No, they shouldn't have, if you go by his win/loss record. Little's record in two seasons with the Red Sox was 188-136 and 358-290 overall.
Is it safe to discuss John Farrell again?
- Thread starter Captaincoop
- Start date
- Status
I'm a broken record but I still find none (or few) of the anti-Farrell voices judging him in the context of all the other managers that have managed during his tenures. Nope. It's all about Farrell and it's all about the Red Sox (except for some sideways references to a handful of others). So, it's either a bias borne out of only watching Red Sox games, or a bias born out of disappointment with team performance.
There are better managers out there than Farrell. Why not talk about them in the same context? Why is Showalter so much better? How about Bochy? Matheny? Francona? Maddon? There are a lot of worse managers. Maybe if the detractors were able to compare notes on other managers dating back to 2011 there would be more credence given to the arguments because right now it sounds a lot more like sour grapes than intelligent analysis. No one on this board compares player stats in a vacuum, so why do so for managers? Where's the homework?
Also, Farrell brought Butterfield and others on board, including Torey Lovullo, Nieves, Victor Rodriguez, Beyeler, Chili Davis. We need to look at his organization as well.
In the meantime, since we're only talking about Farrell and no other managers, let's take a brief look at some of his resume (and maybe some day put it in the context of all managers):
There are better managers out there than Farrell. Why not talk about them in the same context? Why is Showalter so much better? How about Bochy? Matheny? Francona? Maddon? There are a lot of worse managers. Maybe if the detractors were able to compare notes on other managers dating back to 2011 there would be more credence given to the arguments because right now it sounds a lot more like sour grapes than intelligent analysis. No one on this board compares player stats in a vacuum, so why do so for managers? Where's the homework?
Also, Farrell brought Butterfield and others on board, including Torey Lovullo, Nieves, Victor Rodriguez, Beyeler, Chili Davis. We need to look at his organization as well.
In the meantime, since we're only talking about Farrell and no other managers, let's take a brief look at some of his resume (and maybe some day put it in the context of all managers):
- 5th fastest manager to 100 wins in Red Sox history
- 2nd place for Manager of the Year in 2013 (1st by Sporting News)
- Had the Blue Jays successfully stealing the most bases in 10 years
- Blue Jays first team since 1901 to win 10 home extra-inning games without a loss
- Red Sox Pitching Coach:
Top AL BAA @ .254
#1 in strikeouts (4,771)
Buchholz and Lester named to All Star team - Director of Player Development for Cleveland
Won "Organization of the Year" twice
Named top Farm System by Baseball America
Last edited:
If you think there is some sort of equivalence between the two, you're proving my point.
I don't really have a dog in this fight - I agree with R(S)F, if we're going to go through this every time the team goes through a mediocre stretch, it's going to be a long season - and maybe I'm misunderstanding you (apologies if so), but you lose me with your point about 2014. To call 2014 anything other than a disappointment relative to expectations is a little disingenuous. They were returning essentially the same roster that had just won a World Series the year prior, and one of those "young players" you refer to didn't seem to have much difficulty with his transition the year prior. And indeed, I would argue that helping young players like Bogaerts and Bradley transition into the Majors is absolutely a part of a manager's job description.
Last edited:
I don't believe I did say 2014 wasn't a disappointment, of course it was. And of course it's part of a manager's job to help young players make the transition.
But, if a player really struggles with the transition like Bradley and Bogaerts did, it's not like you can just point the finger at the manager and say he's responsible.
I guess my point was, yes, the manager has to own at least some of that unless the young player in question is actually not good (ie, Will Middlebrooks), and yes, there do seem to be some managers (and coaches) who are more gifted in this area than others. Joe Maddon seems to be one, although I'm sure I'll get excoriated for daring to compliment him on SoSH. Terry Francona, dare I say, is another. Ned Yost probably deserves some credit for what happened in Kansas City. Whether the Red Sox could have hired a guy like that or should have fired Farrell one season after a World Series victory is perhaps a different argument (and of course the struggles of Bogaerts and Bradley were not the only issues with that team).
