Is it safe to discuss John Farrell again?

[Toe Nash]

I completely disagree. Making trades to try to make a crapshoot one game playoff is an easy road to a very bad decision. I would rather have this team sell than give up assets to try to make the wild card. If the division is in play--and it probably will be--that's another story, but even then I'm not really interested in spending any of our big time assets on rentals.

We have an excellent young core. The goal is to preserve and augment that for the long term so we can be the best team in this division for the better part of a decade, not a single season.

Making the one-game playoff is far far better than winning 84 games and not making anything. You factor in the odds of winning the coin flip into your calculus as I have above. When you're in the 40-50% range of making the division series, you should be a buyer.

This is obviously making deals that are within reason. I don't think anyone is advocating mortgaging the future for a rental. Firing the manager is not that...

 

[simplicio]

Lovullo put up a .636 winning percentage over the last 49 games of the 2015 season, with substantially the same team Farrell had gotten to a .439 winning percentage over the first two-thirds of the year.

I'm not saying that's sufficient data, but it's something.

And Farrell put up a .630 winning percentage over the first 46 games of 2016, with substantially the same team that's sucked ever since. I don't see how people can give one manager credit or blame for the hitters getting hot & cold but not another.

 

[garlan5]

It's all about Brockstar playing

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

If his job doesn't include getting the pitchers to improve then I don't know what the hell he's supposed to be doing.

His job is to be getting the players to play to the best of their abilities. Other than Price, who is a candidate to rip off a dominating streak at any time, do you really think a new pitching coach is going to start to get the rest of the staff to start pitching better?

 

[threecy]

If the season ended today, the Red Sox would be in the playoffs. Are people suggesting that the primary objective of the regular season is to have the best record? One would think if they can get into the playoffs and identify one more decent starter by then, they have a decent chance of doing well. How does canning Farrell change this?

 

[Sampo Gida]

I'm somewhat amused by the resistance to firing a manager who has a career managerial record with the Red Sox of 263-257 when he is on the field.
Last year the Red Sox went 50-64 when he was on the field and 27-20 when he was off. Maybe the turn around was a coincidence, maybe not

Nobody is saying all the issues with the Red Sox are on the manager, or that a new manager will be guaranteed success. Its just that losing Farrell won't cost anything, and maybe it shakes things up a bit. If not, no big loss.

Sometimes it works, or seems to work. In 2003, the Marlins fired Jeff Torborg at 16-22 and went on the win the World Series. In 1978 the Yankees fired Billy Martin in mid season and went 48-20 under Lemon and the rest is a history best not repeated. In 1989 the Jays fired Jimy Williams when they started 12-24, and it went much better than 2001 for the Red Sox, as they went on to win the AL East with Gaston. In 2004, Jimy Williams fired again with the Astros as they were at 500 at the break, and they went on to win the WC spot with 92 W's and get to the NLCS

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/57757/sometimes-firing-the-manager-actually-does-work

Red Sox have made the post season once in 6 seasons, and finished last in 3 of 4 seasons. Yes, its been a nice start to the century, but then, the 20th century started off well too. Can't live in the past, and that's what some of those who propose to sell sound like they are doing. Red Sox need to do more than just fire the manager, but if they choose to fire the manager and/or pitching coach I won't complain.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Going in to the season, this looked like an 85-88ish win team to me, and that's about the pace they're currently at. And after the last two years, I would think most people on here would have been totally satisfied if you'd have said they'd be on an 88-win pace on July 4. I wonder if we'd be having this conversation right now if they had been playing at that level consistently all year and not really well early and really poorly of late.

That said, I wonder how many people in the "Keep Farrell" camp would feel the same way had David Ortiz, Mike Napoli, and Shane Victorino not hit home runs against Detroit.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm no fan of Farrell and wouldn't shed a tear if he was let go, but can someone explain to me why a team with a record of 44-37 needs to be "shaken up"? I get that the pitching has been subpar save for a couple guys, but overall this team is pretty much right where most projections expected them to be.

