Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine), two of which are no doubt Hall of Famers, anchoring your staff during all of their collective primes. Thats why I have never fully believed all the Mazzone hype and didn't suddenly expect Daniel Cabrera and the like to suddenly turn it around upon his arrival.

[jacklamabe65]

It's official: Old Hickory thinks that John Farrell is a special person:

I'm not big on coaches changing teams, but Boston's hiring of John Farrell as pitching coach is one of those moves that could change the franchise. Farrell eventually will be a general manager, somewhere, and the Red Sox's 2007 season will depend greatly on the development of Josh Beckett, Jonathan Papelbon, Craig Hansen, Manny Delcarmen, Edgar Martinez and, in time, Clay Buchholz, Kris Johnson, Bryce Cox, Justin Masterson and others. In the last eight months, Boston has raided the Cleveland developmental organization for Farrell and farm director Mike Hazen.

Incidentally, Farrell and Red Sox pitching prospect Daniel Bard, who has been throwing 97-102 mph in the Instructional League, have a long-term relationship. Bard's uncle, Kevin O'Brien, is the godfather to Farrell's youngest son.

[Ian]

What next for Bard?

I bet he really throws 105, his velocity strangely seems to creep up with every Gammo tidbit.

I 'spose we shouldnt complain.

[TomRicardo]

I do not understand why being a potential future general manager makes you a good pitching coach. Why didn't we interview Jed Hoyer for the job? He had a hell of a ptching career at Wesleyan and has nearly as much coaching experience as Farrell. Heck, we know Hoyer was on board with the FO plan.

I would preferred the organization at least waited until after the World Series and have given a look to some of the pitching coaches around the league who have contracts expiring like Peterson. Also I am curious to whether they interviewed Arthur Adams for the job. Adams has done an excellent job in the last couple of years coaching in our minor league system.

[philly sox fan]

John Farrell's background reminds me of... Dave Wallace's. Only with less major league success.

Who knows, but every tidbit about Farrell as a talent evaluator and potential GM down the road is exactly what people said about Wallace a few years ago.

Wallace was a "star" coaching hire, the Sox never pitched well and he was fired.

Jackson was a pedestrian coaching hire, the Sox hit the crap out of the ball and he was fired.

Coaches are a mystery.

[jtn46]

I like it. As has been mentioned, it was time for a change. Too many established pitchers struggled this season. Maybe Farrell's inexperience coaching will be a liability, but if he fixed Carmona I think it's pretty good evidence that he has an ability to identify pitchers' problems and has an ability to communicate with them on correcting them. I actually like that he has front office experience, especially with player development. A pitching coach that uses advanced methods from top to bottom can be a real asset, and hopefully Farrell has that ability.

[BS_SoxFan]

John Farrell's background reminds me of... Dave Wallace's.  Only with less major league success.

Who knows, but every tidbit about Farrell as a talent evaluator and potential GM down the road is exactly what people said about Wallace a few years ago.

Wallace was a "star" coaching hire, the Sox never pitched well and he was fired.

Jackson was a pedestrian coaching hire, the Sox hit the crap out of the ball and he was fired.

Coaches are a mystery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And also just a product of being at the right place at the right time. In 2003 and 2004, Papa Jack coached one of the most prolific offenses in Major League history. The FO made excellent signings in Ortiz, Mueller, Millar in 2003 and Bellhorn in 2004... for those two years, IMO, he was really just the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time, he was there when the team really just struck lightning in a bottle. They had those four additions, who all played extremely well for a short period of time before injuries (in the case of Mueller) and age and just coming back down to Earth (Bellhorn and Millar) lead to all three of their departures. Jackson had Manny Ramirez put up .325/.427/.587 in 2003 and .308/.397/.693 in 2004 with a combined HR total of 80 to go along with the David Ortiz becoming a superstar, healthy Jason Variteks and Trot Nixons posting their best offensive seasons (Tek in '03 and '04, only Trot in '03 before his injuries started taking their toll), and Johnny Damon acting as the catalyst that Coco Crisp was unable to provide. Needless to say Jackson had a stellar, HEALTHY offense, and they dominated. This year, a string of injuries, fatigue, malcontent, and players aging greatly slowed the offense, and showed, at least IMO, that coaches, especially in sports like baseball, really are a mystery and one really never knows what to expect. And just to clarify, I like this signing, but I still just don't know how big of an impact coaches have when a team finds itself crippled by injuries and poor FA signings.

