Farrell on the hot seat

[patinorange]

Wait, so a bunch of fans, with no access to the information the manager has or the strategy the team is implementing should always "get" the pitching moves? Yeah, full disagreement on this.
Some of us aren't quite as smart as we think we are.

Agreeing with you that he has access to all the pertinent information and he is making moves on what he thinks is in the best interest of the team. It's just that in the last few years these moves are not working out. He picks x and it comes up y. He picks black and it comes up white. All the moves he makes can be defended or mocked. It's baseball. That's what fans do. At some point, it's the scoreboard. I really think he needs to be above .500 June 1st to keep his job. Of course it only matters what DD and John Henry think.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Agreeing with you that he has access to all the pertinent information and he is making moves on what he thinks is in the best interest of the team. It's just that in the last few years these moves are not working out. He picks x and it comes up y. He picks black and it comes up white. All the moves he makes can be defended or mocked. It's baseball. That's what fans do. At some point, it's the scoreboard. I really think he needs to be above .500 June 1st to keep his job. Of course it only matters what DD and John Henry think.

And this is a completely valid position.
I was simply disputing the statement that we, as fans, should always "get" every move the manager makes when he goes to the bullpen.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Take a hike, jerk.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

You should have kept waiting.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I, for one, do not want to be turned into money back

 

[rotundlio]

I like John Farrell because of his tactics, the man never misses a step. Team is 29th in bunts (1) and first in stolen base success rate, third in steals. Look at this! Eat it, Royals. Think that's all Rubén Amaro, Jr.? We're sixth and seventh by the other metrics if that matters in some way. There's no hit-and-run that I could positively identify and we shift all over the place based on count and circumstance. I don't think we've had one miscommunication out there! Wasn't Farrell alleged to have pulled the trigger on Shaw?

He keeps things interesting challenging early on egregious Hanley baserunning errors, and somewhere he has Taz warming right now, but the rest of his stuff compares favorably to these other old fogies'. He's got a solid grasp of platoon splits and I think he generally acquaints relievers with the appropriate situations based on leverage (his hands are tied because saves are so important—a team has to maximize, monopolize, and prioritize saves). I think he's got a positive working relationship with the braintrust and I think he's learned some stuff in his time here. Dusty Baker kept calling Bryce Harper "Royce" Harper.

Farrell also laid a ringprint on cancer's inferior jawline, good for him. How much of this Lovullo could accomplish is up for debate.

 

[Plympton91]

The points about bunts, stolen base percentage and hit and runs are good ones as they lie squarely within the managers control.

On the flip side, as Hembree looked great again last night, I was wondering who gets the final call at the end of spring training on Noe R vs Heath H? That seems like one a manager with a pitching background should have final say and get right. He didn't.

 

[benhogan]

I like John Farrell because of his tactics, the man never misses a step. Team is 29th in bunts (1) and first in stolen base success rate, third in steals. Look at this! Eat it, Royals. Think that's all Rubén Amaro, Jr.? We're sixth and seventh by the other metrics if that matters in some way. There's no hit-and-run that I could positively identify and we shift all over the place based on count and circumstance. I don't think we've had one miscommunication out there! Wasn't Farrell alleged to have pulled the trigger on Shaw?

He keeps things interesting challenging early on egregious Hanley baserunning errors, and somewhere he has Taz warming right now, but the rest of his stuff compares favorably to these other old fogies'. He's got a solid grasp of platoon splits and I think he generally acquaints relievers with the appropriate situations based on leverage (his hands are tied because saves are so important—a team has to maximize, monopolize, and prioritize saves). I think he's got a positive working relationship with the braintrust and I think he's learned some stuff in his time here. Dusty Baker kept calling Bryce Harper "Royce" Harper.

Farrell also laid a ringprint on cancer's inferior jawline, good for him. How much of this Lovullo could accomplish is up for debate.

Thanks, best post on this thread so far.

