John Farrell: Not on the Hot Seat

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This is how the Sox 'finish' prospects.

 
Would you please stop with the zero effort, zero content posting?
 
1. Castillo was never really a prospect. He was signed as a 27 year old.
2. What is the right way to "finish" prospects?
3. Bogaerts, Betts, Bradley and Swihart have all been handled differently because the team does not have on development path that they shove all players into. They react to each individual player specifically.

 

[MuzzyField]

Really.? Play him or send him down to make up for 'lost time.' This isn't calculus.
And as for #3, Ben and 'brains' loved the glove of JBJ (me too) but he needed to go down and get his bat in order.
Rizzo is the only elite prospect in the recent past and I'm pretty confident.the current group in charge would have endured his SD call-up with a bus pass out of town.
He fact that the prospects are surrounded by a dysfunctional group of vets only adds to the current fun. After Pedroia, Brock Holt is the only other player I'd want the young guys spending any time with.

 

[MuzzyField]

Really.? Play him or send him down to make up for 'lost time.' This isn't calculus.
And as for #3, Ben and 'brains' loved the glove of JBJ (me too) but he needed to go down and get his bat in order. Because the MLB staff had no answers.
Rizzo is the only elite prospect in the recent past and I'm pretty confident.the current group in charge would have endured his SD call-up with a bus pass out of town.
He fact that the prospects are surrounded by a dysfunctional group of vets only adds to the current fun. After Pedroia, Brock Holt is the only other player I'd want the young guys spending any time with.

 

[soxhop411]

Really.? Play him or send him down to make up for 'lost time.' This isn't calculus.
And as for #3, Ben and 'brains' loved the glove of JBJ (me too) but he needed to go down and get his bat in order. Because the MLB staff had no answers.
Rizzo is the only elite prospect in the recent past and I'm pretty confident.the current group in charge would have endured his SD call-up with a bus pass out of town.
He fact that the prospects are surrounded by a dysfunctional group of vets only adds to the current fun. After Pedroia, Brock Holt is the only other player I'd want the young guys spending any time with.

Why are you quoting yourself?

 

[MuzzyField]

Yes, not intentionally, but I'm in a pool because Florida is melting.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Beginning to suspect a behavior issue.

 
 
I am beginning to think in practice he looks almost as clueless as Hanley in judging fly balls in either RF or LF.

 

[Plympton91]

 
 
I am beginning to think in practice he looks almost as clueless as Hanley in judging fly balls in either RF or LF.

So why not demote him to Pawtucket?

Either the manager or the GM is fucking up badly. Pick one.

 

[MuzzyField]

So why not demote him to Pawtucket?

Either the manager or the GM is fucking up badly. Pick one.

I think both of them are in the same boat.

 

[YTF]

In the spirit of the last two posts, are Ben and Farrell on the same page here? Do they both think it's beneficial for him to be on the team and not playing? Does Ben want him in the Majors and Farrell unwilling to play him? Is there a chance that both would rather he was in AAA and Castillo's in Boston because someone higher up in the front office wants him there? Like many I'm just trying to wrap my head around why he's riding the bench in Boston given the commitment that the team has made in both dollars and years. If he can't help THIS team, isn't in the organization's best interest send him down and play him every day? The eye test alone tells us that he could definitely benefit from the same type of development that you would invest in younger prospects. The Majors isn't traditionally the place for on the job training, at least not for a guy like Castillo.   

 

[Kramerica Industries]

Can someone explain to me the thought process behind having Mookie bunt in the 3rd inning with a man on 2nd and no outs?
 
Keep in mind Mookie homered in the game and was 15 for his last 24. I hate that they gave away an out in that spot.

 

[nattysez]

Can someone explain to me the thought process behind having Mookie bunt in the 3rd inning with a man on 2nd and no outs?
 
Keep in mind Mookie homered in the game and was 15 for his last 24. I hate that they gave away an out in that spot.

 
There were a couple of tweets from Boston writers that said that Farrell told them before the game that Mookie's been bunting on his own this season in order to try to bunt for hits and force third basemen to play more shallow out of fear of the bunt.  So I think it's likely he did it on his own.  Whether the manager should be letting one of the hottest hitters on the team bunt is a different question.

