FIRE JOHN FARRELL (v.2)

[Buzzkill Pauley]

John Farrell - Pitching Guru and Leader of Men:
2011 TOR - 4.29 FIP (11th in AL), 4.70 RA/G (11th in AL)
2012 TOR - 4.66 FIP (13th in AL), 4.84 RA/G (11th in AL)
2013 BOS - 3.84 FIP ( 7th in AL), 4.05 RA/G ( 6th in AL)
2014 BOS - 3.93 FIP (10th in AL), 4.41 RA/G (11th in AL)
2015 BOS - 4.17 FIP (13th in AL), 4.65 RA/G (14th in AL)

FIP: one middle quintile results, two fourth quintile results, two bottom quintile results.
RA/G: one second quintile result, three fourth quintile results, one bottom quintile result.

2016 BOS - 4.09 FIP ( 8th in AL), 4.69 RA/G (12th in AL)

A spade needs to be called a spade. Regardless of the pitching coach, and regardless of the pitchers themselves, Farrell's teams have consistently coaxed average results from superior pitching talent, and poor results from average pitching talent.

I think most analysts would agree the 2016 Sox have about average pitching talent. The below-average results shouldn't really be a surprise at this point.

It is what it is.

But still...

Toronto thought their starting pitching stunk by the time 2012 was done. So it should come as no surprise that the same offseason Farrell left for Boston, the organization traded away both Henderson Alvarez and Noah Syndergaard, in order to bring in a couple "6-7 IP 3-4 RA veterans" in R.A. Dickey and Mark Buerhle.

Boston thought Lester was fading into "6-7 IP 3-4 RA veteran" territory by the time 2013 was done. So is should come as no surprise that after he helped the Red Sox win two World Series, he would get a low-ball offer to stick around, at less than half what Theo Epstein finally gave him to become a Cub.

The Sox fixed Andrew Miller and Rich Hill down in the minors, watched them come up and actually succeed, and then head to other teams as MLB free agents and really shine, with the Sox having little to no apparent realization just how good these guys had actually had become (or how much they'd be missed).

But still, Lester was replaced by Rick Porcello, so there's that.

The Sox don't need any more "6-7 IP 3-4 RA" veterans. There's already pitching talent comparable to what most teams have in the Sox rotation and in its organizational depth. It's only that Boston Red Sox continue to get less from average results, from average talent.

IMO, it would be a travesty to lose either Anderson Espinoza or even Michael Kopech from the almost-tapped-out-already pitching pipeline in order to bring aboard the veteran MLB pitchers the 2016 Red Sox "need" to win. But at least one live arm will be included if the Sox acquire a starter, and those are the only two names worth a lottery ticket for other GMs right now.

To foresee losing such high-ceiling players simply because the Sox aren't acting on what should be recognized as a reality -- that almost every game which doesn't go according to the pitching script, it's up to the offense either to bail out Farrell's questionable moves and late hooks, or not. And that doesn't even get into the black box of his game planning for pitch location and sequencing, something we outsiders will never know well enough to judge.

So while it is what it is, I think it doesn't have to be what will be. The Sox don't have a pitching staff headed by 2013 Lester and Lackey, nor do they have 2013 Koji Uehara closing out games. To win the 2016 World Series, they shouldn't need to have that.

But to win the 2016 World Series in spite of John Farrell, they just might.

Before the Grady Little moment arrives, act now: Bin the Chin.

 

[Laser Show]

I don't necessarily disagree that something needs to change in the coaching staff to get more out of the guys we have. But I think pitch location and sequencing distracts from what I see as the primary problem: an inability to execute pitches. How many times did guys miss their spots this last series? Porcello was consistently up in the zone, so was Eduardo (though he got away with it), and Kelly had no idea where it was going. I don't think it's stuff or plan that they're missing. It's basic command.

 

[JesusQuintana]

tl;dr Sox are in first with a .593 win percentage.

 

[ifmanis5]

I've also never seen a staff squander so many 0-2 counts and fail at shut down innings after the Sox have scored runs. It's hard to tell if that's coaching or talent or both. DD is not going to give Farrell a long leash but it's hard to fire a guy when the team is in first although the Cavs (cough LeBron cough) seemed to be fine with that.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

tl;dr Sox are in first with a .593 win percentage.

