Should Farrell's Seat Start To Be Getting A Little Warm?

[Papo The Snow Tiger]

The Red Sox won the World Series last year. John Farrell, rightfully so, got a lot of credit for it. This year, to put it in uncertain terms, the team sucks. A lot. Sucks is not a strong enough term to describe this season. The blame may lie with the players, but the team looked unready for the season coming out of spring training, and that's on the manager
. How much longer will it go before shit starts flowing uphill and Farrell gets some of the blame?

 

[MakMan44]

I doubt it. Even if you assign him 90% of the blame, I think the WS last season buys him at least the 2015 season before any action would be taken. 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

He can get some of the blame now.  Everyone shares in this.
 
But his seat won't be warm at all this season, and it shouldn't.

 

[Byrdbrain]

If we are still seeing this crap this time next year you will start to hear murmurs.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

And you probably should spell his name right in the thread title

 

[soxhop411]

No..  We just won the WS last year

 

[Plympton91]

I think we learned over and over again over the past decade that the most important job of a manager is getting his players to give 100 percent for him. There's no evidence that these guys have stopped respecting Farrell, and therefore there's no reason to even consider replacing him at this point. Give him a team where he doesn't have to consistently post lineups resemble mid-March road games in Florida and his deficiencies at managing an offense won't be as glaring.

Less controversially, maybe they should give him a team that matches his tendencies. For instance, everybody knows that he likes to be aggressive on the bases, and they constructed a team that is slower and less capable of playing that style than any in the past decade, even as evidence is mounting that the ability to manufacture runs is reemerging as an important aspect of the game.

 

[soxhop411]

I doubt it. Even if you assign him 90% of the blame, I think the WS last season buys him at least the 2015 season before any action would be taken. 

Also this. I would think the list of managers fired after the team won a WS the previous year is very small...

 

[jsinger121]

Not yet. The talent on this team stinks. He continues to play 10 million in dead weight at shortstop so there should be some blame there but more blame on Cherington for the team he constructed and the money wasted on shitty players in Drew, Sizemore and Capuano.

 

[Papo The Snow Tiger]

And you probably should spell his name right in the thread title

Sorry, I thought I had the second L. That's what I get for not proof reading before I post.

 

[Bone Chips]

I've never been too crazy about Farrell's in game managing, but in my book he is a top flight manager of people and a very good leader. After winning it all last year he gets a pass on 2014, as does the front office.

 

[Kliq]

Farrell is a pitching guy, and pitching hasn't really been the problem for the Sox. The silent lineup has been. Given the drama that has unfolded with Colburnn, I don't know how much of the blame Farrell can receive. And I agree with everyone else above, he can't step up to the plate for guys like Xander, Drew, Bradley, Nava, Gomes etc. Those are the guys he has right now.

 

[SumnerH]

The Red Sox won the World Series last year. John Farrell, rightfully so, got a lot of credit for it. This year, to put it in uncertain terms, the team sucks. A lot. Sucks is not a strong enough term to describe this season. The blame may lie with the players, but the team looked unready for the season coming out of spring training, and that's on the manager
. How much longer will it go before shit starts flowing uphill and Farrell gets some of the blame?

Managers take way too much blame for down years and get too much credit for good ones. Farrell would have several years and some sign of idiocy before I even considered ditching him, but I'd also have happily kept Tito much longer than they did. The main thing I want from a manager is not sucking, and neither of them suck.

 

[Hoplite]

I wouldn't say so. His in-game managing sucks, but I can't remember a time when he created a controversy with the media and that's pretty valuable on a team like the Red Sox.

 

[MakMan44]

I wouldn't say so. His in-game managing sucks, but I can't remember a time when he created a controversy with the media and that's pretty valuable on a team like the Red Sox.

This is a good point as well. Even though the Sox are playing about as poorly as second half 2012, at least Farrell isn't making things worse like Bobby V.

 

[Rasputin]

Unless you think Tito's coming back, no.