P91, If Hembree is far superior to Noe, at least we know that now with 90% of the season left, so we have that going for us.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

People saying (on both sides) that nobody's bringing data to the argument are not quite right. There's a lot of data. It just sucks. There's no obvious test to determine if a manager is good or bad. If there were, this thread would be one post: "Farrell fired because he stinks." We have to make some kind of inference from a bunch of tangentially related facts. We are doing so at multiple scales (the past week has been a shitshow for the team's performance. They really should not have lost every one of the games they lost, but also four of Farrell's seasons have been awful, but also one of them was the opposite of awful). Round and round. The table of team performance is a textbook of example for "regression to the mean." A team is underperforming by chance alone, the manager gets fired, the team returns to expected performance levels, it must have been the manager's fault. Lovullo's stint is a data point. The pre-season PECOTA predictions vs. outcome are a data point. The World Series is a data point, but so is Workman batting. Is there anything meaningful left to add? We are all just constructing arguments out of fluff based on gut feelings. The pro-Farrell side is making a big deal out of absence of strong evidence that he's not good. Of course, that goes both ways. What is it about Farrell that you all like? What's driving your gut feeling that he's not what's wrong with this team?

Great points. The bolded part gets to the heart of the debate. I will quibble with the idea that there is a pro-Farrell crowd. There is an anti-Farrell crowd that says an in-season firing could help and the "wait and see" crowd that disagrees. There may be a few that think Farrell is a great manager, but they don't come close to being a crowd. The "wait and see" argue that the anti-Farrell contingent needs to prove JF is terrible and that an in season firing could change the trajectory of this team in 2016 for the better. What is not provided, however, is much if any evidence for the counter arguments. In addition, there is not much discussion of the implications for 2017 and beyond, which is telling. Thus, there really isn't anyone arguing that JF is great, just not bad enough to be fired (yet).

I do think after 6 pages of this debate, we can all agree that he is almost certainly on the hot seat, though.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Thanks, best post on this thread so far.

P91, If Hembree is far superior to Noe, at least we know that now with 90% of the season left, so we have that going for us.

Huh, I thought that post was sarcastic. I mean, the Royals are 11-5 and we're 8-8. But we bunt less. Take that KC!

Wasn't there a year we we spent more time in first place than anyone else? I missed the parade for that, but I'm sure it was as cool as the bunting efficiency trophy we're sure to get.

 

[simplicio]

The points about bunts, stolen base percentage and hit and runs are good ones as they lie squarely within the managers control.

On the flip side, as Hembree looked great again last night, I was wondering who gets the final call at the end of spring training on Noe R vs Heath H? That seems like one a manager with a pitching background should have final say and get right. He didn't.

Ramirez came out of spring training with a 1.38 ERA to Hembree's 5.63. Could be they were fooled, could be Hembree just wasn't ready to go yet. Noe probably bought himself more rope than he deserved when he went 2 scoreless with 4 Ks after Kelly went spelunking in Toronto too.

 

[Harry Hooper]

FWIW, Castig on the radio call about 9 games back talked about how Noe had really impressed Lovullo last September. Maybe that carried over to the ST evaluations.

 

[Plympton91]

Ramirez came out of spring training with a 1.38 ERA to Hembree's 5.63. Could be they were fooled, could be Hembree just wasn't ready to go yet. Noe probably bought himself more rope than he deserved when he went 2 scoreless with 4 Ks after Kelly went spelunking in Toronto too.

If they're basing decisions on spring training ERA of relief pitchers, that's a real problem.

Hembree out pitched Ramirez all last year. Hembree has much better stuff. There was no indication of any minor injury to Hembree in spring training that would have set him back

 

[simplicio]

Agreed that Hembree's better, but it's not like either of them has ever set the world on fire, and they both have options. I'd probably pick the guy who's been going well through ST over the one who hasn't to start the season with the team.

Ramirez's usage has been odd though, this year and last. He's a near constant disappointment, but they keep giving him chances. I don't know if they think he has some crazy untapped potential, or if they genuinely think he's the best they've got in Pawtucket.