 

[derekson]

 
There were a couple of tweets from Boston writers that said that Farrell told them before the game that Mookie's been bunting on his own this season in order to try to bunt for hits and force third basemen to play more shallow out of fear of the bunt.  So I think it's likely he did it on his own.  Whether the manager should be letting one of the hottest hitters on the team bunt is a different question.

 
 
That bunt was not an attempt to bunt for a hit, it was 100% a sacrifice.
 
Did none of the press ask Farrell about that bunt in the post-game presser?

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Considering that a)the run ended up scoring anyway b)there were at least 3 more pressing issues to discuss (Porcello's sucking, the injuries; Ortiz ejection, ) c not a lot of time I can forgive the writers for not bringing it up this time.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Considering that a)the run ended up scoring anyway b)there were at least 3 more pressing issues to discuss (Porcello's sucking, the injuries; Ortiz ejection, ) c not a lot of time I can forgive the writers for not bringing it up this time.

That, and few if any of the regular beat guys are the types to recognize the absurdity of a sac bunt with a runner on second and no outs in the 3rd inning of a tie game regardless of who the batter is. So it probably never crossed any of their minds to ask in the first place.

 

[derekson]

Considering that a)the run ended up scoring anyway b)there were at least 3 more pressing issues to discuss (Porcello's sucking, the injuries; Ortiz ejection, ) c not a lot of time I can forgive the writers for not bringing it up this time.

 
Yes "the run" scored, because they played for one run and got that one run by bunting instead of trying for the big inning.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
 
That bunt was not an attempt to bunt for a hit, it was 100% a sacrifice.

 
What makes you so certain of this? Not being rhetorical or snarky--a bit skeptical, maybe, but curious.

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

Not to speak for him, but for me two things say it was a called sac bunt: One, it wasn't aimed down the first or third base line, but right at the pitcher.  You don't bunt straight out if you're trying for a hit.  And second, Betts offered a bunt at the pitch right before it.  If you're goal is surprise the infield, that was lost, and if your goal is to move the 3B in, that would've already been accomplished with the first attempt.  

 

[Byrdbrain]

Yeah it pretty clearly looked like a sacrifice, that doesn't mean he didn't do it on his own though.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Not to speak for him, but for me two things say it was a called sac bunt: One, it wasn't aimed down the first or third base line, but right at the pitcher.  You don't bunt straight out if you're trying for a hit.  And second, Betts offered a bunt at the pitch right before it.  If you're goal is surprise the infield, that was lost, and if your goal is to move the 3B in, that would've already been accomplished with the first attempt.  

 
It's possible he was trying to run it down one of the lines but just did a shitty job of it and it ended up going back to the pitcher. It's also possible that he squared to get the first and/or third baseman to hedge their positioning a bit, didn't see any adjustment and deiced to square up again because of that.
 
I'm not arguing it couldn't have been a called sacrifice, but I don't think these two points tell us enough to judge the play without more information.
 
Edit: I thought it would be useful to pull the video out so people can actually look at the bunt.
 

 

[Bigpupp]

FWIW, Remy said on the telecast today that Mookie bunted on his own.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Looking at the video it looks like he was trying to bunt for a hit down the 3B line but missed it. I wonder if the bunt attempt on the first didn't draw the 3B so he decided to bunt for a hit.

 

[pokey_reese]

 
It's possible he was trying to run it down one of the lines but just did a shitty job of it and it ended up going back to the pitcher. It's also possible that he squared to get the first and/or third baseman to hedge their positioning a bit, didn't see any adjustment and deiced to square up again because of that.
 
I'm not arguing it couldn't have been a called sacrifice, but I don't think these two points tell us enough to judge the play without more information.
 
Edit: I thought it would be useful to pull the video out so people can actually look at the bunt.
 

Thanks a lot for posting this. Very often in these discussions it's hard (for me at least), to call to mind the exact instance that is being dissected, especially something as nuanced as where a hitter was intending to direct the baseball. While having the video doesn't definitively tell us what he was trying to do, at least it allows us to see for sure what he did.

 

[Doctor G]

FWIW, Remy said on the telecast today that Mookie bunted on his own.

FWIW, Remy said on the telecast today that Mookie bunted on his own.