Buzzkill clearly gets paid by the word, not the idea.

 

[lexrageorge]

This is definitely the most bizarre justification I've seen for firing Farrell. It's as if his presence in the dugout somehow suddenly causes the pitching to be subpar??

Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz all pitched pretty well in 2013. The first two pitched well in first half of 2014, and then were traded, which definitely impacted the full season pitching stats. So the premise does not really stand up once one separates the signal from the noise.

 

[tomdeplonty]

what should be recognized as a reality -- that almost every game which doesn't go according to the pitching script, it's up to the offense either to bail out Farrell's questionable moves and late hooks, or not.

You're saying the pitching would not have sucked so much except for - bad moves made by Farrell? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Shame on Farrell for failing to communicate to major league pitchers that they shouldn't groove pitches belt-high over the heart of the plate.

 

[ifmanis5]

You're saying the pitching would not have sucked so much except for - bad moves made by Farrell? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

He's not saying that. He's saying that Farrell has a rep for being a pitching wizard but the results don't reflect that. He's saying that his poor in game decisions are digging a hole that is only mitigated by a great offense.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

So how long do you give Farrell a pass for poor player performance? At some point does he get some blame for not identifying a solution/approach that improves the situation?

 

[iayork]

John Farrell turned me into a newt.

 

[WoburnDiaspora]

A newt?

 

[BaseballJones]

It got better.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

He lives in Georgia and supported Gingrich.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Lester, Lackey, and Buchholz all pitched pretty well in 2013. The first two pitched well in first half of 2014, and then were traded, which definitely impacted the full season pitching stats. So the premise does not really stand up once one separates the signal from the noise.

I started to think about this topic during last night game after Ross got hosed by the ump against Flaherty, Farrell went to Taz against Machado when the underlying numbers suggested that was a bad move, and the unsurprising HR resulted to put the game out of reach.

I believe it was rembrat who suggested a new thread be started here on the main board.

And actually, 2013 was the one weirdest data point that finally led me to write this up for a new thread. Farrell had a killer 1-3 in Lester, Lackey, and (good) Buchholz, plus one of the most dominant and automatic performances in history by a closer with Uehara, and a solid innings eater #5 in Dempster, the surprising run by Doubront, and good fortune to have a former CY winner in Jake Peavy brought on-board before the deadline.

And yet, that team still only managed to be average in the AL in both hard stats (RA/G) and regressed stats (FIP). All the while never having to throw a single pitch against the best offense in MLB. It's really quite odd that so many good pitchers and so much good luck all mixed together could still lead to such mediocre overall results.

Game planning to pitch to contact? Using stale data to create strategies? Demand to have pitchers pitch to the batter rather than pitch to their strengths? There's no way to know from the outside...but the results Farrell's gotten, and the talent outflow afterward, seem pretty marked.

Now, to put it plainly, I think there's no chance whatsoever that Farrell gets canned before he gets a chance at his Grady Little moment.

But that doesn't mean I don't think maybe a manager change would be good, or that there's not some real element that's causing pitchers to have issues performing their best under his leadership. He seems to get regularly out-managed, and his pitchers regularly have underperformed with him at the helm.

Of course, this offense makes up for a hell of a lot.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I think the Sox would be better if Farrell was captured by Newts, brought to Newterville and replaced by Torey Lovullo. His penchant for Xs and Os blunders concerns me in the same way that I always thought Grady was a decision making disaster waiting to happen.

But between their current record, the fact that the FO seems to love Farrell and yes, the cancer recovery, the only way he will get fired is if the Sox go into a serious, 2016 dooming tailspin. To state the obvious, David Blatt style firings are exceedingly rare, and the chances of that happening with the Red Sox are nil.

 

[JesusQuintana]

He seems to get regularly out-managed.

Sox seem to be in first place with a .593 win percentage.

 

[JimD]

John Farrell - Pitching Guru and Leader of Men:
Toronto thought their starting pitching stunk by the time 2012 was done. So it should come as no surprise that the same offseason Farrell left for Boston, the organization traded away both Henderson Alvarez and Noah Syndergaard, in order to bring in a couple "6-7 IP 3-4 RA veterans" in R.A. Dickey and Mark Buerhle.