Just wanted to share a thought on this tidbit by Ras. I'm no expert but it truly seems that there is something going on throughout the organization in regards to development and maintaining a certain level of excellence when it comes to pitching. It may be a combination of things including talent that is not what the Sox thought or planned that it would be. There is also what seems to be guys with pretty good potential that just seem to hit the wall for whatever reason. A mechanics expert (if there is such a thing) isn't a bad idea at all. Whether he's a roving assistant that works throughout the organization or a replacement for Carl Willis I think something needs to be done. Yes there will be personnel changes to the staff, but there are more holes that can reasonably filled from the outside, so IF this team is to not only make the playoffs, but contend for a championship then I think some sort of coaching change or addition need to be made. There have already been decisions made in the name of what's best for the team. Sandoval's bulky body and contract were benched, Buchholz was demoted and Kelly's not returning to the rotation, all moves made in the best interest of the team. If DD needs to step on Farrell or Willis' toes in the best interest of the team then so be it.
I don't disagree with any of that. I don't see how it adds up to firing Farrell.
I believe that Bannister's official title is Director of Pitching Analytics, but honestly I've no idea what that even entails. I don't know if he's a FO type with minions to do his bidding or if he's actually an on the field, hands on, lets take a look see at what you're doing and figure out how we can fix this sort of guy.
Some how seems that it should be a combo of both. Using your strengths against a hitter's weakness. That said there would need to be some sort of identification of both.
And this is exactly it.
Is anyone confident that the Red Sox are going to get back on the horse and go back to winning at a .550+ clip? Because I'm not - they've been playing sub .500 ball for quite a while now. I think its much more likely that things continue to go poorly and they finish at about 80 wins than that they make the playoffs.
We've got 1100 games now of Farrell's teams failing to live up to expectation, with the same damn patterns over and over again. The same bad decisions, the same complaints about not being able to communicate with his subordinates and players, the same pitcher underperformance, young players being slow to transition because Farrell wasn't paying attention to them. All of the same complaints that there were in Toronto.
So when we talk about 2014 and 2015, and people are asking whether or not things would have been different, I think absolutely. Bogaerts and Betts and Bradly having trouble adjusting to the majors was absolutely expected - because Farrell being shitty with young players was something that people in Toronto complained about - it was something that HIS PLAYERS complained about. Omar Vizquel repeatedly complained that Farrell's coaches weren't doing anything to help rookies fix their mistakes. He repeatedly complained about young guys making the same defensive mistakes over and over again, and getting no coaching on those issues. He repeatedly complained about a lack of communication between Farrell and the rest of his staff, and between the staff and players.
So the idea that there's no evidence that he's not good at his job is patently absurd.
Yeah but one season under Farrell the Blue Jays were fifth in the league in stolen bases. Fifth!
Could you list the analyses you've read in this thread, discuss their strengths and weaknesses and then describe what kind of analysis would be better and why?
Because there have been a ton of thorough analyses done and you seem to either be ignoring them outright, or discounting them without saying why.
You can't have a discussion that way. Thanks.
I think the other thing is, let's concede that no manager was going to take the 2014 or 2015 teams to the playoffs. Concede that a manager can only make a difference of 2 games at most.
With 6 teams within 1.5 games of the two wild card slots, it Looks like 2 games might be going to matter a great deal this year, doesn't it? Plus, suppose the Sox make the playoffs. Do want Stephen Wright throwing fastballs with the bases loaded come October? Suppose the make the World Series. Do you want a relief pitcher hitting in the 8th inning of a tie game again?
DECISION QUALITY.
As you brought up, Farrell was a great pitching coach. Pitching coaches don't make final decisions. They make recommendations.
As you brought up, Farrell was a great director of player development. They don't make final decisions either. They make recommendations.
Not the same job. Not the same skill set.
Last edited:
Yes, I think it's completely obvious that the team is going to continue playing just as poorly as it played when half the team was injured and the other half in slumps even when the players get healthy and come out of their slumps. This team is 45-37 with 80 games left. Finishing with 80 wins would mean going 35-45 in those 80 games. That's a 71 win pace. The 2015 team won 78 games and the 2014 team won 71. Do I think that this team that is leading the majors in runs scored by a non trivial amount is going to play as poorly over the remainder of 2016 as the 2014 team did? I do not. I think there's going to be a trade to augment the pitching and that this team will contend for the AL East Division Title We might not win, but I like our chances.
Is this team really failing to live up to expectations? Some players certainly are. Some other players are exceeding expectations. And no, we don't have the same patterns over and over again. The problems with the 2014 team weren't the problems with the 2015 team aren't the problems with the 2016 team.
You know, if you would actually bother to read and understand things, you might not look like such a reactionary dingbat. When you say there is overwhelming evidence that John Farrell is incompetent, and people laugh at you for saying something stupid, that doesn't mean people don't think John Farrell has weaknesses.