Farrell did walk over to talk to him in the dugout wfter the play.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Looking at the video it looks like he was trying to bunt for a hit down the 3B line but missed it. I wonder if the bunt attempt on the first didn't draw the 3B so he decided to bunt for a hit.

 
 
Funny, I thought he meant to push it toward first. Note the 1B was not charging on the play.

 

[nattysez]

That, and few if any of the regular beat guys are the types to recognize the absurdity of a sac bunt with a runner on second and no outs in the 3rd inning of a tie game regardless of who the batter is. So it probably never crossed any of their minds to ask in the first place.

 
I don't want to derail the thread, but I disagree.  In the tweet I linked to above, PeteAbe said that Betts should be told not to bunt, and Tim Britton seems smart enough to know that bunting there was a bad idea.  

 

[derekson]

Even if it was a trade for someone like Hamels who is under medium term control, making a move that qualifies as "buying" when you are out of contention doesn't make sense because the July trade deadline is almost always a seller's market, because supply is lower than the offseason (no free agents) and (especially now with 2 wild card spots) many teams fancy themselves contenders and are looking to upgrade. I won't say it never happens, but it's almost always going to be better to wait to retool in the offseason if you aren't interested in making a run down the stretch or improving your team for the playoffs.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

That, and few if any of the regular beat guys are the types to recognize the absurdity of a sac bunt with a runner on second and no outs in the 3rd inning of a tie game regardless of who the batter is. So it probably never crossed any of their minds to ask in the first place.

 
 
Is it really that absurd though? If you look at the breakdown by outcome, rather than just RE24, a sac bunt in that situation increases the offense's probability of scoring exactly 1 run, and decreases the offense's probability of scoring more than one run.
 
Its easy to say that Mookie is a fool for decreasing the team's chances of scoring multiple runs in an inning. Meanwhile, the team has scored 1 run or less in 15 games, and 2 runs or less in 26 games. Maybe there's something to be said for getting a runner across the plate? They don't come easy.

 

[derekson]

 
 
Is it really that absurd though? If you look at the breakdown by outcome, rather than just RE24, a sac bunt in that situation increases the offense's probability of scoring exactly 1 run, and decreases the offense's probability of scoring more than one run.
 
Its easy to say that Mookie is a fool for decreasing the team's chances of scoring multiple runs in an inning. Meanwhile, the team has scored 1 run or less in 15 games, and 2 runs or less in 26 games. Maybe there's something to be said for getting a runner across the plate? They don't come easy.

 
Shooting for one run makes sense if you have Pedro Martinez on the mound. It makes less sense to play for one run when you have Rick Porcello and his 5.5+ ERA on the hill.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
Shooting for one run makes sense if you have Pedro Martinez on the mound. It makes less sense to play for one run when you have Rick Porcello and his 5.5+ ERA on the hill.

That is a fair statement. And I'm not saying Betts SHOULD have bunted. If I were the coach I'd not have elected to advance the runner. But I do feel that this is the kind of context that gets lost in a ham-fisted application of run expectancy numbers.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Even if it was a trade for someone like Hamels who is under medium term control, making a move that qualifies as "buying" when you are out of contention doesn't make sense because the July trade deadline is almost always a seller's market, because supply is lower than the offseason (no free agents) and (especially now with 2 wild card spots) many teams fancy themselves contenders and are looking to upgrade. I won't say it never happens, but it's almost always going to be better to wait to retool in the offseason if you aren't interested in making a run down the stretch or improving your team for the playoffs.[/quotE
I think you were replying to the wrong thread. Anyway do you still think that the manager ordered a sac bunt in that instance? Seems to be a lot of evidenergy that Betts hunted on his own.

 

[ivanvamp]

It's difficult for me to really grasp FIP or other stats that show "true level of performance", because there's what "should" have happened, and there's what *DID* happen.  David Tyree never in a million years *should* have caught that ball.  But he did.  Bucky Dent never should have hit that homer over the monster off Torrez.  But he did. 
 