Boston thought Lester was fading into "6-7 IP 3-4 RA veteran" territory by the time 2013 was done. So is should come as no surprise that after he helped the Red Sox win two World Series, he would get a low-ball offer to stick around, at less than half what Theo Epstein finally gave him to become a Cub.

The Sox fixed Andrew Miller and Rich Hill down in the minors, watched them come up and actually succeed, and then head to other teams as MLB free agents and really shine, with the Sox having little to no apparent realization just how good these guys had actually had become (or how much they'd be missed).

You're giving Farrell an awful lot of credit and influence over front office decisions.

Given John's history with Lester, I'd be shocked if he wasn't a strong voice arguing to keep him in Boston. I'd be very surprised to learn that he was blase about losing him.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Sox seem to be in first place with a .593 win percentage.

Having an historic offense will do that.

 

[Green (Tongued) Monster]

This is silly. The Red Sox have the best record in the league and people are still calling for Farrell's head. Wright is pitching like an ace. Porcello is pitching better than his career numbers. He is on pace for career bests in K/9 and K/BB. His only problem has been HR/9. Rodriguez has made 1 start. Kelly cannot find the plate with any consistency, which is not a new development for this year.

Team-wise, they are middle of the pack in terms of FIP and WHIP, 7th in K/9, and their bullpen has not been terrible, last series not withstanding. What exactly were you expecting with this staff? Even though Farrell is supposedly known for his ability to work with pitchers, you can't kill him for the our pitching to date, while leaving out the unbelievable success of the offense. Overall this team is exceeding expectations and has been a joy to watch. John Farrell is one of the last managers in MLB that deserves to be fired.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

You're giving Farrell an awful lot of credit and influence over front office decisions.

No, I'm saying that sub-par pitching performances depress statistical measures, which seems to cause the FO to inherently undervalue its own pitchers.

 

[JesusQuintana]

Having an historic offense will do that.

An historic offense which is part of a whole team, who John Farrell manages, who is currently in first place, with a .593 win percentage.

 

[Moviegoer]

Sox seem to be in first place with a .593 win percentage.

If it's all about winning percentage then why did they fire Grady Little?

 

[Pilgrim]

The entire case for Lovullo was that the young players played well and the team won more games. But now those exact same players are playing even better and the team is in first place. So what does Torey Lovullo bring to the table, exactly?

 

[rembrat]

I believe it was rembrat who suggested a new thread be started here on the main board.

Because I knew you would get flamed but kudos to you for having the cojones to die on this hill, again.

 

[JesusQuintana]

If it's all about winning percentage then why did they fire Grady Little?

A GM who had just completed his first year as GM, who is not currently employed by the AL East-leading Boston Red Sox, elected not to renew Grady Little's contract after the 2003 season was over, instead deciding to hire his own guy.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

Is there an affirmative case for Farrell as a solid game manager other than "scoreboard"? We know the defense of his moves failing is that the players are at fault. Are there examples of positive moves where we should be giving him credit?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

A GM who had just completed his first year as GM, who is not currently employed by the AL East-leading Boston Red Sox, elected not to renew Grady Little's contract after the 2003 season was over, instead deciding to hire his own guy.

Is the concept of a good team with a bad manager an impossibility in your eyes, or will "scoreboard" forever be your only response?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Is there an affirmative case for Farrell as a solid game manager other than "scoreboard"? We know the defense of his moves failing is that the players are at fault. Are there examples of positive moves where we should be giving him credit?

How about, "you win some...you lose some..."

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Having an historic offense will do that.

Which also happens to be the manager's responsibility.

 

[RIFan]

No, I'm saying that sub-par pitching performances depress statistical measures, which seems to cause the FO to inherently undervalue its own pitchers.