 

[benhogan]

Huh, I thought that post was sarcastic. I mean, the Royals are 11-5 and we're 8-8. But we bunt less. Take that KC!

Wasn't there a year we we spent more time in first place than anyone else? I missed the parade for that, but I'm sure it was as cool as the bunting efficiency trophy we're sure to get.

A nice mixture of facts, sarcasm and humor...

I stand by it. Rotundlio won the internet this morning.

 

[williams_482]

John Farrell's teams have appeared to be quite talented at the beginning of the regular season. They have also typically declined in quality by the end of the season due to short term assets being sold off, but this is at best a minor factor in the drastic underperformance of those teams.

I don't understand why those teams have been so bad. I also don't understand how to measure the impact a manager has on the performance of his players. It is tempting to fill one unknown area with annother by assuming the underperformance is Farrell's fault, but we have no real evidence of a connection. This goes double for the team's overperformance in 2013.

I don't believe that Farrell is anything more than a passable tactical manager. He doesn't fall into the trap of obsessing over small ball tactics like many managers have in the past, and he is usually okay when it comes to platoons and pinch hitting. On the other hand, he is far from creative when it comes to bullpen roles, and I'm sure we can all remember a decent number of moves which seemed pretty foolish both in real time and in hindsight. Letting Brandon Workman hit is the most prominent example.

Of course, we should keep in mind that basically every established major league manager kinda sucks at in game tactics. Even Joe Maddon makes plenty of decisions that would draw scathing criticism from the MGLs of the world. And when the gap between SABR-perfect and the MLB norm is maybe a couple of wins, "passable" isn't likely to be hurting us much.

We are reasonably confident that Lovullo will be the new manager if Farrell is fired. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, Lovullo went 28-20 with what was ostensibly the same team last season. It has also been suggested repeatedly that this means Lovullo is a better manager than Farrell and will get better results if he is installed as the manager. This is possible but far from certain, and we are in no position to find out for ourselves.

Lovullo is currently the bench coach. If he is a better "leader of men" than Farrell, then the differences in style and effect should have been fairly obvious to those in the clubhouse during those 48 games. If a positive difference can be identified, Farrell should be fired and Lovullo should replace him. If Lovullo is a significantly better tactician, then this should also be obvious to the front office. Lovullo should be given more authority on in-game tactical decisions, and if Farrell is not willing to accept this then he should be replaced.

Alternately, if there is no discernable difference between the managing abilities of these two men, then that 28-20 stretch can be dismissed as no more predictive than Farrell's own 28-20 start.

I am entirely unconvinced by the arguments in favor of "change for the sake of change." Forgive me, but the post claiming it is an important fallback for when "science just isn't working" sounded suspiciously like management speak for "there is nothing useful I can do here, but damned if I'll let that stop me." I certainly hope the Red Sox front office doesn't fall into that sort of thinking.

This also has nothing to do with fairness, although there are plenty of parallels. Firing someone for something that isn't their fault is not only unfair to them, but also does not solve the core problem. Solving that core problem requires identifying it and then dealing with it, not firing blindly into the dark and hoping you make things better before you make them even worse.

Because the Red Sox front office has so much more information than any of us, I will accept whichever of these two choices they ultimately take. I have a hard time imagining any circumstances under which I would be calling for Farrell's head solely on the basis of the team's record. A pattern of increasingly terrible decision making or evidence that the clubhouse has fallen apart would be a different matter, of course.

 

[crystalline]

.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Why is Chris Young starting against another RHP? Even if Young hits well today, it'd be the tactical equivalent of hitting on 18 against a 7. Even if you draw a 3, it's still a bad move.

The only feasible argument I can see is valuing Holt's defense at SS over Rutledge's, but that seems to be a miniscule difference, especially in the grand scale of one game. I'd rather have Young on the bench as a potential PH against a LHR than starting in a game that plays tremendously to his weakness.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Why is Chris Young starting against another RHP? Even if Young hits well today, it'd be the tactical equivalent of hitting on 18 against a 7. Even if you draw a 3, it's still a bad move.

