John Farrell: Not on the Hot Seat

[The Gray Eagle]

From Alex Speier's 108 Stitches email today:
 
"A major league source familiar with the team’s thinking said on Monday that the Red Sox continue to have full faith in Farrell’s leadership abilities, and that despite the struggles of the first two months of the season, the team hasn’t changed the view that led it to confer a two-year extension upon him in spring training."
 
It's only an unnamed "major league source familiar with the team’s thinking" of course. But I haven't seen anything in the media to the contrary, no rumors of the front office considering replacing him. Has there been anything out there other than fan griping? Seems like if they really were considering whether to replace him, there might be a leak or two getting out there about the front office being disappointed or concerned about the manager or the clubhouse, etc. 
 
Everyone has their own opinions on whether or not Farrell should be on the hot seat or not. But according to Speier's source, he is not currently under any heat from the only ones whose opinions matter. 

 

[Sprowl]

Left unmentioned is the temperature of Ben Cherington's seat, which might be getting a little toasty.

 

[GraysonGrandeGonads]

Has Farrell done anything boneheaded outside of picthing to Cruz?

 

[BornToRun]

Has Farrell done anything boneheaded outside of picthing to Cruz?

Walking fielder seemed to be an objectionable decision to a lot of people here. Other than that, nothing immediately comes to mind.

 

[mauf]

Smart organizations don't hire and fire managers based on in-game tactics unless they are truly abhorrent (see: Little, Grady). If Farrell were on the hot seat, it would be because the FO blamed him for the team's general underperformance compared to what we, and presumably the FO, thought the team's "true" talent level was prior to the season.
 
We aren't that far removed from Tito's ignominious departure and the Bobby V disaster. Canning Farrell less than a season and a half after winning the World Series would do long-term damage to the FO's ability to attract managerial and coaching talent. I'm not fully sold on Farrell as the manager for the long term, but the soonest the Sox should consider moving on is after this season.

 

[glennhoffmania]

How about not fixing flaws with players' swing/delivery?  They were quick to get rid of Nieves yet Porcello has still been terrible.  The coaches weren't the ones who found issues with Hanley and Napoli.  The base running has been bad.  All in all they've looked like a pretty unprepared team that has not done a good job making adjustments.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

At this point, the tactical issues Farrell may or may not have seem pretty irrelevant. The players, as a group, seem listless, as characterized by the fielding issues the team as a whole experienced on the road trip. Bad routes, mental errors, lapses in concentration, and just ugly baseball. 
 
We know there's been a full team meeting. We know there's been a veterans meeting. It seems like Farrell is throwing the managing kitchen sink at motivating the team. 
 
It's too early now to assess whether tactics are working, but at some point a managerial change has to be under consideration. Sure, it's hard to know exactly how much impact a new manager can have on squishy issues like effort, but you can't fire all the players, as the saying goes, so you're left to seek answers elsewhere. 

 

[E5 Yaz]

The other question to ask is ... how much of an impact did he actually have on the 2013 season?
 
A team of motivated veterans came together after a disastrous season, gained deeper inspiration by a tragedy in the city, bonded over beards, and rode that desire to the championship. Obviously, Farrell had a role in that. But was his role substantial, or was it merely not being Bobby Valentine?
 
Finally, even if Farrell did more than being in the right place at the right time in 2013, the turnover begun last year would necessitate that he have a role in getting the best out of a new dynamic in the clubhouse.
 
I don't particularly have an answer to this. It "seems" like the problems thus far in 2015 go beyond Farrell making this or that decision during a game. And for that reason, firing him makes little sense. There isn't the sort of resistance to him was so openly expressed in Valentine's year. But as someone on the board said the other day, there aren't a lot of valuable movable pieces on this team; so you either go basically with what you have -- supplemented by the farm -- or you take a huge gamble and trade a young player you don't want to lose. And making that sort of deal out of urgency seems unwise.
 
So, unless there's more behind the scenes than we know regarding Farrell (and surmising based on dribs and drabs is a fool's errand), than there's little reason to cut him loose during the season.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 It "seems" like the problems thus far in 2015 go beyond Farrell making this or that decision during a game. And for that reason, firing him makes little sense.

 
This is the part I don't understand.  His job goes way beyond the decisions he makes during a game.  Even if he didn't walk the winning run he could still be failing.  The 21 hours per day that they aren't playing a game count too, and while we don't know what goes on behind closed doors the results suggest that he isn't doing an adequate job leading or preparing his team.