This thread, like the ones before it, all seem to be emotionally triggered by a rough patch in the schedule more than anything else. It's going to take a much bigger stretch of disaster (say something that takes the team below .500) for Henry, Werner, Dombrowski and Hazen to send Farrell packing.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

That said, I wonder how many people in the "Keep Farrell" camp would feel the same way had David Ortiz, Mike Napoli, and Shane Victorino not hit home runs against Detroit.

Eh, you can play that game forever. How would Francona's tenure have ended up if Roberts is out and they get swept by the hated Yankees.

 

[Plympton91]

If the season ended today, the Red Sox would be in the playoffs. Are people suggesting that the primary objective of the regular season is to have the best record? One would think if they can get into the playoffs and identify one more decent starter by then, they have a decent chance of doing well. How does canning Farrell change this?

Did you watch the game Friday night? If you did, tell me you weren't having flashbacks to game 7 of the ALCS in 2003? Farrell's decision quality is awful.

 

[PapaSox]

It's really not. People who say this have, for whatever reason, made up their mind that Farrell is at fault for things that aren't remotely his fault and are considering perfectly reasonable moves as indefensible. It's nonsense, and a sign that you aren't thinking rationally.

There is no reason to think Lovullo is a better manager. Maybe he would be. We don't know. Jim Leyland is about 150 years old. If the Sox were to replace Farrell with Black, I'd be cool with that.

I propose addressing issues that can make a difference and not just making changes to soothe a rancid fanbase. That starts with getting healthy. It means getting some more reliable pitching in here.

I propose not doing a goddamn thing to try to get a wild card. That way lies madness. I propose not doing anything that isn't in the long term interests of the team. This year isn't more important than next year, it just comes first. If the division is in sight, or if a trade makes good long-term sense, pull the trigger.

You want something more specific?

Work with Joe Kelly to make him the best reliever he can be. It's his best--maybe only--route to becoming a solid contributor.

When Ryan Hanigan is healthy, send Christian Vazquez down and go with Hanigan and Leon.

Bring in a mechanics expert to work with Eduardo Rodriguez and don't even think of bringing him up until he's actually ready to pitch at the major league level.

Bring in a left fielder that can platoon with Young so Brock Holt can provide depth everywhere.

Get Young healthy.

Beg David Ortiz to come back another year.

When Swihart is healthy, forget about left field, and have him play some first and/or third in addition to catcher because that's where we're going to need depth in the years ahead, not in left.

Look for another starting pitcher on two fronts. One, a back of the rotation guy who isn't great, isn't terrible, and doesn't cost much. Two, a guy who is very good and who can push Porcello and whoever the hell else survives into the back end of the rotation. Be willing to give up some value for this, but not Espinoza, and not more than one of the big four.

Look for late inning relievers and a better primary lefty.

There aren't many fan bases who have had it better over the past fifteen years. If you think this organization hasn't delivered, you're delusional, and you're exactly the kind of overly entitled fan that is making the rest of us look bad.

I think this organization deserves better from this fanbase. We've won the World Series three times, the most recent of which was only three years ago. We've got a tremendous collection of outstanding young talent.

Stop pretending the manager can control everything. Stop acting like the Red Sox should always be in first place. Stop acting like there are simple solutions to a multiple of interrelated problems.

Well Done. Thank you. The discussion should simply end here. But, it won't.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well Done. Thank you. The discussion should simply end here. But, it won't.

No, it really shouldn't. The points on both side have been made and neither side has made a case that can't be littered with holes. Unfortunately, the discussion will (and should) continue until the team plays better or they do in fact fire him.

Edit: The problem is that there's really nothing new to talk about. The "fire him" camp will continue to cite examples, the "keep him" camp will continue to try to explain away why it's not his fault...and round and round we go. As someone else said, chicken and egg.

 

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

There aren't many fan bases who have had it better over the past fifteen years. If you think this organization hasn't delivered, you're delusional, and you're exactly the kind of overly entitled fan that is making the rest of us look bad.