How are you drawing the conclusion that the pitching performances were sub-par and not them performing (or even out performing) their actual talent level? Did the pitchers who lost rotation spots perform better on the team they ended up? We went into the season assuming that we had a collection of 3-5 pitchers + Price. Price (won/loss aside) hasn't performed to his historical level, Wright has exceeded all expectations, Clay has been Clay and everyone else has been what we thought they would be. The biggest gap is Kimbrel has blown a few and the absence of Smith changed the dynamic of what was thought to be a 3 inning shut down bullpen. The offense, baserunning, and defense as well as apparently clubhouse harmony has exceeded expectations. Development of the young players has also gone exceedingly well. So if pitching is the only issue, why isn't the blame pointed at Willis and not Farrell? I can only guess that Farrell gets no credit for the aspects that have gone right and blame for what hasn't.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Fangraphs' FIP data have the Sox as 8th in the AL in 2013, 3rd in the AL in 2007, and 2nd in the AL in 2004.

In 2016, the Sox are currently 8th in the AL in FIP. I'm not seeing what seems out of line given the talent. Note that the 2013 team's FIP was 4th in the AL in the second half of the season after being 12th in the AL in the first half.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Because I knew you would get flamed but kudos to you for having the cojones to die on this hill, again.

It's all good. What's summer without some heat?

And the 2013 team's FIP and RA/G mediocrity was really the reason I mounted up to charge the artillery.

I honestly thought that team's starters had been much better than middle-of-the-pack, except they just weren't.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The entire case for Lovullo was that the young players played well and the team won more games. But now those exact same players are playing even better and the team is in first place. So what does Torey Lovullo bring to the table, exactly?

Good question. To be clear, this is wholly academic because Farrell is not going to be fired unless this team's performance deteriorates terribly.

That said, to answer your question, I prefer Lovullo because of the almost immediate improvement under his watch and the relative absence of head scratcher in game decisions. The latter is more important to me than the former.

And that said, the white elephant in the room is that the bench coach is supposed to help the manager avoid bad Xs and Os decisions. In the case of Farrell and Lovullo, the answer could be that Farrell doesn't listen to Lovullo enough, or that Lovullo does not assert himself enough. And it could also be that Lovullo only managed the Sox on an interim basis for a short time and Lovullo would have eventually been exposed.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Is there an affirmative case for Farrell as a solid game manager other than "scoreboard"? We know the defense of his moves failing is that the players are at fault. Are there examples of positive moves where we should be giving him credit?

Is there an affirmative case for any manager as a solid game manager other than "scoreboard?"

 

[barbed wire Bob]

I started to think about this topic during last night game after Ross got hosed by the ump against Flaherty, Farrell went to Taz against Machado when the underlying numbers suggested that was a bad move, and the unsurprising HR resulted to put the game out of reach.

I believe it was rembrat who suggested a new thread be started here on the main board.

And actually, 2013 was the one weirdest data point that finally led me to write this up for a new thread. Farrell had a killer 1-3 in Lester, Lackey, and (good) Buchholz, plus one of the most dominant and automatic performances in history by a closer with Uehara, and a solid innings eater #5 in Dempster, the surprising run by Doubront, and good fortune to have a former CY winner in Jake Peavy brought on-board before the deadline.

And yet, that team still only managed to be average in the AL in both hard stats (RA/G) and regressed stats (FIP). All the while never having to throw a single pitch against the best offense in MLB. It's really quite odd that so many good pitchers and so much good luck all mixed together could still lead to such mediocre overall results.

Game planning to pitch to contact? Using stale data to create strategies? Demand to have pitchers pitch to the batter rather than pitch to their strengths? There's no way to know from the outside...but the results Farrell's gotten, and the talent outflow afterward, seem pretty marked.

Now, to put it plainly, I think there's no chance whatsoever that Farrell gets canned before he gets a chance at his Grady Little moment.

But that doesn't mean I don't think maybe a manager change would be good, or that there's not some real element that's causing pitchers to have issues performing their best under his leadership. He seems to get regularly out-managed, and his pitchers regularly have underperformed with him at the helm.

Of course, this offense makes up for a hell of a lot.

Out of curiosity, why is he being held responsible for the mediocre performance by the pitching staff and not given credit the offence?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Which also happens to be the manager's responsibility.

Not exactly. You see, when players perform well, it means their talent is so enormous that even Farrell's suck can't affect it. When players perform poorly, it means their talent, though considerable, is within the range where Farrell's suck can neutralize it. So there's a kind of escape-velocity talent level--call it the Farrell Horizon--which most of our pitchers fall short of.