The only feasible argument I can see is valuing Holt's defense at SS over Rutledge's, but that seems to be a miniscule difference, especially in the grand scale of one game. I'd rather have Young on the bench as a potential PH against a LHR than starting in a game that plays tremendously to his weakness.

No idea why. Young is more valuable off the bench than Rutledge is.[/QUOTE]

 

[Harry Hooper]

Why is Chris Young starting against another RHP? Even if Young hits well today, it'd be the tactical equivalent of hitting on 18 against a 7. Even if you draw a 3, it's still a bad move.

The only feasible argument I can see is valuing Holt's defense at SS over Rutledge's, but that seems to be a miniscule difference, especially in the grand scale of one game. I'd rather have Young on the bench as a potential PH against a LHR than starting in a game that plays tremendously to his weakness.

I suppose one could claim playing Young helps the defense since JBJ has extra territory to cover in deep CF.

More likely, however, it;s that Farrell seems dead set on getting Young on the field whenever possible. Is this his own call, or was that part of the promised usage made by the FO to Young when they signed him to be the 4th outfielder?

 

[Plympton91]

It also to goes to the decision to keep Rutledge and send Hernandez, who is a better shortstop than either Rutledge or Holt, back to Pawtucket. Who made that decision? Again, seems like something the manager has direct control over.

Perhaps part of the reason Farrell's teams underperform is that he makes these types of small mistakes (Hernandez/Hembree) that account for 1/3 of a win and those 1/3rds add up over the course of the year.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

I suppose one could claim playing Young helps the defense since JBJ has extra territory to cover in deep CF.

More likely, however, it;s that Farrell seems dead set on getting Young on the field whenever possible. Is this his own call, or was that part of the promised usage made by the FO to Young when they signed him to be the 4th outfielder?

You'd think Young is well aware of his own strengths and weaknesses and would prefer to be set up to succeed rather than struggle with something he knows he's not great at.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Players want to play, of course.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Huh, I thought that post was sarcastic. I mean, the Royals are 11-5 and we're 8-8. But we bunt less. Take that KC!

Wasn't there a year we we spent more time in first place than anyone else? I missed the parade for that, but I'm sure it was as cool as the bunting efficiency trophy we're sure to get.

That poster actually threw down some numbers that spoke to a larger managerial philosophy, and presented them (humorously) as simply the points of data that they are. You came back with two teams' respective W/L records after 16 games, some snark that spoke to the post whooshing over your head, and the curiously continued position that implies you're a better baseball mind than our current manager.

He's not the dope here. Maybe pump the brakes a little on that.

 

[Pilgrim]

Young is a much better hitter than Rutledge, and Holt is probably a better shortstop. Not sure why this lineup is controversial.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Young is a much better hitter than Rutledge, and Holt is probably a better shortstop. Not sure why this lineup is controversial.

Because it hasn't worked out perfectly.

 

[Plympton91]

Why is Tazawa warming up for the 7th inning of a game they're losing by 3 runs?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Young is a much better hitter than Rutledge, and Holt is probably a better shortstop. Not sure why this lineup is controversial.

Young against RHP might be the worst hitter on the team.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Young is a much better hitter than Rutledge, and Holt is probably a better shortstop. Not sure why this lineup is controversial.

Rutledge has a .023 OBP advantage over Young vs RHP, for their respective careers.

But otherwise, sure. Young definitely needs to see more RHP to get his timing down.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Rutledge has a .023 OBP advantage over Young vs RHP, for their respective careers.

But otherwise, sure. Young definitely needs to see more RHP to get his timing down.

You want him to bat MORE against RHP? Seriously?

I don't care about the 4th/platoon OFs timing against his weak side. I care about winning ballgames.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

No. God no. Sorry, this board appears to no longer support the Justin Thomas Sarcasm Font.

But those were Farrell's words about Young, so they seemed appropriate.

 

[rembrat]

Why is Tazawa warming up for the 7th inning of a game they're losing by 3 runs?