I think this organization deserves better from this fanbase. We've won the World Series three times, the most recent of which was only three years ago. We've got a tremendous collection of outstanding young talent.

Stop pretending the manager can control everything. Stop acting like the Red Sox should always be in first place. Stop acting like there are simple solutions to a multiple of interrelated problems.

I've wanted Farrell gone ever since strike one to Brandon Workman, and still do, but these three paragraphs are money. Well said.

 

[glennhoffmania]

His job is to be getting the players to play to the best of their abilities. Other than Price, who is a candidate to rip off a dominating streak at any time, do you really think a new pitching coach is going to start to get the rest of the staff to start pitching better?

If the answer to this question is no, then I really don't understand why teams bother employing a pitching coach.

 

[PapaSox]

No, it really shouldn't. The points on both side have been made and neither side has made a case that can't be littered with holes. Unfortunately, the discussion will (and should) continue until the team plays better or they do in fact fire him.

Edit: The problem is that there's really nothing new to talk about. The "fire him" camp will continue to cite examples, the "keep him" camp will continue to try to explain away why it's not his fault...and round and round we go. As someone else said, chicken and egg.

I agree with your 2nd statement completely. The one real sensible recommendation for a replacing JF was Bud Black. I don't know who said it but that was the one "Fire JF" recommendation that actually made some sense.

 

[Rasputin]

Making the one-game playoff is far far better than winning 84 games and not making anything.

No it isn't. Especially if you give up long term assets to do it.

 

[Rasputin]

I'm somewhat amused by the resistance to firing a manager who has a career managerial record with the Red Sox of 263-257 when he is on the field.

I'm amused by the notion that won loss record is a good way to measure managers and that 500 some odd games would be enough.

I mean, Mike Scioscia has a won loss record of 1449-1224 and this place would go apeshit--and rightfully so--if he were to manage this team.

 

[garlan5]

Going in to the season, this looked like an 85-88ish win team to me, and that's about the pace they're currently at. And after the last two years, I would think most people on here would have been totally satisfied if you'd have said they'd be on an 88-win pace on July 4. I wonder if we'd be having this conversation right now if they had been playing at that level consistently all year and not really well early and really poorly of late.

That said, I wonder how many people in the "Keep Farrell" camp would feel the same way had David Ortiz, Mike Napoli, and Shane Victorino not hit home runs against Detroit.

What about the use of Jonny Gomes all of 2013. That horseshoe delivered all year when it shouldn't have. At the plate and in left field. Does Farrell get that credit?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm amused by the notion that won loss record is a good way to measure managers and that 500 some odd games would be enough.

I mean, Mike Scioscia has a won loss record of 1449-1224 and this place would go apeshit--and rightfully so--if he were to manage this team.

How do you measure a manager, if not by win loss?

 

[Moviegoer]

I'm amused by the notion that won loss record is a good way to measure managers and that 500 some odd games would be enough.

I mean, Mike Scioscia has a won loss record of 1449-1224 and this place would go apeshit--and rightfully so--if he were to manage this team.

I wouldn't. Scioscia is a good manager. Better than Farrell by a mile.
That being said, I wouldn't pick him as the Sox manager because I don't know if he would do well in the media around here and I'm not sure how well his game would work with the current roster. But he is very good at his job. The Scioscia hate around here is more to do with the playoff series against them since the turn of the century than anything else. Kind of like the old Torre hate except not as intense.

 

[8slim]

How do you measure a manager, if not by win loss?

"By height".

- Ty Webb

 

[JohntheBaptist]

The Scioscia hate around here is more to do with the playoff series against them since the turn of the century than anything else. Kind of like the old Torre hate except not as intense.

No. It isn't. The Scioscia hate around here predates your arrival and the Red Sox' run of 00s playoff series against them. Those appearances and that impression solidified it.

 

[Rasputin]

How do you measure a manager, if not by win loss?