 

[teddywingman]

I think he's an interesting case--a great club house manager--though much different from Tito.
But when it comes to in-game managing; I really think he is one of the worst I've ever seen.

Last year's team winning the WS was astonishing for many reasons, one of which was the brutal decisions that JF seemed to be making with incredible frequency.

Yet his players came though again and again. Makes a point for those that don't take much stock in the value of in-game managing.

 

[bosockboy]

Not totally specific to Farrell, but I think the biggest question the front office faces--do they view this team as a team that won last year's World Series, or one who will not make the playoffs in 4 out of 5 seasons (with two likely 90 loss seasons).  They have had such incredible extremes since 2011, that it would seem difficult to judge performance of a manager or front office.

 

[rembrat]

John Farrell is so their guy it's not even funny. He'll get a chance to fulfill his current contract then they'll re-sign him to a new contract.

 

[twibnotes]

John Farrell is so their guy it's not even funny. He'll get a chance to fulfill his current contract then they'll re-sign him to a new contract.

I hope you're right bc that will mean the Sox are winning a lot of games. If the team strings together a couple ugly seasons, it won't matter that Farrell is "their guy" - he'll be gone.

 

[strek1]

Nope, not til next year.

 

[Hoplite]

John Farrell is so their guy it's not even funny. He'll get a chance to fulfill his current contract then they'll re-sign him to a new contract.

 
I think you're right. I don't think it was a coincidence that Valentine's contract coincided with when Farrell's Blue Jays contract would run out.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

They should fire Farrell now and hire Bobby Valentine to manage the rest of the season. 
 
Then fire Valentine again after the season and re-hire Farrell. The players will be so happy with Farrell replacing Valentine that they will have a fantastic year and win the World Series. 
 
There is a proven track record of this working. Plus, we would get to see Valentine fired again, so it's pretty much win-win. And win-win would be one more win than the Red Sox have come up with on the field this week.

 

[Rasputin]

I think he's an interesting case--a great club house manager--though much different from Tito.
But when it comes to in-game managing; I really think he is one of the worst I've ever seen

Do you remember Butch Hobson?

Also, for as many maddening things he does, we need to remember two things. Managing the people is more important than the tactical decisions and he has at least some information that we are not privy to.

 

[Brand Name]

Yeah, there's definitely more than one L in Farrell. It would make more sense to give him an extra L, not one less (or is it fewer?).

 
Going forward, with the way this season is turning out, he needs as few Ls as possible.

 

[teddywingman]

Do you remember Butch Hobson?

Also, for as many maddening things he does, we need to remember two things. Managing the people is more important than the tactical decisions and he has at least some information that we are not privy to.

I remember Butch, but as a 14 yr old kid--more involved with my own baseball games.

I tend to agree that good managing is more about creating a positive work environment. But that doesn't mean that bad game decisions are meaningless.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Is this a game thread?

Name me more than a handful of managers that have substantially impacted their team's standings. Back it up.

I'll start: Bobby Valentine. You can pick it up from there.

Baseball is probably the least X's and O's sport in the majors. It's 162 games of boredom, repetition and travel. Players having good years do better than players having bad years. Healthy players do better than injured players.

Stating the obvious? You bet. It's not rocket science...although calling for the manager's head on a losing team's soundboard is.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

Yes, let's can him right before he manages the All Star Game. 

 

[LondonSox]

He took over a pretty disfunctional last place team and won the world series LAST YEAR.....

What?

To the critics of red sox fans and their constant complaining I give you exhibit a.

 

[threecy]

The Red Sox won the World Series last year. John Farrell, rightfully so, got a lot of credit for it. This year, to put it in uncertain terms, the team sucks. A lot. Sucks is not a strong enough term to describe this season. The blame may lie with the players, but the team looked unready for the season coming out of spring training, and that's on the manager
. How much longer will it go before shit starts flowing uphill and Farrell gets some of the blame?