Edited by BS_SoxFan, 16 October 2006 - 08:47 PM.

[Paul M]

Hoyer didn't have a resume of working in player development, which is the difference.

Farrell was about as successful pitching in the big leagues as Peterson who also injured himself, fwiw. Mazzone was a minor-league pitch as well, like Peterson.

And to be honest, something was broken last year, so it's not like he has a lot to live up to.

It's ok to be skeptical, but I see some of this as fashionably contrarian.

[Paradigm]

I do not understand why being a potential future general manager makes you a good pitching coach. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But nobody is saying, "this guy will be a good pitching coach because he's a potential general manager." That's just a throw-in to all of the Farrell descriptors.

Besides, no matter what you think of Farrell or the front office, do you think that a baseball team is going to interview a player for a coaching position, when that person has no right to coach? Similarly, do you think that an individual is going to interview for a coaching position if he doesn't think he's qualified? Of course not. If he knew he was going to fail, it would shatter any hope of a future GM job.

Maybe Gordon Edes knew something we didn't...he floated Farrell's name on 10/3 which could have been a leak from the front office, or he might have heard the name swimming around baseball's circles.

I just don't think that the Sox would interview someone, nor would someone interview for a position, that he is just plum not qualified for. I think that the front office and the future coach is smarter than that.

It's ok to be skeptical, but I see some of this as fashionably contrarian.

Ditto.

Edited by Paradigm, 16 October 2006 - 10:01 PM.

[Fratboy]

I recall reading in BP that one of the first things Theo did at the beginning of his administration was hire coaches of successful minor league players so they could teach their minor leaguers to be successful. This is a continuation of that process - hiring coaches on the big league level who have a history of developing young talent in the majors.

Me likey.

[The Gray Eagle]

"to go along with the David Ortiz becoming a superstar"

So that just magically happened all by itself? Ortiz credited Jackson with really helping him during his first season here. I don't see why anyone shouldn't take that at face value.

If Jackson doesn't get any credit at all for Ortiz becoming a star on his watch, then no coach should ever get credit for any player improving.

[bowiac]

If Jackson doesn't get any credit at all for Ortiz becoming a star on his watch, then no coach should ever get credit for any player improving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm on board with that.

[BS_SoxFan]

"to go along with the David Ortiz becoming a superstar"

So that just magically happened all by itself? Ortiz credited Jackson with really helping him during his first season here. I don't see why anyone shouldn't take that at face value.

If Jackson doesn't get any credit at all for Ortiz becoming a star on his watch, then no coach should ever get credit for any player improving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry I didn't mean for it to sound like Jackson had nothing to do with Ortiz's transformation. But Ortiz was just one part of a stellar offense that Jackson inherited, and I just happen to believe that most serviceable hitting coaches would've been able to succeed with such a historically great lineup.

[SoxFanPJ]

Added Epstein: "I think we were looking for someone who would take a very broad view of the job and be able to make a real impact on our pitching. This is about wins and losses, and I think John has a really good feel for what makes pitchers succeed, from a mental standpoint as well as a physical standpoint, and has faced some of those challenges himself -- not only as a player, but also as a collegiate coach and as a farm director -- and is able to help our players make the adjustments to succeed on all those fronts. We think he's going to make a real impact on this organization and help us win through good pitching."

Speaking of Papelbon, Hansen and Delcarmen

All three have the physical attributes you're looking for. The one thing each will continue to pursue is their own personal awareness: how do they view themselves, what do they know about their current limitations, what adjustments we need to outline for them and how we go about (reaching their) goals."

http://www.projo.com...ox.31914d0.html

[someoneanywhere]

I think Corsi's points are well taken -- but I also have to say I am a little puzzled about this one. This guy could turn out to be a great hire. But, at the same time, it's certainly not a traditional move; my brows furrow anytime I see a ballplayer or coach refer to the game as "our industry" or advance a theory that includes players finding "personal awareness."

I know what he is trying to say there -- mastering your craft means, ultimately, finding your own strengths and weaknesses -- but the way in which its expressed is a little, em, off-the-reservation. And TRic is on to something too: it's one thing to say you need to be able to communicate with players; it's another thing for a pitching coach to teach mechanics and technique and to recognize in-game adjustments.

No matter what I think, I do believe this hire says a lot about the FO. We can all recognize the stamp of player development here. But if Farrell is at the ML level, it's because Theo believes that the young guns need someone up here who essentially matches Corsi's take on matters. In short, I think the message is something like: They have the stuff and are really close to harnessing it; they just need the confidence and "awareness."