Let me make this perfectly clear.
John Farrell has weaknesses.
Sometimes he doesn't make good decisions.
Every manager has weaknesses.
If you wanted to argue that Farrell wasn't the right guy to manage this team while it breaks in Bradley, Bogaerts, Betts, and so forth because he has a history of not bringing along young players well, you could make that case--though I'd suggest you'd have to do more than simply assert that it was a problem in Toronto.
But it basically comes down to this. If you want to replace him with someone better or you're actually making the team worse. Who are you going to replace him with? Joe Maddon isn't available. Terry Francona isn't available. Bud Black is. You want to make that move? You want to go through all the disruption of replacing a manager on a team that would, by the way, go to the playoffs if the season ended today, just so you can upgrade from John Farrell to Bud Black?
Considering they have won 71 and 78 games the last 2 years do I think it's possible they end up with only 80 wins? Yes, it's possible. 2013 is an outlier in the managerial career of Farrell. If they end up over .500 this season, 2016 would also be an outlier. Outside of one season he has not produced good results on the field as manager.
You say this as though the season begins today. As Ras pointed out, the Sox would have to be one of the 3-4 worst teams in the league the rest of the way (71-win pace) to fail to finish with more than 80 wins.
Is it possible that will happen? Of course. Is it likely? Of course not.
A few points need to be made here.
First and foremost, the manager doesn't produce the results on the field. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. How do people who have seen more than five baseball games think the won loss record is on the manager? The manager doesn't produce the results on the field. The manager doesn't produce the results on the field. In the list of people who influence the results on the field, the manager ranks behind all the players who play in the game and conceivably behind the third base coach.
I'm not sure it's remotely right to say something is an outlier when there are only five of them to pick from. Yes, the 2013 season is unlike the other completed seasons. It's also 20% of the total seasons. If the Red Sox go 41-39 in the remaining 80 games, John Farrell's record will be 486-486. He will have two seasons above .500, one at .500, and three below.
This idea that John Farrell is a manifestly incompetent manager is a complete fantasy.
Also, honest to God, people, we live in a world where Ned Yost has two pennants and a World Series title. If Ned Yost can win a title, John Farrell sure as shit can.
Please produce evidence for your claim that the manager does not "produce results" on the field. Continuing to make a claim over and over and over again does not make that claim true.
That Toronto team in 2012 was 69-87 when Vizquel made his comments. (tied with Boston for last in AL East).
They had lost their closer, set up man, 4/5th of the rotation and Bautista to wrist surgery. 17 players had long term injuries on top of some challenging youngsters(Laurie and Escobar).
Vizquel apologized for his comments to the media in a closed door meeting, saying:
“I didn’t want to make any problems or talk bad about my coaching staff,” said the 11-time Gold Glove winner, who has made clear his own aspirations of becoming a big-league manager one day. “All I have is love for them. These guys really bust their butt here. They’re there for us and it was my fault.”
And Farrell's comment regarding the episode was pretty telling:
"We have a young team and sometimes we just need to talk and communicate a little more with the coaches," Vizquel said. "It was no intention at all on my part to kind of blame or point fingers at any coaches or the manager. It was just a constructive comment, something that we needed to do to become a better team."
Farrell was displeased, pointing out that Vizquel is not privy to individual conversations he has with players, or additional coaching sessions that occur before the 24-year veteran arrives in the clubhouse.
"We continue to teach the game, that's our job," Farrell said. "We provide leadership with decisions that are made on the field and you look to provide that respect and treat them as men. Once we get to a point where things have to take a different approach, we adjust accordingly."
It's largely accepted that today's manager is essentially an empty figurehead. There's a huge machine behind the scenes providing statistical and scouting support that takes care of optimizing lineups, defense, and pitching approach. Only in some special cases do managers get away with ignoring these tools like say Mike Scioscia. But in Boston all you're really looking for from your manager is a guy that can handle the circus and keep huge egos happy and in check. Tito was great at this and they won so he got huge acclaim while Valentine was pretty terrible at this and was shown the door a day after the season ended.
Largely accepted by whom?
Keeping people happy and keeping egos in check is not being an empty figurehead. People management is an important, and hugely valuable skill. Valentine is a perfect example of this - his abrasive personality clearly caused clubhouse issues, and clearly affected the play on the field. Are you really arguing that a manager like Valentine doesn't affect the on-field product? Are you really arguing that the only difference between Tito and Valentine was in the press room, and that it didn't bleed over at all? Are you arguing that a clearly hostile work environment does not affect on-field performance?