It would take years to get an adequate sample size, and not two or three years, but fifteen or twenty and there'd be way too much noise for the signal. You judge a manager by what he actually has control over. Does the team play hard? Does he make a decent lineup? Does he make decent strategic decisions? Does he use the whole roster? Farrell is no managerial genius, but he does okay on these terms.

I wouldn't. Scioscia is a good manager. Better than Farrell by a mile. .

Mike Scioscia is an utterly shitty manager. He takes pride in overmanaging his team into losses. How many times has he squeezed with a runner on third in a huge situation only to cost himself an out and the runner at third? It's successful every now and then, but it's a ridiculous strategy when they know you're going to do it. How many runs has he cost his team by bunting? It's got to be in the hundreds at this point. He's probably better than Butch Hobson, but he's in the category of managers with Jimy Williams whose decisions are indistinguishable from those of someone trying to lose.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It would take years to get an adequate sample size, and not two or three years, but fifteen or twenty and there'd be way too much noise for the signal. You judge a manager by what he actually has control over. Does the team play hard? Does he make a decent lineup? Does he make decent strategic decisions? Does he use the whole roster? Farrell is no managerial genius, but he does okay on these terms.

To your first point, sadly that is not realistic in the world we live in. Managers and coaches have a window to win. They either do it. Or they get fired.

To your second I think many here have and would take issue with your assessment of Farrell's abilities to those specific tasks (with the possible exception of the team playing hard).

In short, you've basically spent a lot of words to say "there is no way to effectively and accurately evaluate a manager", only you've tried to frame it in a way that is kind to JF.

 

[AbbyNoho]

Going in to the season, this looked like an 85-88ish win team to me, and that's about the pace they're currently at. And after the last two years, I would think most people on here would have been totally satisfied if you'd have said they'd be on an 88-win pace on July 4. I wonder if we'd be having this conversation right now if they had been playing at that level consistently all year and not really well early and really poorly of late.

That said, I wonder how many people in the "Keep Farrell" camp would feel the same way had David Ortiz, Mike Napoli, and Shane Victorino not hit home runs against Detroit.

The "Fire Farrell" camp keeps talking past everyone else. No one is saying "Keep Farrell". They're saying "Don't fire Farrell without a good reason, because he's not the problem with the team."

People are acting like removing Farrell will make the team better, and there's no actual reason to believe this. This isn't because it will make them worse, it's because *it doesn't matter* and it's distracting to solving actual issues.

 

[jtn46]

The fair criticism to me is that what makes Farrell special is that not only was he a pitching coach but he had a few standout coaching victories, the best of which was Jon Lester, so our expectation now is that he has the ability to still do this, but either he doesn't or he has twice worked with pitching coaches that he defers to and they can't do it. Perhaps it is an unfair expectation, but if Farrell can't do that, what is it he does well that would make the Red Sox regret firing him? The offense is good, some of the young players are quickly blossoming into stars, maybe this is a Belichick thing where he became an expert at the side of the ball he didn't coach until he was the manager. Maybe the talent on that side of the ball is very good and Farrell has simply gotten out of the way.

Fact is, the pitching staff is in crisis and I don't buy the talent excuse, Porcello and Kelly were successful MLB starters before being acquired not long ago, yes Buchholz is inconsistent but he was a Cy Young contender before getting hurt in 2013, Wright is having an incredible season and Dombrowski just added one of the best starters in baseball to this staff, to think we should just be able to wave off all of these guys to the point that we should expect this kind of performance is absurd, we shouldn't need the Mets staff to expect the rotation to be just OK. If we just excuse Farrell over every flaw, like "well David Price is on a new team and figures to struggle" what is he actually responsible for here? Should Dombrowski scramble to acquire starters for a manager whose starters now, including a former Cy Young winner in his prime, are underperforming? If the Sox acquired Chris Sale tomorrow, why should I believe he will maintain his performance when practically no starter this team acquires recently does so? It may be the talent acquisition, it may be player evaluation, it may be bad luck, but it also may be that there is something seriously wrong with the way this team coaches pitchers and if that is the culprit, that buck stops with Farrell.