And I believe that message applies as much to Beckett as it does to MDC or Hanse or Masterson or Cox or Bard.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 17 October 2006 - 06:40 AM.

[Eric Van]

"to go along with the David Ortiz becoming a superstar"

So that just magically happened all by itself? Ortiz credited Jackson with really helping him during his first season here. I don't see why anyone shouldn't take that at face value.

If Jackson doesn't get any credit at all for Ortiz becoming a star on his watch, then no coach should ever get credit for any player improving.

I don't think there's any reason to question that Jackson was important in Ortiz's development.

The word in the press is that Jackson was somewhat of a one-approach-for-all type of coach. Such guys will have great success with some players and fail to have an impact on others. Word is that the Sox wanted someone more flexible, who could help everyone, without the need for their natural style to mesh with the coach's preferred approach.

[Eric Van]

What next for Bard?

I bet he really throws 105, his velocity strangely seems to creep up with every Gammo tidbit.

I 'spose we shouldnt complain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DB: Here in Fort Myers, I've been between 96 and 98 (mph). They said I hit 100 in my last outing, which was kind of nice to hear. [BA interview by David Laurila]

Bard's fastball resides in the low 90s and touches 94 after hitting 98 earlier in his college career. [BA at draft time]

BA had him as the 15th best prospect in the draft when he was throwing 90-94 (and he signed for what the 16 to 18 picks got, even though he was 29th). If he were throwing 96-100 at draft time, he would have been much higher up on everyone's board (top 10, maybe even top 6) and there's no way he'd be a Red Sox.

[Doza]

I think the reason for optimism is the eye for talent and development. Since 2001, they have brought in some good talent while he was there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you have bingo. This guy is here to help develop the ton of young arms we have and will have coming up through the system.

Just be grateful its not Nipper.

[geoduck no quahog]

And also be grateful we're not the Steinbrenners, who seem to spend 8 billion dollars on ex-managers to help Torre out, but when it comes to the hitting and pitching coaches, reach deep into the bin of absolutely least important attributes:

"used to be a star player for the vaunted Yankees"

oh boy.

[gcapalbo]

Farrell was interviewed on WEEI during the midday show today, and he comes across a straight shooter, nice guy in the analytical mold of Theo and John Henry. It probably does not hurt that he and Francona are personal friends for many years and will know how to work together.

He downplayed the observations that he was on track to be a GM somewhere as 'someone's speculation' and that this opportunity was very interesting to him.

He also specifically spoke about Carmona, and how he and Carmona were able to work together looking at video of "other major league pitchers with a similar style" and identify what was wrong in his delivery and fix it.

Farrell gave most of the credit to Carmona, but clearly this interview painted him as someone you'd expect Theo to hire. Smart, even tempered, relies on metrics and video, is undervalued at the position they intend him to place him into, and perhaps most importantly, has a proven track record developing young talent to perform at the major league level.

I think I'm starting to like this move.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Carmona was abysmal down the stretch, though.

I don't see many instances of pitchers who have improved in Cleveland, but Farrell wasn't the pitching coach so I won't hold that against him, nor am I sure how much of an effect a pitching coach can even have....but....

Getting a new voice, someone new to the organization, is a good thing and Farrell sounds like he's saying the right things and has the right approach. I am cautiously optimistic; he sounds like a guy who has the thinking of the new Theo types, but will have the respect of the others because had a decent career, not that long ago.

[Drek717]

My two cents.

I like the hire. We'll be bringing many young guys up through the system over the next few years so a guy who understands how to develop young guys is essential. Farrell sounds like the best guy available for the job and on top of that he knows Francona a little. Hopefully this will lead to a coaching staff that works well together.

If only our hitting coach was known for sure. If it really is Magadan I guess thats not a bat choice. He should at least be able to stress the FO's key virtues of hitting, working pitch counts and getting on base.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Carmona was abysmal down the stretch, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not true. His last 3 starts were very good.

9/15 5IP, 2 R
9/20 6IP, 1 R
9/27 6IP, 2 R

[Rudy Pemberton]

Carmona was 1-10 with a 5.42 ERA last year. He had a 6.94 ERA after the ASB. He was 0-5 with a 6.43 ERA in August- September. You are correct, that his last three starts were decent. That's a really small sample though.

Neverthless, I don't think it's really important to determining if Farrell will be a good pitching coach or not.