I think everyone here has probably at some point had a good boss, and a bad boss - do you think your performance was exactly the same under both? I know mine isn't. Good management makes you better at your job, bad management makes you worse - and professional baseball is a job. I see no reason that professional baseball is some special thing where the basic principles of human resources don't apply.
A manager that loses the clubhouse may affect on field production only if the talent level lets it. We've seen plenty of wild clubhouse teams with hugely talented rosters win. And conversely a happy go lucky clubhouse doesn't always equate to on field production if the talent level isn't there. Where is your proof that managers "produce results" on the field? Are you just going to point to a Maddon or a Tito completely ignoring that they've won with hugely talented teams and also lost with teams devoid of talent? See, I can do the condescending question thing too.
This is a joke, right?
Are you really trying to make the claim that the manager has more of an impact on the game than the players that play in it?
Hall of Fame manager Connie Mack, winner of 9 pennants, and five world series has a career winning percentage of .486.
Hall of Fame manager Tony LaRussa, winner of 6 pennants and three world series had nine seasons and one half of 1981 with a sub .500 record.
Hall of Fame manager Joe Torre, winner of 6 pennants and 4 world series had eleven seasons with a record below .500.
Simply put, if you think managers have more impact on the won loss record than the players who play the game, you have a misunderstanding of reality that is breathtaking in its depth. You have a view of baseball that is counterindicated by over a century of play. Stop using won loss record as an indicator of managerial acumen, it does nothing but paint you as a clueless dolt.
Why don't you do this instead? From now until the break, document every strategic decision John Farrell makes and point out how bad most of them are.
“My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like ‘C’mon Boog,’ ‘Get ahold of one, Frank,’ or ‘Let’s go, Brooks.'”
--Earl Weaver
“The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided.”
-Casey Stengel
--Earl Weaver
“The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided.”
-Casey Stengel
Farrell ought to be judged by weighing the actual impact he has against the potential impact he has. Both are difficult to know, but Plympton has it here; we can look at the actual decisions that Farrell makes in game and with his roster usage, to see if he's putting the team in an optimal position to win games. His decisions, while not uniformly bad, are often so. Hence the concern. No one is saying (except you perhaps) that it would be some sort of travesty for Farrell to be fired because, He's clearly making all the right calls, nearly all of the time, but those untalented players keep letting him down.
Can you help us out here? Are you referring to how he handled Chris Young before his hamstring snapped?
Was watching the Indians-Tigers last night, and the ESPN crew was talking about how with 12-13 pitchers on most rosters, it has severely cut down on the quality of a team's bench. I suspect what we're seeing with the Red Sox is simply an example of a wider trend -- starting pitchers don't go as deep into games, necessitating need for more relievers, cutting down on available bench players. That's what made Holt so valuable as a bench piece, the ability to fit in everywhere.
This isn't a Red Sox issue; it's a league issue
This isn't a Red Sox issue; it's a league issue
"Smart and Wolfe (2003) assessed the concurrent contribution of leadership and human resources to Major League Baseball (MLB) team performance. They found that player resources (defense/pitching and offence/batting) explained 67% of the variance in winning percentage, whereas leadership explained very little (slightly more than 1%) of the variance."
JC Bradbury, a sort of baseball stathead economist, has a nice little section in the middle of this Freakonomics podcast (which I find entertaining, generally) in which he talks about some of the research into baseball managers - much of which seems to be behind academic journal paywalls, unfortunately. I find the overall premise of this particular podcast episode a little contrary for contrariness sake, but the baseball bit is interesting.
Last edited:
That paper doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's comparing player outputs (offensive performance) with managerial inputs (age, managing experience, past winning percentage). Of course the outputs are going to have a greater effect on outcomes than the inputs -- that would be true of almost anything.
The quality of Main Board discussion has degenerated to the point that a lurker who has brought little to the conversation nonetheless feels free to lay down the snark on a member who, agree with him or not, has brought lots of substance to the discussion.
The best evidence for his "claim" is that no one is taking your side -- the thoughtful members of the anti-Farrell contingent understand that unless the manager is a complete tire fire (think Bobby V), the difference between a good manager and a bad one is maybe a couple games over the course of a 162-game season. The on-field results are largely a result of the on-field talent.