 

[Rasputin]

To your first point, sadly that is not realistic in the world we live in. Managers and coaches have a window to win. They either do it. Or they get fired.

To your second I think many here have and would take issue with your assessment of Farrell's abilities to those specific tasks (with the possible exception of the team playing hard).

In short, you've basically spent a lot of words to say "there is no way to effectively and accurately evaluate a manager", only you've tried to frame it in a way that is kind to JF.

There is no objective way. Looking at what he does is subjective but that doesn't mean it can't be effective and/or accurate.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

There is no objective way. Looking at what he does is subjective but that doesn't mean it can't be effective and/or accurate.

But the subjectivity inherent basically amounts to the two sides of the argument flinging shit at each other.

For instance, on the four specific points you mentioned, my assessment is:

Sure, they play hard. Point Farrell.

I don't see how tough it is to make out a lineup with this club, but there was certainly a feeling to drop Hanley for a long time before he did it. No points.

He makes terrible strategic decisions. They have been well documented. Feel free to disagree. Point against Farrell.

He uses the whole roster, sure, but that's not really the point. It's to use it optimally. And he certainly does not do that, especially when considering bullpen usage. Point against.

We can go back and forth on all those points as long as you like, but no one is going to win the argument. And while subjectivity can* be accurate, this isn't a topic where that's realistic.

 

[threecy]

yes Buchholz is inconsistent but he was a Cy Young contender before getting hurt in 2013

Clay Buchholz has never pitched a full season. As fans, it's fun to look at his dominant streaks and look at him as an elite pitcher, but the reality is he's never been a full-season, top of the rotation starter. That's not Farrell's fault.

 

[Toe Nash]

No it isn't. Especially if you give up long term assets to do it.

Just wanted to quote Rasputin here who is saying that not making the playoffs is better than making them.

I hate the play-in game too but you just win that game and you're a normal playoff participant with a normal chance to win a short series. Hence the Sox having a 29% chance to win the division, a 21% chance to get a wild card, and then, using math, a 40% chance to make the "real" playoffs. Making a reasonable move to improve these odds should be a priority.

And again, I'm not advocating dealing the long-term assets for a rental.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Just wanted to quote Rasputin here who is saying that not making the playoffs is better than making them.

Well, to be fair, what he said was making the one game playoff and selling off your farm is worse than not making the one game playoff and hanging on to your crop of top prospects. That's at least debatable, even if he's a bit off his rocker overall lately.

 

[InsideTheParker]

it also may be that there is something seriously wrong with the way this team coaches pitchers and if that is the culprit, that buck stops with Farrell.

I wish I had the knowledge and memory required to answer this, but I don't: How many players have come right out and said that the Sox tried to change their approach, and it didn't work? JBJ has said, for example, that the Sox tried to change his stance. When he got back to the approach at the plate that he had used since a lad, his results fell back into his traditional successful pattern. My poor brain can't cough it up, but I remember a pitcher saying the same thing. Of course these guys could be just reaching for excuses, but maybe not. Can others come up with examples?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

How do you measure a manager, if not by win loss?

Over the long term, probably with some sense of wins over replacement if it's possible to judge. Bruce Bochy wouldn't have a winning record with the Braves. That wouldn't make him a bad manager.

Part of the thing with the 2016 Red Sox is that there has been a lot more managing going on than other teams have had to do. Injuries, depth and rotation problems have caused there to be many more decision points than with some set it and forget it teams out there. I think the tendency when that happens is for Farrell opinion to ebb and flow with wins and losses, because there's always some 50/50 or sub-optimal decision to look at.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I wish I had the knowledge and memory required to answer this, but I don't: How many players have come right out and said that the Sox tried to change their approach, and it didn't work? JBJ has said, for example, that the Sox tried to change his stance. When he got back to the approach at the plate that he had used since a lad, his results fell back into his traditional successful pattern. My poor brain can't cough it up, but I remember a pitcher saying the same thing. Of course these guys could be just reaching for excuses, but maybe not. Can others come up with examples?