So is this now the Managerial Game Thread thread?

 

[Moviegoer]

People keep asking for specific examples of Farrell's mistakes. Maybe we should have a thread where they can be detailed as they happen.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Don't know who the pitchers were, but Young's 3-year splits at Minute Maid are;

44 AB's
16 Hits (.364)
5 HR's
1.202 OPS

 

[Rovin Romine]

For the curious Noe Ramirez has appeared in 9 games. The Sox are 2-7 in those games.

That poster actually threw down some numbers that spoke to a larger managerial philosophy, and presented them (humorously) as simply the points of data that they are. You came back with two teams' respective W/L records after 16 games, some snark that spoke to the post whooshing over your head, and the curiously continued position that implies you're a better baseball mind than our current manager.

He's not the dope here. Maybe pump the brakes a little on that.

Eh. I explained how I took his post. And, even though ti's 10% of the season, I think the W-L record is relevant in terms of assessing how the team is, you know, actually performing vis-a-vis the teams we're competing against. But what say you - is Farrell responsible for how the team's been performing for the past two years or not?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

You'd think Young is well aware of his own strengths and weaknesses and would prefer to be set up to succeed rather than struggle with something he knows he's not great at.

Young reached the Major League level in large part from having uber confidence in his ability so no, I wouldn't expect anyone short of a 36-year old backup catcher type to prefer a lesser role on his team especially with millions (or tens of millions) of dollars at stake in his next contract negotiations.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

For the curious Noe Ramirez has appeared in 9 games. The Sox are 2-7 in those games.

Isn't it quite common for a team to have a terrible W-L record in games when your long reliever is seeing action after your starter just got shelled?

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

I am entirely unconvinced by the arguments in favor of "change for the sake of change." Forgive me, but the post claiming it is an important fallback for when "science just isn't working" sounded suspiciously like management speak for "there is nothing useful I can do here, but damned if I'll let that stop me." I certainly hope the Red Sox front office doesn't fall into that sort of thinking.

I'm not sure you even get the irony here, since we're talking about... how should I put this... the manager? Thanks for the chuckle. Unfortunately, we can't send Farrell down to AAA and see if he can work things out and how his replacement would do if given the opportunity, like we do for the people he manages. He either stays or gets fired even though he can't catch, hit or throw... just manage those who do. Doesn't work that way in most businesses where people would be moved around and projects re-prioritized based on poor performance. Firings are rare even when a shakeup is needed, but baseball is a funny game.

BTW the preferred term is leadership these days and not management, but thanks for being condescending.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Young reached the Major League level in large part from having uber confidence in his ability so no, I wouldn't expect anyone short of a 36-year old backup catcher type to prefer a lesser role on his team especially with millions (or tens of millions) of dollars at stake in his next contract negotiations.

1. You can't attribute anything about Young's major league success to his "uber confidence."

2. His numbers, and therefore his contract, would be tremendously higher if he's deployed in a manner that plays to his strengths. A position-flexible OF who plays somewhat questionable defense and crushes lefties but hits righties about as well as I do should be pleased to only see the field in a limited sample to limit defensive metrics and only see the pitchers that he hits well. That would play well toward getting him another contract at the end of his current one. I don't know about you, but I played baseball my entire life up until my post-college years, and I used to cringe on the days I was asked to play short or 3B, because I was a shitty shortstop and 3B. Perhaps I'm the exception, but I don't think it's all that unprecedented.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Eh. I explained how I took his post. And, even though ti's 10% of the season, I think the W-L record is relevant in terms of assessing how the team is, you know, actually performing vis-a-vis the teams we're competing against. But what say you - is Farrell responsible for how the team's been performing for the past two years or not?

The team record is a bit irrelevant vis a vis his point--so we know the team is middling and we're trying to apportion "blame" largely in the dark (manager/ players/ FO/ etc). Saying "hey look, here's proof JF doesn't bunt a lot, etc" is valuable in the sense that if one is to believe those larger philosophical impulses are what "we" want from a manager, and we can't quantify so much else in this equation, that's at least getting at something tangible in apportioning said "blame." It isn't a complete picture, and does not answer the entire question definitively, but it didn't read like he was trying to.