The rotation's six guys' ERA and FIP (from b-ref):
 
Buchholz:  2.82 FIP, 3.78 ERA (-0.96 difference)
Rodriguez:  3.45 FIP, 3.15 ERA (+0.30 difference)
Miley:  3.98 FIP, 4.50 ERA (-0.52 difference)
Porcello:  4.45 FIP, 5.61 ERA (-1.16 difference)
Kelly:  4.18 FIP, 5.67 ERA (-1.49 difference)
Masterson:  5.26 FIP, 6.37 ERA (-1.11 difference)
 
Everyone but Rodriguez (SSS and all) are WOEFULLY underperforming their FIP.  That is, taking things like babip into consideration, etc., it appears the Sox' starters are performing significantly better than their stats are showing.
 
But of course, the stats are what actually matter.  If a .210 hitter jacks one off a 98 mph Kelly fastball on the black, even if that "shouldn't" have happened, it DID happen.  So ERA tells us what has happened, FIP tells us what "should" have happened.  And the reality is, the Sox' starters have FIP numbers much, much better than their actual ERAs.
 
So should we be encouraged?  Discouraged?  Obviously the results aren't there.  But why?  Are the Sox' starters just all (except for Rodriguez) very, VERY unlucky this year?  

 

[johnnywayback]

It's difficult for me to really grasp FIP or other stats that show "true level of performance", because there's what "should" have happened, and there's what *DID* happen.  David Tyree never in a million years *should* have caught that ball.  But he did.  Bucky Dent never should have hit that homer over the monster off Torrez.  But he did. 
 
The rotation's six guys' ERA and FIP (from b-ref):
 
Buchholz:  2.82 FIP, 3.78 ERA (-0.96 difference)
Rodriguez:  3.45 FIP, 3.15 ERA (+0.30 difference)
Miley:  3.98 FIP, 4.50 ERA (-0.52 difference)
Porcello:  4.45 FIP, 5.61 ERA (-1.16 difference)
Kelly:  4.18 FIP, 5.67 ERA (-1.49 difference)
Masterson:  5.26 FIP, 6.37 ERA (-1.11 difference)
 
Everyone but Rodriguez (SSS and all) are WOEFULLY underperforming their FIP.  That is, taking things like babip into consideration, etc., it appears the Sox' starters are performing significantly better than their stats are showing.
 
But of course, the stats are what actually matter.  If a .210 hitter jacks one off a 98 mph Kelly fastball on the black, even if that "shouldn't" have happened, it DID happen.  So ERA tells us what has happened, FIP tells us what "should" have happened.  And the reality is, the Sox' starters have FIP numbers much, much better than their actual ERAs.
 
So should we be encouraged?  Discouraged?  Obviously the results aren't there.  But why?  Are the Sox' starters just all (except for Rodriguez) very, VERY unlucky this year?  

 
The point of these stats isn't to help us feel better or worse about what HAS happened, but to help us predict what is LIKELY to happen going forward.
 
So, yes, we should be encouraged, because it's likely that, should our pitchers continue to perform at the exact same talent level, they will get significantly better results.

 

[ivanvamp]

Then this suggests that the Sox should just keep the rotation as Rodriguez (3.45), Buchholz (2.82), Miley (3.98), Kelly (4.18), and Porcello (4.45), and that should be a pretty strong group actually.  
 
But does anyone believe that this really is that strong a group?  

 

[grimshaw]

This team has to get a clue divisionally based on the past 4 years - particularly vs. the O's, Jays and Yanks (they are one over vs the Rays).  I think it's a bigger indictment on the manager if you continually play poorly against teams you see so often. If you see the same arms over . . and over . . and over again, there should be adjustments.  Just like there should be better game plans from pitchers, bullpen match-ups, shifting etc.
 
vs. Orioles
2012 - 5-13
2013 - 8-11
2014 - 8-11
2015 - 3-8
= 24-43
 
vs.Jays
2012 - 7-11
2013 - 11-8
2014 - 7-12
2015 - 2-4
= 27-35
 
 
vs. NYY
2012 5-13
2013 13-6
2014 7-12
2015 2-4
=27-35
 
Including the World Series year, their record against those teams is 78-113.  Take that away and it's 46-88.  And 29-59 over the last year+

 

[Rovin Romine]

This team has to get a clue divisionally over the past 4 years - particularly the O's, Jays and Yanks (they are one over vs the Rays).  I think it's a bigger indictment on the manager on how you play against teams you see so often. If you see the same arms over . . and over . . and over again, there should be adjustments.  Just like there should be better game plans from pitchers, bullpen match-ups, shifting etc.