Whatever I think about Farrell, the job he's done, and his future, this post is awesome.
Not disagreeing with anything in your post, but if you think about that in terms of WAR, it's a significant number. Even if we say the ultimate outcome between a good manager and a poor one is three games, that's like upgrading 2015 Mookie to 2015 Trout.
I've said this before, but I think baseball managers are professionals who can likely realize the best matchups and most likely outcomes. Unless there's some hidden reason (injury to a key player, perhaps), they should pretty much always be doing something very sensible. Reliever usage, pinch hitting, intentional BB, defensive shifts, aligning the rotation, bearing down on division rivals, resting players in rotation so not to weaken the lineup in one game, etc. - these things may have a significant game/series impact.* I doubt that there's a chance to add many extra wins through a brilliant strategy that no one sees coming, but there's clearly a chance to cause losses, or (even more difficult to spot) to fail to consistently exercise the best option so as to give the team the chance to pick up a game or two or three throughout the course of the season.
Beyond the tire fire manager (as you say) there's the manager that costs one game every two weeks with a bone-headed move (as opposed to his competent collogues who costs their team once every three weeks?)
Is Farrell one of those latter managers? Maybe. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us here don't think he's winning extra games, or that he's a paragon on sensible consistency with his in-game strategies.
*note - this does not even get to the idea that the "on the field talent" as measured by outcomes may largely be dependent on the manager. E.g., good bullpen handling v. burning out players, driving up their stats by poor matchups, etc.
Exactly. There's a lot of room between "a manager has no impact on the game at all" and "the manager has a greater impact than all the players on the field put together." Managers are paid salaries between utility infielders and back of the rotation starters even though there's great demand for a small number of openings. By that measure, a manager is worth somewhere between the 15th and 25th man on the roster, which sounds reasonable.
I just...you understand that Ned Yost is legendary for bad managerial decisions, right?
I'm certainly not saying that. I'm not sure that there is a manager in the game who is clearly making all the right calls nearly all the time. I'm not sure baseball is a game where that's even possible. Farrell makes some bad decisions. He makes more of them than I'd like, but there are two things mitigating the discussion of managerial decisions. Managers have more information than we do. Some of the decisions we think are bad are made because there's something going on we didn't know about--someone is feeling a little fluish, someone twisted an ankle in the clubhouse before the game, et cetera and so forth. Also--and I don't think this is something the Fire Farrell Fanatics care to acknowledge--in many cases there simply isn't a clearly right answer.
Take the game Wright pitched against the Angels. The key decision in the game--as in many games--was when to remove the starting pitcher and I think it was pretty clear to most of us that the rain had picked up and Wright was simply unable to get enough grip on the ball to have anything resembling control of the knuckler. The 6th inning went double, HBP, wal. I--and I assume most of y'all--would have pulled Wright right there before he faced Cron.
But...it's not like Matt Barnes is super awesome shutdown guy. Other than Kimbrel, the Sox don't really have a super awesome shutdown guy. Meanwhile, we've all seen knuckleballers find it and lose it and find it and lose it in a freakin' heartbeat. Farrell told Wright and the catcher to stick with the knuckleball and they didn't. Knuckleballs get a lot of soft contact. A popup or double play on a knuckleball is, you know, not an unreasonable thing.
That's one of the clearest decisions you get in this game and not only is it not remotely 100% clear what the right decision is, the actual events that led to the home run involve the players not doing what the manager told them to do. You want to tell me the manager should have a little more control over the players than that, I'd not really disagree, but no manager is ever going to have perfect control, so what do you do?
I think there is some SSS going on here, in that folks are criticizing in game decisions during the first half of the regular season (and this isn't the first time; see: Regular Season Tito vs. Playoff Tito).
I think an important part of being a manager at this stage of the season is to leave in players at times when the match up doesn't seem ideal. The player may thrive and break out of a mold. Or, the player/manager may be provided with the confirmation of a hypothesis. Regardless, some of these break throughs or fails are things that can't happen in practice, and need to be figured out when the stakes are lower, rather than when the team is in playoff mode.
I think an important part of being a manager at this stage of the season is to leave in players at times when the match up doesn't seem ideal. The player may thrive and break out of a mold. Or, the player/manager may be provided with the confirmation of a hypothesis. Regardless, some of these break throughs or fails are things that can't happen in practice, and need to be figured out when the stakes are lower, rather than when the team is in playoff mode.