That KCR does bunt and is still playing well through 16 games doesn't tell you the data point is irrelevant, it gives some perspective on how muddy the water is on the "blame" issue, to say nothing of the fact that something like a preferable philosophical approach doesn't necessarily bear out in success or failure over 16 games (Ned Yost would have many of you tearing your hair out). Or maybe even two years of games--I'm not sure I agree, but I thought it was an interesting point and rose above the "why was so and so in the game and not so and so" posts that seem more like vehicles for venting frustration or whatever. It is nothing approaching the famed "most days in first place" quote.

To answer your question--I like Farrell, I think he's a very capable baseball person, but yes his responsibility for the team's performance over the last two-plus years is a non-zero number and the time it's stretched across now is at the point where his job should be at risk.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Well, as I said, I think there are some things Farrell does well - not getting caught up in small ball is one of them. But I'm very bottom line on the overall issue of Farrell remaining as the Red Sox manager. No matter how irritating I find some of the things he does, the team winning on a long term basis is a near-perfect rebuttal to any fan's reservations, including mine. (Exceptions for Grady Little type scenarios.)

***
So, I brought up the whole Elias issue before he came up:

Any competent manager should be able to use Elias appropriately. Additionally, Elias should be used to absorb bullpen innings if at all possible. How is that confusing?

If you need more detail, go ahead and present me with a breakdown of Elias's splits by batter, handedness, etc. You know, all the stuff Farrell has. You can run a breakdown for early exits of the starters and who is available in the pen. Then I can tell you exactly how I think he should be used - which should mean jack-shit, since if Farrell's any good at his job, he'll outperform me, you, and everyone else on the board in terms of intelligently using Elias to a) put his team in a position to win games, and b) rest his bullpen.

You're telling me he's a good manager, right?

I wasn't able to see yesterday's game, but I did read the box score. Did Farrell, who has access to all that information we don't, use Elias intelligently, or not, or is it too close to call? Was the result Elias's fault? I'm really asking - I didn't see the game and so have no idea if the inning just exploded on him, or if he was jobbed by the ump, or whatnot.

***
It's early, but I wonder about Carson Smith. Assuming he comes back soon, is he on Farrell's A list, or B list, or what? In the interim, I'd assume Pat Light will be taking over the role of whichever B list pitcher gets sent down?

***
Also, assuming we continue to do the just-a-hair-under-.500 tango, how long does Farrell have before the music stops?

In 2014, the Sox finished April at 13-14, and were 3 games under .500 by the end of May, 7 at the end of June (6 games back), and 12 games under by the end of July.
Last year the Sox finished April at 12-10, but were 7 games under .500 by the end of May, still 7 under at the end of June (6.5 games back), and 12 under at the end of July.

I would think the Sox would be very aware of the trade deadline this year, as they have been in the last 4 years - deciding they're in or out. On 5/8 we'll have finished 6 games against the Yankees in 9 days. 5/27 to 6/5 is a stretch of 10 games against the BJs and Orioles. Unless we're clearly in the mix, I don't see Farrell lasting to the end of that 6/5 stretch.

 

[derekson]

Does anyone else find it a bit odd that Farrell is starting Hanigan for the 3rd time in the last 6 games? Has he lost confidence in Vázquez so quickly? Or is it just good old fashioned vet love?

 

[Harry Hooper]

Does anyone else find it a bit odd that Farrell is starting Hanigan for the 3rd time in the last 6 games? Has he lost confidence in Vázquez so quickly? Or is it just good old fashioned vet love?

From the gamelogs the last 2 weeks, looks like Hanigan is catching Kelly and Wright.* Owens is taking Kelly's spot today.


* In other words, Hanigan catching these 2 out of the 5 starters results in him starting 3 times in a 6-game span.