Not what you're asking, but I'll throw out a kudo for Farrell and the pitching coach in 2013, Nieves, right? Jon Lester in 2012 was messed up in his delivery in that he was "pitching uphill", or not getting on top of the ball, not getting his whole body and therefore arm forward on the rubber so he could drive the ball toward the plate. It was frustrating because you could see it on TV. I even posted about it here. Valentine and pitching coach obviously didn't see it, and Jon had a lousy year. As soon as 2013 started, Farrell said they'd seen the problem, corrected it with Jon, and he's off to a Jon Lester season. So, I guess that says that Farrell > Valentine.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

The Red Sox are playing too well to fire Farrell. It's not like there's a recent example in professional sports where a head coach, despite having his team in first place, was fired and replaced by his assistant in the middle of the season, only for the team to win the championship, solidifying the all-time credentials of a beloved local star. Sure that hypothetical team might have just been blown out by twenty points by a team from California, but it would be absurd to fire a coach in those circumstances and promote his assistant. You don't win championships by having three difference coaches in three years. Too much instability. Maybe hypothetically it works in other sports, but teams that promote their assistant coach - whether it be a bench coach or a former pitching coach - never win Word Series, especially not in the first year after going through a bunch of managers in the previous few years.

 

[Rasputin]

Just wanted to quote Rasputin here who is saying that not making the playoffs is better than making them.

I hate the play-in game too but you just win that game and you're a normal playoff participant with a normal chance to win a short series. Hence the Sox having a 29% chance to win the division, a 21% chance to get a wild card, and then, using math, a 40% chance to make the "real" playoffs. Making a reasonable move to improve these odds should be a priority.

And again, I'm not advocating dealing the long-term assets for a rental.

This is what you call a lie. Your statement was that making the wild card was "far far better" than not, and it simply isn't. Making the wild card means you have at least a 45% chance of playing one game and going home and at most a 55% chance of being the underdog in the Division Series.

Also, you're being remarkably disingenuous to bring the division into it when you know that's an entirely different situation. Making a trade just to try and make the wild card is asinine. Making a trade when you have a realistic shot at the division, with the wild card just adding a little EV if you don't win the division is something else entirely.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Jason Mastrodonato ‏@JMastrodonato 39m39 minutes ago
Buchholz: “He’s the manager. Not a whole lot I can do about it.”

 

[simplicio]

Jason Mastrodonato ‏@JMastrodonato 39m39 minutes ago
Buchholz: “He’s the manager. Not a whole lot I can do about it.”

Maybe try pitching well?

 

[Plympton91]

I'm amused by the notion that won loss record is a good way to measure managers and that 500 some odd games would be enough.

I mean, Mike Scioscia has a won loss record of 1449-1224 and this place would go apeshit--and rightfully so--if he were to manage this team.

So it's just a coincidence that in 6 of the 7 years John Farrell has been a major league manager, his team's have underperformed the consensus of both baseball writers and Vegas betting odds? No signal there at all. All noise.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

So it's just a coincidence that in 6 of the 7 years John Farrell has been a major league manager, his team's have underperformed the consensus of both baseball writers and Vegas betting odds? No signal there at all. All noise.

There are (at least) three possibilities when a team underperforms predictions: (1) the prognosticators misjudged the team's real talent; (2) the team had unusually poor luck; (3) the team was poorly managed. Ignoring the first two possibilities in order to make the argument that the underperformance is evidence of managerial failure is a classic example of begging the question.

I've heard some people make a semi-convincing case that a team's record in one-run games is the closest thing we have to an objective measure of managerial effectiveness, because those are the games where managerial decisions have the best chance of influencing the outcome. As it happens, Farrell's record in one-run games since taking over the Sox is exactly .500, and has been exactly .500 in every individual season since he took over. (Last year the team was one game over .500 in one-run games, but the one game to the good came under Lovullo.)