Somebody contact one of the Dopes...it appears Bobby V has hacked an account and figured out how to post.

 

[BosRedSox5]

Managers take way too much blame for down years and get too much credit for good ones. Farrell would have several years and some sign of idiocy before I even considered ditching him, but I'd also have happily kept Tito much longer than they did. The main thing I want from a manager is not sucking, and neither of them suck.

 
Yup. I can't remember the exact quote, but I remember Roy Neyer saying something to the effect of "Managers have as much to do with the outcome of a game as the hot dog vendor." Surely they do a lot of preparation and they work with players in practice but in my opinion, their primary job is to handle the media, which Farrell does pretty well. Any one of us could set the lineups and assign a rotation and we'd probably have similar results. 

Managing a baseball team isn't like being a head coach in football. They don't really have as much to do with wins and losses. As long as Farrell has the respect of the team and handles the media well, he should stick around. Though I'd like to see him stop bunting. 

 

[someoneanywhere]

Warm only because he is safely, snugly in occupation of it. I'd go so far to argue that he is among the safest managers in the big leagues, if not the safest: not just because he's coming off a title, but because he's about as integrated and integral to the long term planning and vision of the franchise as anyone in the organization.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I say yes.  The team was listless from the beginning and seemed to be caught up in way too much 2014 celebration.   Farrell then kept up his stupid base running foibles, and even Neyer would concede that if you remove a baserunner (or two) from a game, that's going to have an impact.  
 
While I can't blame Farrell, per se, it seems to me that managers have greater impact early on in the season, both in terms of managing workload and getting the team "ready," and in the personnel choices made.  At the very least Farrell is part of the crew (including Ben) who decided to play Grady for so long.  
 
Ultimately, perhaps, given the injuries, etc.  we'd still fall out of contention, but would have later in the season.   Perhaps failing early is a good thing, since it clears the second half of the season for development.  Still, it was Farrell's ship to sail, and he hit the rocks with it. 

 

[lexrageorge]

Every team, every manager will go through a season such as this one.  So, despite all the problems, Farrell's job should be comfortably secure next season.  The problems this season go far beyond Grady Sizemore and his playing time.  The reality is that he took a team with a very uncertain outlook and guided them to a World Series title.  That gives the manager some leeway for a down season.  
 
I tend to agree that the primary job of the manager is to keep the team off the gossip pages, and Farrell has done that (Shank's tired rehashing of Ortiz's "positive" drug test notwithstanding).  It will now be Farrell's job to work some of the younger kids into the lineup and help evaluate what we have going into the offseason.  He's earned the opportunity to do just that.  

 

[glennhoffmania]

Is this a game thread?

Name me more than a handful of managers that have substantially impacted their team's standings. Back it up.

I'll start: Bobby Valentine. You can pick it up from there.

Baseball is probably the least X's and O's sport in the majors. It's 162 games of boredom, repetition and travel. Players having good years do better than players having bad years. Healthy players do better than injured players.

Stating the obvious? You bet. It's not rocket science...although calling for the manager's head on a losing team's soundboard is.

 
Then why do teams spend millions of dollars on coaching when they could pull anyone off the street for minimum salaries and put that money to better use?

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Then why do teams spend millions of dollars on coaching when they could pull anyone off the street for minimum salaries and put that money to better use?

To add, why did the team with arguably more talent bomb with BV and win the World Series a year later with Farrell? How about '03-'04 Little to Francona?

 

[metaprosthesis]

 
Then why do teams spend millions of dollars on coaching when they could pull anyone off the street for minimum salaries and put that money to better use?

 
 

To add, why did the team with arguably more talent bomb with BV and win the World Series a year later with Farrell? How about '03-'04 Little to Francona?