 

[Plympton91]

Vazquez is struggling with the bat. Could be intelligent use of off days to let him clear his head do extra BP and not get into a downward spiral. Hannigan is better than most backups, so the drop off isn't even that much.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Vaz is also coming back from TJ. He may be easing him back in, I guess, though he got plenty of work in the minors.

And it's not like he's tearing the cover off the ball.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

I would think the Sox would be very aware of the trade deadline this year, as they have been in the last 4 years - deciding they're in or out. On 5/8 we'll have finished 6 games against the Yankees in 9 days. 5/27 to 6/5 is a stretch of 10 games against the BJs and Orioles. Unless we're clearly in the mix, I don't see Farrell lasting to the end of that 6/5 stretch.

My guess is the decision points are fluid, but I think he'll have through the end of May (or maybe the 6/5 date you noted) before any decision is made. I think he would only be fired at that point if they are several games under .500, like last year's 7 games under, or as RR says, if they're falling well behind in the division. If they're still hanging around .500 by the end of June, or All Star break at the latest, I think they'll make a move. Given all we heard at the beginning of the season about the urgency of winning early, I don't think Farrell will be allowed to bring a .500 team to the trade deadline.

 

[TheYellowDart5]

Does this team just not read advance scouting reports? Two runners thrown out by George Springer despite everyone knowing he has a cannon for an arm. Two home runs for Colby Rasmus on fastballs down and in despite the fact that you should never, ever throw him that pitch. These are basic, simple things that players on this team should know, and instead, they're screwing themselves out of games.

It's not John Farrell's fault that Craig Kimbrel has been terrible, but why on earth is Kimbrel throwing that pitch to Rasmus? Shouldn't Farrell (or someone else) make sure that he knows "Under no circumstances should you throw Colby Rasmus a low fastball"?

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Does this team just not read advance scouting reports? Two runners thrown out by George Springer despite everyone knowing he has a cannon for an arm. Two home runs for Colby Rasmus on fastballs down and in despite the fact that you should never, ever throw him that pitch. These are basic, simple things that players on this team should know, and instead, they're screwing themselves out of games.

It's not John Farrell's fault that Craig Kimbrel has been terrible, but why on earth is Kimbrel throwing that pitch to Rasmus? Shouldn't Farrell (or someone else) make sure that he knows "Under no circumstances should you throw Colby Rasmus a low fastball"?

Are we there yet?

 

[whatittakes]

Does this team just not read advance scouting reports? Two runners thrown out by George Springer despite everyone knowing he has a cannon for an arm. Two home runs for Colby Rasmus on fastballs down and in despite the fact that you should never, ever throw him that pitch. These are basic, simple things that players on this team should know, and instead, they're screwing themselves out of games.

It's not John Farrell's fault that Craig Kimbrel has been terrible, but why on earth is Kimbrel throwing that pitch to Rasmus? Shouldn't Farrell (or someone else) make sure that he knows "Under no circumstances should you throw Colby Rasmus a low fastball"?

Kimbrel missed the target. No one told him to throw there. He simply missed. This is 100% on Kimbrel executing his pitches and hitting his spots.

I think this fire-Farrell stuff has reached the point where it's taken on a life of its own. It's to the point where every thought has become infected with it and every conceivable thing that goes wrong is laid directly at Farrell's feet. We're not quite to the point where all attempts at logic are battered aside with asinine "The Buck Stops Here" propaganda (which is an exercise in being right but utterly missing the point) but I can feel it coming.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Kimbrel missed the target. No one told him to throw there. He simply missed. This is 100% on Kimbrel executing his pitches and hitting his spots.

I think this fire-Farrell stuff has reached the point where it's taken on a life of its own. It's to the point where every thought has become infected with it and every conceivable thing that goes wrong is laid directly at Farrell's feet. We're not quite to the point where all attempts at logic are battered aside with asinine "The Buck Stops Here" propaganda (which is an exercise in being right but utterly missing the point) but I can feel it coming.

Well, duh.