So to the extent this metric is worth anything (I wouldn't go to the mat for it, but it's probably better than wins vs. pythag, for instance), Farrell is what many of us suspect him to be--a thoroughly average manager who has had little to no effect, positive or negative, on the team's record.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

So it's just a coincidence that in 6 of the 7 years John Farrell has been a major league manager, his team's have underperformed the consensus of both baseball writers and Vegas betting odds? No signal there at all. All noise.

Yeah, this argument is starting to get a bit 'climate change denial' or 'evolution denial'.

You don't need perfect information to come to a reasonable conclusion - yes there's a chance that Farrel is a good manager and has just been dealt a shitty hand for 6 of the 7 years he's been a manager, but the chance of that is exceedingly smaller than the chance that he's not a good manager. That track record, added to the poor tactical stuff, the improvement under Luvello, the repeated issues with pitchers, etc, put the odds even lower. The Red Sox should be looking at those odds, and moving on.

 

[Plympton91]

There are (at least) three possibilities when a team underperforms predictions: (1) the prognosticators misjudged the team's real talent; (2) the team had unusually poor luck; (3) the team was poorly managed. Ignoring the first two possibilities in order to make the argument that the underperformance is evidence of managerial failure is about as lovely an example of begging the question as I've seen around here.

I've heard some people make a semi-convincing case that a team's record in one-run games is the closest thing we have to an objective measure of managerial effectiveness, because those are the games where managerial decisions have the most likelihood of influencing the outcome. As it happens, Farrell's record in one-run games since taking over the Sox is exactly .500, and has been exactly .500 in every individual season since he took over. (Last year the team was one game over .500 in one-run games, but the one game to the good came under Lovullo.).

So to the extent this metric is worth anything (I wouldn't go to the mat for it, but it's probably than wins vs Pythag.

On the first point I think you lay out the three options explaining under dormancy relative to expectations. I agree that if we had only one or two seasons to work with, it would be hard to draw any conclusions. We have six of seven observations all going one direction though. If you start putting a probability on each of the 3 options, and work out the joint probability of Ferrell's 6 of 7 year underperformance, then you start to get somewhere.

Expert predictions and Vegas over/under should, over the long run, be unbiased, so the bigger sample size begins to rule that out. Theoretically they would begin to take account of managerial competence at the margin as well, so they'd bias the result in favor of finding that the manager had no effect.

Likewise, "bad luck" should even out, or at least not show up, in more than one season over a 7 year sample.

I see the problems you see with the one run game metric, alternative theory is that one run games are entirely luck and I've seen evidence for that as well. I'm not sure why Phthag differences would be better or worse than any other metric.

 

[Rasputin]

Yeah, this argument is starting to get a bit 'climate change denial' or 'evolution denial'.

You don't need perfect information to come to a reasonable conclusion - yes there's a chance that Farrel is a good manager and has just been dealt a shitty hand for 6 of the 7 years he's been a manager, but the chance of that is exceedingly smaller than the chance that he's not a good manager. That track record, added to the poor tactical stuff, the improvement under Luvello, the repeated issues with pitchers, etc, put the odds even lower. The Red Sox should be looking at those odds, and moving on.

You're trying to make denying climate change and evolution sound like the reasonable position. It isn't.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The way to judge a manager is simple. Compare actual results to expected results. Obviously the expected results are very subjective, but so is this whole analysis. In my opinion, the Sox have been a better team than the results suggest since 2013. Therefore in my opinion Farrell hasn't done a good job. For those who think the team was really worse than their record the last two years and has won more games than expected this year, it makes sense that you'd like to keep him.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

You're trying to make denying climate change and evolution sound like the reasonable position. It isn't.

No, I'm not.

The argument against either is always that we're missing some sort of tiny confirming detail and that all the other evidence isn't enough. There's millions of transitional fossils, but we don't have the right one, or some such nonsense. That's what people are doing here - we have an overwhelming amount of evidence of Farrell's incompetence ... but its never enough for these people. We could go another 5 years of winning at a .45% clip, watching baffling mismanagement of the bullpen and tactics, more fired pitching coaches who he can't communicate with, and they'd still be arguing that we don't have enough info, or that Farrell isn't the real problem, or that firing him won't make a difference. 