 

[rembrat]

This is the part I don't understand.  His job goes way beyond the decisions he makes during a game.  Even if he didn't walk the winning run he could still be failing.  The 21 hours per day that they aren't playing a game count too, and while we don't know what goes on behind closed doors the results suggest that he isn't doing an adequate job leading or preparing his team.

 
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that even mean? Do you think the Red Sox hitters and pitchers aren't getting scouting reports? Or that Chili and Willis aren't providing guidance and reinforcing team goals and philosophies? 

 

[glennhoffmania]

Have you watched them play?  Do they seem like they're playing smart baseball to you?  Or have you seen dumb mental errors, base running errors, and tactical errors?  And again, why did it take Pedroia an hour or so of watching film to fix two hitters when the hitting coach, the manager and the rest of the coaching staff didn't notice the issues?

 

[MuzzyField]

It's the players, coaches and Ben? If so, what exactly does John Farrell, or any manager do? What is he responsible for? Given the totality of his managerial resume, I don't understand his seemingly Teflon coating. Is this team's record with a stooge like Bobby Valentine at the helm a certainty to be worse than what JF has delivered to date? Ownership views JF as elite... I wish he was, but I think he's a fungible managerial retread that had a really good seat for a championship.

 

[rembrat]

Have you watched them play?  Do they seem like they're playing smart baseball to you?  Or have you seen dumb mental errors, base running errors, and tactical errors?  And again, why did it take Pedroia an hour or so of watching film to fix two hitters when the hitting coach, the manager and the rest of the coaching staff didn't notice the issues?

 
I've seen bad baserunners make bad baserunning mistakes. Every year SoSH complains about the baserunning as if bad baserunners magically get better at baserunning. Guess what, Pedroia is going to try stretch that single into a double and get thrown out mid-swim move because that's who he is. A sit down isn't going to fix this.
 
Why are you lumping in the entire coaching staff into what clearly falls on Chili's lap?
 
You still haven't answered my question. 

 

[mauidano]

A manager gets too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose for the most part.  Except for this guy...
 

 

[Al Zarilla]

It's the players, coaches and Ben? If so, what exactly does John Ferrell, or any manager do? What is he responsible for? Given the totality of his managerial resume, I don't understand his seemingly Teflon coating. Is this team's record with a stooge like Bobby Valentine at the helm a certainty to be worse than what JF has delivered to date? Ownership views JF as elite... I wish he was, but I think he's a fungible managerial retread that had a really good seat for a championship.

Can we at least get his name right? Also, he's not a retread. He was hired away from Toronto. That's not how retread is used. 

 

[mauf]

How about not fixing flaws with players' swing/delivery?  They were quick to get rid of Nieves yet Porcello has still been terrible.  The coaches weren't the ones who found issues with Hanley and Napoli.  The base running has been bad.  All in all they've looked like a pretty unprepared team that has not done a good job making adjustments
 

 
Pitchers and catchers report in mid-February. Nieves was fired in early May -- nearly 3 months into a 7 1/2 month long season, including Spring Training. Willis has been on the job for less than a month.
 
I would also note that according to Fangraphs, the Sox are actually a slightly above-average baserunning team if you omit Hanley's stats. I certainly don't think it's Farrell's fault that Hanley sucks on the bases, nor do I think we have such a speedy team that we should be disappointed with essentially average baserunning.
 
Nitpicking aside, however, I agree that Farrell isn't inspiring confidence. I just don't think his job status should be re-evaluated until the offseason, assuming there isn't a total meltdown between now and then.

 

[MuzzyField]

Can we at least get his name right? Also, he's not a retread. He was hired away from Toronto. That's not how retread is used. 

You think they really wanted to keep him? Unlike Tito's Phillies, the Jays were trying to win during his tenure in Toronto.

 

[Al Zarilla]

You think they really wanted to keep him? Unlike Tito's Phillies, the Jays were trying to win during his tenure in Toronto.

I thought they were upset in Toronto when Farrell left. Or, at least I didn't hear that they were trying to replace him. I could be wrong though.

 

[MuzzyField]

I thought they were upset in Toronto when Farrell left. Or, at least I didn't hear that they were trying to replace him. I could be wrong though.

I remember it more being posturing by the Jays, because the Sox were a division rival. The Jays weren't going to fire him and eat the money owed, but his seat was warming.