 
Agreed.  While I appreciate the "it's a marathon/stay the course/one day at a time/win each series" arguments, I always wondered why the Sox haven't addressed their games against their divisional opponents (especially the competitive ones) with a bit more more of a targeted approach - tweaking pitching matchup, etc.   Then again, both strategy and tactics don't appear to be Farrell's strong suit.  There's got to be a happy medium between micro managing and "hoping it will work out."

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I think if you add up most of the criticism in this thread and of the manager in general, the common theme is a perceived lack of urgency. 
 
With the 2004-2011 Tito teams, one of the things that many people lauded was that the team never got too up or too down. It was one game at a time. The past is past. We'll get 'em tomorrow. 
 
However, I think that can be translated two ways. 
 
1. One day at a time. Win today!
2. One day at a time. We'll get 'em tomorrow if not today. 
 
Obviously, this is squishy analysis at best, but it really seems like Farrell's interpretation, or the team's interpretation under him, has slid from Tito's #1 into his own #2. 
 
Further, we had demonstrations of "playoff Tito" that let us know he had an idea when to turn it on and off. With Farrell, we haven't had as large a sample size to judge "Playoff John." In 2013, a lot of questionable decisions turned into gold. Was that the team feeding off a sense of urgency, or a good string of luck/performance at the right time? Is what we're seeing now just horrible pitching/performances or a lack of motivation?
 
It's pretty hard to answer those questions. 
 
Does a "lack of urgency" explain a pitching staff with a 4.48 ERA, .6 runs higher than the average AL team? Or is rather just impossible to win when saddled with that kind of staff. Does "lack of urgency" maybe explain why 2-run innings seem to turn into 4- and 5-run innings for Boston starters? Does Farrell (and his coaching staff) not identify issues quickly enough and address them in the moment, but rather let them slide too far?
 
Regardless, something must be contributing to that perception and it's troubling. 

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Cuzittt calls for Farrell's dismissal over on the .com.
 
And in a related article, Dan Graulich looks at managerial changes to see if the team was better or worse off.

 

[garlan5]

I think if you add up most of the criticism in this thread and of the manager in general, the common theme is a perceived lack of urgency. 
 
With the 2004-2011 Tito teams, one of the things that many people lauded was that the team never got too up or too down. It was one game at a time. The past is past. We'll get 'em tomorrow. 
 
However, I think that can be translated two ways. 
 
1. One day at a time. Win today!
2. One day at a time. We'll get 'em tomorrow if not today. 
 
Obviously, this is squishy analysis at best, but it really seems like Farrell's interpretation, or the team's interpretation under him, has slid from Tito's #1 into his own #2. 
 
Further, we had demonstrations of "playoff Tito" that let us know he had an idea when to turn it on and off. With Farrell, we haven't had as large a sample size to judge "Playoff John." In 2013, a lot of questionable decisions turned into gold. Was that the team feeding off a sense of urgency, or a good string of luck/performance at the right time? Is what we're seeing now just horrible pitching/performances or a lack of motivation?
 
It's pretty hard to answer those questions. 
 
Does a "lack of urgency" explain a pitching staff with a 4.48 ERA, .6 runs higher than the average AL team? Or is rather just impossible to win when saddled with that kind of staff. Does "lack of urgency" maybe explain why 2-run innings seem to turn into 4- and 5-run innings for Boston starters? Does Farrell (and his coaching staff) not identify issues quickly enough and address them in the moment, but rather let them slide too far?
 
Regardless, something must be contributing to that perception and it's troubling. 

"playoff Tito" -  I really liked Tito and he was without a doubt a players manager and that's what that team needed during his tenure. They had the talent and the talent won the games moreso than "great managing". Tito is a lot like Farrell imho. I dont think either are the greatest tactical managers. Tito benefited greatly by leading a club of misfits.  Playoff tito probably had more to do with playoff tito's talented roster. 
 
