I Think the most interesting Point made so far was from
DennyDoyle'sBoil
Why is it Always assumed that managers have this kind of flat effect that works like some kind of modifier in a role playing or video game. Farrell, Head Coach +3. It seems like it would be reasonable that different managers have different abilities to motivate and corral players of different abilities. I'll use an example from Close to home where my local football team (in England), Rotherham United recently avoided relegation to the third tier of the football League by sacking manager while in a complete slump and employing a famous (for that level) manager who's moved between many clubs and has had a lot of success battling to stay away from relegation, or get promotion up into the top flight (Neil Warnock). He's had Little to no success when actually exposed to the highest level, whether that be a fundamental ceiling in his ability to work with a higher level of skill, or players required to be at that level, or other reasons he himself names like the extra demands on his time and attention away from the training ground situations he prefers
He turned the team around, such that they had the best record of all teams in the division over the last dozen games, and thus avoided going down.
Why can the same principle not be common to other sports, maybe Farrell is a good manager with a good squad of players, is that a bad thing? Maybe what's important is having someone manage the morale and egos of professional players, and have the sense for when an opportunity to win it all comes along, or to compete. Like in 2013. Maybe the same manager can be terrible when forced into positions caused by poorly performing players, underperforming players, and basically scratching around. But do we want someone who might "kick some ass" and provide a turnaround with a bad team, maybe he Changes a team from 75 to 85 wins, maybe that gets you a wild card one time, but the same guy might never be able to recognise or corral an 85 win team into a 95 win team (numbers just an exaggeration to make the Point).
As Red Sox fans, are we more interested in someone who might not look great with an average or below average team, but might be lights out when the roster suddenly looks competent, or do we want someone who looks like they are doing the part, perhaps maximizes wins for a middling team but doesnt have the skills or mindset to take those good teams over the top, or put them in Place for that?
I'll sit on the fence and say I don't know whether it's true in this case, or the general case, or whether its time to can Farrell or not, but I thought DDBs post was more interesting from a general sense outside the limits of this specific thread that I rarely see discussed, this concept that some managers are perhaps best suited for whatever reasons to getting the most out of teams at different levels, and different teams, perhaps have a different evaluation of which types of teams, which seasons, are most important. I'd certainly argue that the Red Sox are a team where "getting over the top when the team is above average" is certainly more relevant than "polishing a turd". It feels incredibly unlikely that whatever effect a manager has (I'm a big believer that off field stuff is probably more important and not stuff we are really privvy to, but that ultimately the effect of it should still be measurable by some kind of performance / wins) is some kind of constant value thats independent of the specific details and level of what they have to work with.