 
The answer to both of these questions was provided earlier.  The manager needs to be someone that is respected by the players in order to be an effective guide to those players.  They aren't likely to trust the guidance of some guy off the street because that person is unlikely to have experience competing at the top level of the sport.  Evidence suggests that they also aren't willing to trust the guidance of a self-important blowhard who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and doesn't hide that belief.  There was at least mention of this loss of respect in guidance in Francona's exit, too, though it was overshadowed by foodstuffs that make for "good" headlines.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
 
The answer to both of these questions was provided earlier.  The manager needs to be someone that is respected by the players in order to be an effective guide to those players.  They aren't likely to trust the guidance of some guy off the street because that person is unlikely to have experience competing at the top level of the sport.  Evidence suggests that they also aren't willing to trust the guidance of a self-important blowhard who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and doesn't hide that belief.  There was at least mention of this loss of respect in guidance in Francona's exit, too, though it was overshadowed by foodstuffs that make for "good" headlines.

 
I don't think either of the posts you quoted dispute this.  We were responding to a post that claimed that the manager has little effect on the performance of the team.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

How about '03-'04 Little to Francona?
 

I know this isn't your point, but Posada's bloop is a little shorter or a little further and maybe 03 is a winner, and then in 04 if Tony Clark's ball isn't a ground rule double or the umps don't make the A-Rod purse slap call (or Bellhorn HR in left call) and that's a different game.
 
I think Farrell is a terrible in game manager but I don't think it's cut and dry in most cases.
 
But Grady Little, for all his abilities in managing people, was the worst manager I have ever seen.

The day night double header where I believe Lowe pitched one game and Burkett the other and he played Baerga, his atrophying 2B in the game with the GB pitcher and Rey Sanchez, his glove guy, in the game with the FB pitcher.
 
Or the extra inning game with St Louis where I believe he brought Mike Myers in to face a bunch of righties - the same Mike Myers who the average right handed hitter was Albert Pujols (at that time) against.
 
Sorry, this is a Farrell thread. But Grady Little was a full mental midget who shouldn't even be brought into a post like this.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I know this isn't your point, but Posada's bloop is a little shorter or a little further and maybe 03 is a winner, and then in 04 if Tony Clark's ball isn't a ground rule double or the umps don't make the A-Rod purse slap call (or Bellhorn HR in left call) and that's a different game.
 
I think Farrell is a terrible in game manager but I don't think it's cut and dry in most cases.
 
But Grady Little, for all his abilities in managing people, was the worst manager I have ever seen.

The day night double header where I believe Lowe pitched one game and Burkett the other and he played Baerga, his atrophying 2B in the game with the GB pitcher and Rey Sanchez, his glove guy, in the game with the FB pitcher.
 
Or the extra inning game with St Louis where I believe he brought Mike Myers in to face a bunch of righties - the same Mike Myers who the average right handed hitter was Albert Pujols (at that time) against.
 
Sorry, this is a Farrell thread. But Grady Little was a full mental midget who shouldn't even be brought into a post like this.

So his decisions effected the outcomes of games. That's the point.

 

[TomRicardo]

I mean not many managers are going to get that much heat a year after they win the world series for a team drastically underperforming offensively after their hitting coach has a brain hemorrhage.
 
Edit - Especially a team loaded with rookies.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

So his decisions effected the outcomes of games. That's the point.
 

Actually they swept the doubleheader. He's still an a-hole.
 
And Francona isn't the 2004 hero unless a lot of things go their way.
 
I would say Farrell guided what a year later looks like an above average team into a WS. Pretty damn good.

 

[metaprosthesis]

 
I don't think either of the posts you quoted dispute this.  We were responding to a post that claimed that the manager has little effect on the performance of the team.

 
Yeah, my bad.  I guess I was really responding to the same thing you were.  Basically, the job may not be rocket science, but it's not the case that anyone can do it effectively.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Is this a game thread?

Name me more than a handful of managers that have substantially impacted their team's standings. Back it up.

I'll start: Bobby Valentine. You can pick it up from there.

Baseball is probably the least X's and O's sport in the majors. It's 162 games of boredom, repetition and travel. Players having good years do better than players having bad years. Healthy players do better than injured players.