 

[Toe Nash]

We aren't that far removed from Tito's ignominious departure and the Bobby V disaster. Canning Farrell less than a season and a half after winning the World Series would do long-term damage to the FO's ability to attract managerial and coaching talent. 

No way. There are only 30 MLB manager / hitting coach / bench coach / etc jobs, and even of these, the Red Sox have to be among the most prestigious. Moreover, there are only a handful of openings every year. There are lots of potentially good managers out there and the Sox would have no issue getting one if they fired Farrell.
 
I am agnostic on whether it's a good decision, but being worried about finding a replacement shouldn't even be a consideration.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I've seen bad baserunners make bad baserunning mistakes. Every year SoSH complains about the baserunning as if bad baserunners magically get better at baserunning. Guess what, Pedroia is going to try stretch that single into a double and get thrown out mid-swim move because that's who he is. A sit down isn't going to fix this.
 
Why are you lumping in the entire coaching staff into what clearly falls on Chili's lap?
 
You still haven't answered my question. 

 
I'm not really sure how else to answer it.  Problems seems to linger instead of being addressed.  Generally poor play.  Yes, Chili is the hitting coach but does that mean Farrell has zero responsibility?  If that's the case, what is he responsible for then?  I basically agree with Mauf's last comment- he inspires very little confidence, however I don't think he should be fired mid-season barring catastrophe. 

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I remember it more being posturing by the Jays, because the Sox were a division rival. The Jays weren't going to fire him and eat the money owed, but his seat was warming.

Well .. The Jays FO was, shall we say, ambivalent about his tenure there. They were perfectly willing to let him go into the 2013 season on a one year contract. They could easily have stifled the Sox interest with a contract extension. As Muzzy said there was a lot of posturing from the Front Office but ultimately I don't think they cared. As far as media/fans were concerned I think they had the same view of him as a tactically challenged manager who spoke in full sentences and always said the right thing. That is the fans only cared because it cast the Jays as a mere farm system appendage of a big market team. Something Toronto is very sensitive about - and not just in baseball.

 

[cannonball 1729]

Well .. The Jays FO was, shall we say, ambivalent about his tenure there. They were perfectly willing to let him go into the 2013 season on a one year contract. They could easily have stifled the Sox interest with a contract extension. As Muzzy said there was a lot of posturing from the Front Office but ultimately I don't think they cared. As far as media/fans were concerned I think they had the same view of him as a tactically challenged manager who spoke in full sentences and always said the right thing. That is the fans only cared because it cast the Jays as a mere farm system appendage of a big market team. Something Toronto is very sensitive about - and not just in baseball.

 
Yeah, Farrell's tenure in Toronto wasn't exactly a success.  His 2012 season was Toronto's worst in the last decade, and reports were that he'd lost respect and control in the clubhouse, punctuated in September by a weird incident where Yuni Escobar took the field with a gay slur (in Spanish) written across his eye black.  I don't think Farrell would have been as freely available if the Blue Jays hadn't been interested in moving on.
 
Edit: Wrong Yuni.

 

[Laser Show]

 
Yeah, Farrell's tenure in Toronto wasn't exactly a success.  His 2012 season was Toronto's worst in the last decade, and reports were that he'd lost respect and control in the clubhouse, punctuated in September by a weird incident where Yuni Betancourt took the field with a gay slur (in Spanish) written across his eye black.  I don't think Farrell would have been as freely available if the Blue Jays hadn't been interested in moving on.

Just a nitpick, it was Yunel Escobar.

Betancourt was the furthest thing from offensive.

 

[cannonball 1729]

Just a nitpick, it was Yunel Escobar.
Betancourt was the furthest thing from offensive.

 
Bah - you're right.

 

[Al Zarilla]

So, the last few posts beg the question of why the Red Sox wanted him so much if he was failing in Toronto. I know, it's all moot because we got him, 2013 happened, and he's probably as safe as Henry says Ben C. is. Well, I hope he's not the Sox manager for a very long time.

 

[strek1]

I wonder if they don't want to turn into the 1980's MFY by firing managers on a regular basis.   They dumped Francona and Valentine and perhaps they regret bailing on Francona. 
 
I'm not sure the manager can "make" players play smart if they don't have it in them to begin with.  Maybe in the old days when guys like Billy Martin would kick ass, they would be scared to screw up but the world is a different place now.  And if you try to be aggressive and it doesn't work out you can look dumber than you really are.