 

[JesusQuintana]

Is the concept of a good team with a bad manager an impossibility in your eyes, or will "scoreboard" forever be your only response?

How does the good team react if the bad manager is fired? Do they remain in first place?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Heard a theory about manager firings on the radio yesterday: Poorly performing teams are 95% the players' fault. Firing a manger gives poorly performing players an excuse to try harder/play better because now they can just "blame it on the old manager". This was followed up by some psychobabble bullshit along the lines of, "they don't even realize it".

Other than "95% the players fault", sounds like crap to me.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

Sox seem to be in first place with a .593 win percentage.

Farrell discussion aside, if they keep giving up runs in this manner that won't be the case for long. The Sox just scored 5+ runs in every game this road trip and finished with a losing record. And as great as these guys are, they probably won't finish with the greatest offense in history. There will be slumps, hopefully at least some of the pitching gets better to compensate.

 

[zenter]

Is the concept of a good team with a bad manager an impossibility in your eyes, or will "scoreboard" forever be your only response?

I think you misunderstand. Most aren't too freaked out because folks here don't think the manager has a meaningful impact in-game.

The manager's impact is in building a clubhouse culture, talking to the media, protecting players, managing a good coaching program, managing the player performance feedback program, and on-field personnel decisions. If David Price is pitching like shit or Mookie Betts is out of this world, he may have tweaks to any of the above, but by and large it's about keeping players and the team happy.

Once they're on the field, it's a lot about them.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Or, Joe Girardi was great last year...but sucks this year.

 

[Darnell's Son]

I think you misunderstand. Most aren't too freaked out because folks here don't think the manager has a meaningful impact in-game.

The manager's impact is in building a clubhouse culture, talking to the media, protecting players, managing a good coaching program, managing the player performance feedback program, and on-field personnel decisions. If David Price is pitching like shit or Mookie Betts is out of this world, he may have tweaks to any of the above, but by and large it's about keeping players and the team happy.

Once they're on the field, it's a lot about them.

This.

We, as outsiders, cannot properly evaluate managers until after the fact when the details come out about the clubhouse culture, and players and personnel start spilling the secrets(both good and bad). This can be frustrating as fans, but it's important to know what you don't know, and what you can't know.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

For what it's worth (I suspect very little) there was an ESPN article last year about baseball's best managers.

ESPN.com surveyed 50 scouts, front-office executives, big league coaches and media analysts and asked them to select the game's best managers in a multitude of categories.

Best Overall Manager
Bruce Bochy 24.2%
Buck Showalter 21.5%
Terry Francona 12.8%
Joe Maddon 12.5%
Clint Hurdle 6.0%
Mike Scioscia 4.8%
Bob Melvin 4.4%
Joe Girardi 3.5%
Mike Matheny 3.4%
John Farrell 2.2%
Others 4.7%

Best At Handling A Pitching Staff
Bruce Bochy 26.0%
Buck Showalter 20.9%
Bud Black 11.8%
Joe Maddon 6.7%
John Farrell 5.1%
Terry Francona 5.1%
Others 24.4%

Best Tactician
Buck Showalter 31.8%
Bruce Bochy 20.5%
Joe Maddon 15.7%
Mike Scioscia 10.7%
Clint Hurdle 5.9%
Others 15.4%

Best At Relating To Players
Terry Francona 24.2%
Joe Maddon 21.2%
Bruce Bochy 14.5%
Clint Hurdle 13.9%
Bud Black 6.2%
Others 20.0%

Best At Developing Young Players
Clint Hurdle 15.3%
Terry Francona 15.0%
Joe Maddon 14.6%
Ned Yost 8.8%
Buck Showalter 8.2%
Mike Matheny 7.8%
Others 30:3%

Best Leader
Bruce Bochy 28.5%
Clint Hurdle 15.3%
Buck Showalter 10.7%
Terry Francona 10.7%
Joe Maddon 10.4%
Mike Scioscia 6.9%
Others 17.5%

Oh, and this:

ESPN The Magazine asked 117 players: "If you could play for any manager (other than your current one), who would it be?":
Joe Maddon 35%
Bruce Bochy 18%
Terry Francona 7%
Mike Matheny 5%
Tony La Russa 4%
Buck Showalter 4 %
Others 27 %

 

[zenter]

This.