 

[AbbyNoho]

It's absurd that you're equating your opinion that the manager is responsible for a team's record with the overwhelming evidence of climate change and evolution. Completely absurd.

 

[mauf]

I'm on the fence on Farrell, but props to him for sticking with Porcello in the first inning today, giving him a chance to settle down and get into a groove.

 

[Rasputin]

No, I'm not.

The argument against either is always that we're missing some sort of tiny confirming detail and that all the other evidence isn't enough. There's millions of transitional fossils, but we don't have the right one, or some such nonsense. That's what people are doing here - we have an overwhelming amount of evidence of Farrell's incompetence ... but its never enough for these people. We could go another 5 years of winning at a .45% clip, watching baffling mismanagement of the bullpen and tactics, more fired pitching coaches who he can't communicate with, and they'd still be arguing that we don't have enough info, or that Farrell isn't the real problem, or that firing him won't make a difference. 

But we don't have overwhelming evidence of Farrell's incompetence. We don't have anything remotely resembling overwhelming evidence of Farrell's incompetence. We're not within a thousand miles of having anything resembling overwhelming evidence of Farrell's incompetence.

What you're doing is the equivalent of stating that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. That argument is wrong because it misunderstands both the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, and your argument is wrong because you're misunderstanding what evidence is and you're misunderstanding what evidence we have.

Won loss record is useless. Do you really think a different manager would have made a difference in 2014 and 2015? With all the young guys that struggled to make the transition to the bigs, all the significant acquisitions that had craptacular seasons, do you really think Torey Lovullo or Bud Black or whomever is going to make a damn bit of difference?

You have, for whatever reason, decided that John Farrell is incompetent. Every decision he makes that is remotely debatable--and there are a lot of those in baseball--you look at as a mistake. You make no allowance for the fact that you don't have the same information he has. Some of those bad decisions you decry were made because a player or players weren't feeling well. We don't know which ones they are and we shouldn't, but you don't care. You count everything that is remotely debatable as a mark against John Farrell, which is absurd.

Meanwhile, there are a grand total of 7 teams that have more wins than the Sox at the moment. The Sox are 2.5 games behind the Orioles and despite some middling pitching, the Sox have won the last two games pretty damn handily.

 

[Moviegoer]

Well you've convinced me. The Sox should never have fired Grady Little.

 

[Plympton91]

Well you've convinced me. The Sox should never have fired Grady Little.

Right. Maybe Mike Timlin had the flu and Scott Williamson had mono and Alan Embree had a sore arm. We can't know that. So criticizing Grady is totally unfair. Bring him back.

Or Jimy Williams. He took teams everybody underrated to the playoffs in 1998 and 1999, got torpedoed by injuries in 2000, and firing him was clearly a mistake, because Joe Kerrigan had a worse record with the same players. Let's rehire Jimy Williams.

More seriously, people are trying to put the effect of a manager into a linear regression. Yeah, in that analysis you can only see a manager vary between +3 and -3, but that's not how it works. A baseball season is path dependent. If you get off to a bad start, that can steamroll into a bad season. It leads to roster turnover, decisions that put what's good for next season ahead of winning games now, and then a fire sale. If you get off to a good start, that can generate positive feedback, you add talent, you make decisions to increase win probability instead of to increase development time.

For instance does anyone think that sometime last August Steven Wright all of a sudden figured out how to be a great starting pitcher? I don't. He probably would have been a good starting pitcher last May too. Had the Red Sox had a manager who put him into the rotation, or even one who kept him on the roster, maybe the season goes quite differently.

All kinds of little decisions like that are the managers job. They cumulate to a difference. John Farrell has bad decision quality. -- it's a management buzzword these days, but it fits perfectly here.