 

[MuzzyField]

I just don't buy into Farrell being anything close to special.
Farrell's career winning percentage as a manager is the same as John Gibbons (.492) and includes going 32-games over .500 in 2013. Another week like the one we just experienced (1-6) and he'll have pissed away his 2013 victory cushion and be .500 with the Sox.

 

[Remagellan]

I'm fine with keeping Farrell, but we never should have parted ways with Tito.   The organization should have been smart enough to ignore the whole "beer and chicken" BS that the media was spreading that season.  

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm fine with keeping Farrell, but we never should have parted ways with Tito.   The organization should have been smart enough to ignore the whole "beer and chicken" BS that the media was spreading that season.  

Didn't it also come out that Tito had some prescription drugs dependency? Not that that kind of thing cannot be dealt with, but maybe the FO felt the two things (chicken and beer the other one) warranted a change. I agree with you that I wish Tito was still managing the Sox. He's special. 

 

[Revkeith]

Didn't it also come out that Tito had some prescription drugs dependency? Not that that kind of thing cannot be dealt with, but maybe the FO felt the two things (chicken and beer the other one) warranted a change. I agree with you that I wish Tito was still managing the Sox. He's special. 

IIRC, that was a heavily-disputed Boston Globe report, and nobody's quite sure how much merit it actually had. I remember CHB getting on local radio here (Seattle), and the first question he was asked was about that. CHB proceeded to act like he and his employer were beyond reproach, and in juvenile fashion, gave 1 or 2 word responses to every question thereafter.

 

[AimingForYoko]

Didn't it also come out that Tito had some prescription drugs dependency? Not that that kind of thing cannot be dealt with, but maybe the FO felt the two things (chicken and beer the other one) warranted a change. I agree with you that I wish Tito was still managing the Sox. He's special. 

If by "come out" you mean planted and reinforced by the Sox FO and their cronies then yeah it absolutely "came out."

Sorry, I just found and continue to find the goings-on around Tito's firing to be utterly distasteful. It was not necessary.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Has Farrell done anything boneheaded outside of picthing to Cruz?

Pinch running for Papi in the 7th inning of a one run game, inevitably leading to Whateverhisnamewas Jimenez having to bat in Papi's spot in the 9th of a one-run game

 

[nattysez]

Farrell's staying. From ESPN:

Nonetheless, Henry said he has not wavered in his support of Cherington and Farrell.

"Why do I believe that?" he said. "Because I have worked with a lot of people over the years, and these are two people I really like working with, respect their commitment, I believe they're very good at what they do.

"John has provided the kind of leadership that we need through a really tough period. I just don't think you can blame management for this. I've watched these games. They've been painful games to watch. To me, it's not the manager's fault, the way we've been playing. I just don't see that."

http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/13000755/john-henry-boston-red-sox-owner-supports-general-manager-ben-cherington-manager-john-farrell

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

So, the last few posts beg the question of why the Red Sox wanted him so much if he was failing in Toronto. I know, it's all moot because we got him, 2013 happened, and he's probably as safe as Henry says Ben C. is. Well, I hope he's not the Sox manager for a very long time.

I always kinda felt they got tunnel vision on him.  They wished he hadn't left, wanted him after Tito left but couldn't get him, then by the time it came to get rid of Valentine they were so desperate they didn't really look at the job he'd done the past two seasons.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Farrell's staying. From ESPN:

Nonetheless, Henry said he has not wavered in his support of Cherington and Farrell.

"Why do I believe that?" he said. "Because I have worked with a lot of people over the years, and these are two people I really like working with, respect their commitment, I believe they're very good at what they do.

"John has provided the kind of leadership that we need through a really tough period. I just don't think you can blame management for this. I've watched these games. They've been painful games to watch. To me, it's not the manager's fault, the way we've been playing. I just don't see that."

http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/13000755/john-henry-boston-red-sox-owner-supports-general-manager-ben-cherington-manager-john-farrell

 
The dreaded vote of confidence from the ownership.  That's never a good sign.  If the owner feels compelled to speak, that means he's thinking about it.
 
I've never been sold on Farrell's abilities as a manager, particularly all the lip-service he gives to being "aggressive" on the basepaths.  Whether it was in Toronto or in Boston, his teams seem to run into more outs than the average (I'm only speaking anecdotally, I don't have data to back that up).  It worked out well tonight, but a hit and run with Sandoval running and Napoli at the plate doesn't exactly scream wise, nor does having Sandoval running on contact from third when the infield is in with less than two outs (and that definitely failed).  I only mention those since they're fresh in mind.  There are many more.  There's smart aggressive baserunning and then there's aggressive for the sake of aggressive.  Farrell seems to want his players being aggressive for the sake of aggressive, to their detriment IMO.