[The Gray Eagle]

Carmona was 1-10 with a 5.42 ERA last year. He had a 6.94 ERA after the ASB. He was 0-5 with a 6.43 ERA in August- September. You are correct, that his last three starts were decent. That's a really small sample though.

Neverthless, I don't think it's really important to determining if Farrell will be a good pitching coach or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carmona was sent to the minors in late August after he had given up 17 ER in his last 9.3 IP, going 0-5 and blowing all 3 save chances he had in that month or so stretch before he was sent down. His season ERA went from 3.57 in late July to 5.76 when he was sent down. He was a 22-year-old pitcher whose confidence was trashed and whose career could have been derailed.

In the minors, he worked as a starter and that was when the adjustments and work that Farell's talking about supposedly occurred. After he came back, Carmona had 4 starts in the majors and pitched pretty well in the last 3 of them, and put up a 4.50 ERA after his return to the majors. It is a small sample size, but it shows that he might well have been greatly helped by his time in the minors and the move to starting.

That alone is more help than Hansen or Delcarmen seem to have received this year.

[behindthepen]

the solid Rob Bradford from the Eagle Tribune on Farrell:

Within the Red Sox's seemingly cut-and-dried transition from one pitching coach to another, two lines showed there was a bit more to this transaction than at first glance.

"I think the thing I find most disappointing is that in four years nobody ever asked my opinion about bringing in a player." - former Boston pitching Dave Wallace to the Boston Globe.

"Farrell has also supervised the signing of all minor league free agents while assisting in major league player acquisitions." - a portion of the Red Sox press release on the hiring of new pitching coach John Farrell.

So when that list of free agents is sent to Farrell to breakdown and analyze for the Red Sox, what kind of qualities will the new pitching coach value? One thing is certain: Farrell all but eliminates any sort of going-by-your-gut-guesswork.

"Each case is going to be individual, but there is a decision-making process that I've learned to go by," Farrell explained. "First and foremost is always going to be health history. That is clearly the No. 1 factor you look at because that is what gives you some kind of parameter as to what kind of contract to give. Then you arrive at the basic statistical measures, such as walks and hits per inning, groundball ratio, hits per inning and how susceptible they are to the long ball. Then you look at his athleticism, has he shown he can make adjustments over time and can he stay one step ahead of the competition.

"Through repetition, I think scouting can be a discipline that you learn. But having first-hand experience and knowing the feeling of when a pitcher is challenged and how they respond to those certain challenges is important."

As if helping identify the future Red Sox hurlers isn't daunting enough, the beginning of Farrell's tenure has been consumed getting a handle on those players already collecting paychecks in Boston.

"I just got done watching (video of Manny) Delcarmen about 15 minutes ago," Farrell said. "It's my responsibility to get my arms around their strengths, their limitations and begin to find out from them. And I've already had initial conversations with the majority of the pitchers, their personal checkpoints and reminders for adjustments. That's all part of having a relationship which will be a cornerstone for putting them in a position to succeed."

doesn't seem to do anything to alleviate concerns about his lack of experience as a uniformed manager, but he clearly 1- fits the profile of the FO, and 2- is targetted at shoring up one of Theo's greatest weaknesses.

[The Gray Eagle]

"Then you arrive at the basic statistical measures, such as walks and hits per inning, groundball ratio, hits per inning and how susceptible they are to the long ball."

Is that a typo? No mention of k-rate, but two mentions of hits per inning?

[xjack]

In the minors, he worked as a starter and that was when the adjustments and work that Farell's talking about supposedly occurred. After he came back, Carmona had 4 starts in the majors and pitched pretty well in the last 3 of them, and put up a 4.50 ERA after his return to the majors. It is a small sample size, but it shows that he might well have been greatly helped by his time in the minors and the move to starting.

Might is the operative word.

I'm sure Farrell is all that he's said to be, but using Carmona to prove his genius seems like a stretch. Maybe we should have hired Alan Dunn, the Iowa Cubs pitching coach who worked with Rich Hill before Hill turned it around in Chicago in August and September.

[SoxFanPJ]

"Then you arrive at the basic statistical measures, such as walks and hits per inning, groundball ratio, hits per inning and how susceptible they are to the long ball."

Is that a typo? No mention of k-rate, but two mentions of hits per inning?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could be that he focuses on ground ball pitchers (GB ratio, HR allowed) who surrender a low OBP against (walks and H/inning) and doesn't focus so much on K rates. He may prefer more pitch efficient pitchers who induce ground balls instead of 3+ pitches for the strikeout.