"Playoff John." In 2013- honestly all of 2013 seemed unreal. From the begining of the season until the end it seemed as if it was just a team of destiny. It seemed like every game we won it was a nail biter and just epic. How many walk offs did we get that year anyway. It felt like once a week. I didn't really think that team would sustain that during the playoffs.  They just blew my mind to be honest.  I'm not saying it was "luck" but I'm starting to think it didnt have much to do with the managers decisions.  Maybe the managers attitude and demeanor allowed the guys to relax and enjoy baseball.  Reality set in last year

 

[Max Venerable]

Gotta say I think that Farrell has turned the corner in his management of this pitching staff, at least in-game.  Early in the season he was driving me crazy with too long of a hook, at this point he seems ready and willing to get Ogando or Tazawa involved early in the game much more often.  I like that he's leaning on those guys as much as he is, rather than trying to get cute with matchups for Layne, Breslow, etc.  Whether or not that is sustainable I can't say.  Exactly half way through the season, we are looking at a projected 70 innings each for Taz and Ogando, perhaps more if things tighten up and the Sox need to use them a lot during a pennant race.  That would be a career high in relief for both pitchers.
 
Could an alternative to getting a Hammels type to bump Kelly/Porcello down in the rotation (or out) be to look for another reliable bullpen arm?  One more of those to go with Ogando and Tazawa as a bridge to Uehara and I think we are looking at a legitimate strategy for the remainder of the season.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Well the way I look at it is Regular Season Tito and John knew full well that you couldn't (a) play pedal to the metal for the first 4 months and (b) you really need to find out what the roster can and can't do and that means letting people fail if necessary
 
With the Red Sox so far under .500, 2015 Farrell has no choice put to press on the accelerator earlier than he'd have liked and push for wins wherever possible, kind of like a semi-playoff Farrell. I think most managers of high profile teams would manage the same way. I don't watch the Giants, but I assume Bochy is not playing every game as a must-win since they sit pretty comfortably within range of the playoffs. Does anyone know if that's true?

 

[AB in DC]

What exactly does "pedal to the metal" and "press on the accelerator" mean when it comes to coaching?

 

[phenweigh]

I think it mostly means short hooks and abusing the pen.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Well the way I look at it is Regular Season Tito and John knew full well that you couldn't (a) play pedal to the metal for the first 4 months and (b) you really need to find out what the roster can and can't do and that means letting people fail if necessary
 
With the Red Sox so far under .500, 2015 Farrell has no choice put to press on the accelerator earlier than he'd have liked and push for wins wherever possible, kind of like a semi-playoff Farrell. I think most managers of high profile teams would manage the same way. I don't watch the Giants, but I assume Bochy is not playing every game as a must-win since they sit pretty comfortably within range of the playoffs. Does anyone know if that's true?

Bochy, with Righetti in his ear of course, seems to pull his starting pitchers when he should (not too early, not too late). He'll let Bumgarner get through an occasional bad inning, say in the fifth, without pulling him, or Vogelsong, who is tough and can get it back together. Lincecum, not so much. If he doesn't have it, it shows early, and he'll be out of there or pinch hit for by the fifth inning. Thing is, Bochy never has to think 'my half gassed starter might still be as good as some middle reliever I could put out there' because the Giants have had strong bullpens, very often including a good long man, during his tenure. I'd say Bochy gives his starters a chance, but doesn't let them hang themselves, but he does have the strong pen (except for the three games they just lost in Miami, oopsie). One other thing, Bochy, like other managers, looks at high stress innings with his starters. He'll give them one, maybe two, but that's it, with pitch count in the equation too (but not as much as with the Red Sox, I don't think). All that said, the Giants have just two more quality starts than the Red Sox., 42 - 40. How can that be, and the MLB leader is the Cardinals with 53? Maybe the Giants are pulling pitchers a bit early.
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching
 
Tough to answer your question, but Bochy manages every game to win, but there is nothing quite like the postseason (WS game 7 being the ultimate all hands on deck game of course). He just has the best pitching coach by his side (Duncan retired) which helps him look like an in game managing genius. 

 

[Plympton91]

It isn't really Farrell's fault, but that was a dumb use of the challenge. He was obviously safe. Someone needs to talk to the folks who advise Farrell on when to challenge. That was a bad bet.

 

[Darnell's Son]

After the seventh inning the crew chief can call for a review, and the manager can ask the crew chief to review it if he has no challenges. Obviously, the crew chief can tell him to get bent, but if it's close it can still be reviewed.