 

[barbed wire Bob]

Didn't it also come out that Tito had some prescription drugs dependency? Not that that kind of thing cannot be dealt with, but maybe the FO felt the two things (chicken and beer the other one) warranted a change. I agree with you that I wish Tito was still managing the Sox. He's special. 

 
Fwiw, Terry Francona's  win-loss % over 15 years is 0.531.
 
 
Phillies: 4 years  .440
Red Sox: 7 years .574
Indians: 3 years  .537
 

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

And Farrell's is .492.

 

[barbed wire Bob]

And Farrell's is .492.

Tito averaged .472 over his first five years as a manager and that included 2004 where his win loss % was .605. Does this mean Farrell was better manager over their respective first five years? IMO no. The stat probably says more about roster construction than it does about manager abilities.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

From a FanGraphs chat:
 
Paul Swydan: I said the Sox in the beginning of the year and I’ll stick with them, since their biggest problem is themselves. Maybe Farrell will even learn how to tactically manage a baseball game. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

[cannonball 1729]

I always kinda felt they got tunnel vision on him.  They wished he hadn't left, wanted him after Tito left but couldn't get him, then by the time it came to get rid of Valentine they were so desperate they didn't really look at the job he'd done the past two seasons.

 
Yep.  I think Valentine was supposed to be a two-year stopgap until Farrell's contract with the Blue Jays was up.  It's just that Bobby V forced the Sox hand by being so terrible.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

:smithicide:

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Just curious, if you think he should be fired (and I'm not for it but I don't think it's an absurd idea), who do you replace him with?  Alex Cora?  Varitek?  Reach out to LaRussa or Leyland?  Those are some of the names I've seen on Twitter and heard on talk radio.  
 
Yes, I feel dirty for saying "names on Twitter and talk radio".  Just interested in who you think might be a worthy candidate.  

 

[nattysez]

Just curious, if you think he should be fired (and I'm not for it but I don't think it's an absurd idea), who do you replace him with?  Alex Cora?  Varitek?  Reach out to LaRussa or Leyland?  Those are some of the names I've seen on Twitter and heard on talk radio.  
 
Yes, I feel dirty for saying "names on Twitter and talk radio".  Just interested in who you think might be a worthy candidate.  

 
Give Arnie Beyeler a shot for the rest of the year.  If he doesn't impress, I'd consider Ron Wotus and Rick Renteria.

 

[Rasputin]

I don't think firing the manager is warranted.

Sometimes he does stuff that bugs the piss out of me, but the players play hard, we don't hear about locker room bullshit, her deals with the media pretty well.

Sometimes he does things on the field that seem ass backwards but that's the last part of the job.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It's only last because you listed it as such. A manager can't win a lot of games, but he can sure as hell lose a lot. And the ass backwards shit isn't helping this team out right now, when its compounded with what is seemingly 2/3 years of underperformance by a large portion of the roster.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Castillo has had 26 ground balls out of 38 balls in play.

A double play mean they need a hit (after a grand total of 5) to tie the game.

A successful bunt gives Ortiz a chance to hit a fly ball (tie game), a base hit with the infield in (2 runs) or a walk. At worst, Napoli comes up with 2 in scoring position. To say that decision was unjustifiable, given the team's recent performance, and having Tazawa and Koji available, seems extreme.

There's so much bitterness over these losses when 99% of it has to do with player performance or luck. Not getting a bunt down is performance (as is a shitload of ground balls or not hitting a lh pitcher, or swinging through strikes)

Orioles, coming down from last year, are virtually tied with Farrell's Sox. So it must be Showalter? Nope.

 

[rembrat]

Why was this thread bumped?

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

I don't think firing the manager is warranted.

Sometimes he does stuff that bugs the piss out of me, but the players play hard, we don't hear about locker room bullshit, her deals with the media pretty well.

Sometimes he does things on the field that seem ass backwards but that's the last part of the job.

Managing the team is the last part of the job of a manager?

 

[lexrageorge]

You're in the 8th inning; scoring one run has fairly significant impact on the win probabilities.  Calling the bunt wasn't the problem.  The problem was Castillo flubbing it, and then Ortiz and Napoli weakly striking out with the tying run in scoring position.  Sometimes it's on the players, and this was indisputably one of those times.  The manager is just the easier target.