Every game counts the same, and we have to play about 40 of the final 60 on the road this year. It would have been nice to be at least 15 games over .500 before that stretch starts and potentially needing just to tread water to get to 90 wins... but that's getting less and less likely by the day.
Separate from the evaluation of Farrell's performance, I think we need to dispel with this notion that the difference between a good manager and a bad manager is one to three wins. If we're talking only about the impact of his in game decisions that may be accurate. But the impact of the preparation and how dysfunctional the clubhouse is could have a larger impact. I find it hard to believe that Bobby V only cost the team two wins, for example.
Maybe it's helpful to think of the distinction as being more like goalies (or pitchers, to stick to the sport we're talking about). There's a range between replacement level and good that's probably reasonably narrow. With managers, there's probably no Trout-level uber-performance worth 6+ WAR available. But it would be possible to find someone (e.g., goalie, pitcher) who's so far below replacement level that they have large negative variance (wrt managers, Bobby V was one, and IIRC, Butch Hobson fit here, too).
The debate has taken kind of an odd turn, though, with some folks (mainly pro-Farrell) claiming that managers don't matter much, and others (mostly anti-Farrell) saying that they do,
If the manager doesn't matter much, what's the point of the impassioned defense of Farrell? Nobody seems inclined to consider him to be much more than average. If he's an average performer in a low-impact role, why wouldn't you change him out to see if you get a short-term bump in performance? There are definitely examples of cases where this happened (quoted earlier in this thread), and cases where it didn't (largely ignored here).
If a manager does matter, why stick with a guy who isn't demonstrably better than average? (or, as detractors note, has a less-than-average W/L record).
Overall, I'd guess most people would agree (regardless of the relevance of W/L debate above) tht there is a point at which a change would have to be made. The debate really comes down to, what's the right time? Is it now, or would it be better to let things play out and only make a change if performance sinks to (pick a limit - I haven't seen any of the pro-Farrell crowd indicate that there's any specific point at which a change would be necessary). I'm in the 'time for a change now' camp, but I'd probably be content to wait for "change if/when the record gets to <.500" or "change when the probability of making the playoffs sinks below a threshold" 50%? 40%?). What I'm not okay with is the notion that:
a) the manager doesn't matter that much, but
b) even if he did, he should be judged on some hard-to-quantify set of criteria that exclude W/L performance, and
c) you shouldn't make a change unless you KNOW that the next guy will be better, and
d) who's out there who could be better anyway? Maybe one unemployed former manager?
because
a) if the manager doesn't matter that much, the potential for a performance boost from a change would seem like a good reason to make a change, and
b) all managers - in baseball and everywhere else in the world - are ultimately judged in terms of performance vs reasonable expectation, and I personally expect the Sox to be above .500 and in contention for the playoffs by season's end, and
c) as per a, you can make a change if you think it will result in better organizational performance - you don't need irrefutable proof of improvement, and
d) in a world with 7 billion plus people, there are undoubtedly some who might be better than JF - including the bench coach (not saying he WILL be, but he might be)
I am going to guess that the number of cases where a team dismissed a manager midseason who had a record over .500 is a rather small sample, but does anyone have the pre/post numbers on that? Morgan Magic is one example.
First of all, I dont think anyone in what is being called the "Pro-Farrell camp" thinks that managers literally have no impact. So "if they have no impact, then why not just replace him" doesn't hold water.
Unless we are assuming that Farrell is the worst possible -- (i.e., anyone would be better -- which I dont think anyone is saying) -- somewhere in the equation has to be the possibility that a change not only might not improve the team, but might result in the team doing worse.
Two of George's several Billy Martin hirings came when Bill Virdon and Bob Lemon, respectively, werr over 500. Billy had the better record both times, but NY finished 3rd and 4th.
I was going to suggest that Billy had to have been fired with a winning record once ... or twice ... or thrice
The most recent extreme example was the 2008 Milwaukee Brewers, who fired Ned Yost in the middle of a terrible stretch in August. The Brewers, despite the losing streak, were 83-67 when Yost was fired. Dale Sveum took over and finished 7-5. The Brewers lost 3 games to 1 in the NLDS to Philadelphia
Indeed, looks like in the same season as Morgan Magic, Billy Martin was fired and replaced by Pinella. Lou's winning % was lower than Billy's that season. I don't think there's a lot to learn from the Martin-Steinbrenner psychodrama, however.
- Status