We, as outsiders, cannot properly evaluate managers until after the fact when the details come out about the clubhouse culture, and players and personnel start spilling the secrets(both good and bad). This can be frustrating as fans, but it's important to know what you don't know, and what you can't know.

I'm reminded of Bobby Valentine.

No, wait, hear me out.

He called players out in the media, blustered, and created such a poisonous culture that it was like a sieve. At the same time, he said Daniel Bard wanting to move to the starting rotation would ruin his career, that Bard should stay as closer. He was right in part because he really gets baseball better than most of us do. That "correct" on-field perspective had little to do with his performance as manager because, by all accounts, nobody trusted him or thought he had their backs.

EDIT: Farrell may be bad at "manager-coach" stuff, but he's not bad at the "manager-leader" stuff.

 

[Moviegoer]

There is no set of stats that you can use to judge whether a manager is good at his job or not, and that's the problem here. At least not like players have. I mean, with Clay you could look at his various numbers and see how crappy he's done even if you have never seen him pitch. You could give the numbers to a mathematician who doesn't know a thing about baseball at all and he could figure it out.
There's nothing like that for a manager. You can't look at wins and losses- plenty of great managers had crap teams (Torre before the MFY), and plenty of bad managers won pennants (Bob Brenly). Rating them on individual stats for a player or two on his team are obviously meaningless too. Even rating the in game decisions are too subjective a lot of the time. Unless its clear to a dead man dumb, or dubious at best on a regular basis.
So what are you left with? Clubhouse chemistry? Good with the press? Liked by the players? Hell, anyone not named Valentine can do that. You could hire a PR firm and do that. If that's all a manager does then he shouldn't even waste the space in the dugout.
The best I can think of to be able to rate whether a manager is any good is team wide stats and how they compare to projections. If you have a team that's projected to be in the top echelon year in and year out and only manage mediocre results, for example, then you probably have a guy who's not good at his job managing. Same if team pitching/ hitting/ defense etc. stats are always lower than the numbers tell you they should be. That's far from perfect, but as far as I can figure its as close to a meaningful use of stats as there is probably going to ever be about managing.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

John Farrell - Pitching Guru and Leader of Men:
2011 TOR - 4.29 FIP (11th in AL), 4.70 RA/G (11th in AL)
2012 TOR - 4.66 FIP (13th in AL), 4.84 RA/G (11th in AL)
2013 BOS - 3.84 FIP ( 7th in AL), 4.05 RA/G ( 6th in AL)
2014 BOS - 3.93 FIP (10th in AL), 4.41 RA/G (11th in AL)
2015 BOS - 4.17 FIP (13th in AL), 4.65 RA/G (14th in AL)
.

2007 BOS - 4.14 FIP(3rd in AL)
2008 BOS - 4.09 FIP(4th in AL)
2009 BOS - 4.14 FIP(2nd in AL)
2010 BOS - 4.08 FIP(4th in AL)
2007-2010 BOS - 4.11 FIP(1st in AL)

Tito really had some good years managing the pitching staff.

 

[JesusQuintana]

For what it's worth (I suspect very little) there was an ESPN article last year about baseball's best managers.

Through two months of the 2016 season, for which this article does not accommodate, the Boston Red Sox are in first place in the American League East, winning just shy of 60% of their games.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

How does the good team react if the bad manager is fired? Do they remain in first place?

Questions that are impossible to answer for .500, Alex.

Posturing with statements like the above and continually pointing out the team's current win % isn't productive. The team's win % is a direct result of the prolific offense, now, if you believe Farrell has a direct hand in the team's success when it comes to hitting and can explain why, I'd love to hear it.

 

[E5 Yaz]

The team's win % is a direct result of the prolific offense, now, if you believe Farrell has a direct hand in the team's success when it comes to hitting and can explain why, I'd love to hear it.

Just for the benefit of those of us on the sidelines here munching popcorn ... Is your opinion here that Farrell only has a hand in the losses and not in the wins?