Stating the obvious? You bet. It's not rocket science...although calling for the manager's head on a losing team's soundboard is.

 
To extend off this idea, it's pretty obvious that managers can lose games via bad decisions - we've all seen this happen.  Farrell might be most suspect in trying to steal extra outs from his starters, next most suspect in sending base runners, next most in stupid bunting. 
 
I'm sure managers can affect player performance over the long haul of a season by fostering whatever leads to a high performance environment for the particular squad they're given.  Conversely, they can turn it into a shitshow environment.  I'm sure different groups of guys/teams respond differently to hands-on v. cheerleading v. high energy v. laid back managers.  (And by "managers" I mean both the managers and the various coaches they hire and supervise.)
 
With the exception of some of the in-game decisions, the managerial effect on player output might be hard to quantify, but the effects are anecdotally there and would align with just about every other study that suggests the style and kind of workplace supervision can increase or decrease productivity.  Sure we have to make the leap that an environment can affect on-field performance, but it's a very small one to make.  How many players do well or poorly after just a trade to a new club in the same league?  
 
***
Conversely, if there really was no managerial effect at all, we should all support the "manager for a day" idea in which the Sox auction off the ability to manage the team for a single game.  We could then use the money to sign all the FAs on the market this winter. 

 

[lexrageorge]

There is one aspect of a manager's job that is being overlooked here, and that is the importance of managing for the "long haul".  As much as we want to see the best batter/pitcher matchup in every inning of every game, the reality is that doing so is not feasible given the marathon that is the baseball season.  There are very few Ripkens, so most players do need "maintenance days" for various reasons, many of which are not necessarily disclosed to us fans.  The result is the occasional attempt to "steal an out", or the random lefty hitter going against a LOOGY in a late inning situation.  
 
We can all remember the "playoff Tito" vs "regular season Tito" discussions, and the same appears to apply to Farrell as well.  
 
As to the in-game managing, if you look at the game threads during the Rays-Sox series, you will see that The Great Joe Maddon often makes similar "mistakes" during a game.  Which tells me there could be a lot more to a specific in-game decision than we are privy to while sitting in front of the 72 inch screen. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

So let's stop talking about touchy-feely stuff. Here's a list of teams that are either 75 points better than this time last year, or 75 points worse. Please advise which managers should be fired and which should get raises:
 
Worse (managed by idiots? Or unlucky...):
 
1. Rangers
2. Red Sox
3. Rays
4. Diamondbacks
5, Cardinals
6. Pirates
 
Better (managed by geniuses? Or lucky...):
 
1. Brewers
2. Marlins
3. Mariners
4. Angels
5. Giants
6. White Sox
 
Which managers would you fire? Which ones do you think are really good at what they do?
 
Of particular note to me are the Giants (a WS team that seems to go up and down) and the Cardinals (a WS team that can no longer hit)

 

[Rovin Romine]

So let's stop talking about touchy-feely stuff. Here's a list of teams that are either 75 points better than this time last year, or 75 points worse. Please advise which managers should be fired and which should get raises:
 
 

 
Sure.  Where's your hard data that demonstrates that ML managers have no effect on the outcomes of games?

 

[rembrat]

The absence of a WAR like stat for managers? 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
Sure.  Where's your hard data that demonstrates that ML managers have no effect on the outcomes of games?

 
I don't claim that.
 
My point is that those calling for the firing of any manager should base at least the major portion of their opinion on substance, including a cause/effect on the team's overall performance, and not their performance in a couple of games or series. The teams listed have all had dramatic changes in performance over a period of 1 year. Why?
 
Edit: Obviously I'm a fan of Farrell. I was not ultimately a fan of Valentine, so I'm being a bit disingenuous here because I'd have trouble causing/effecting how shitty Valentine was. I wonder how many people are calling for Matheney's firing, or called for Bochy's firing last year, and how much of it is frustration versus reality.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I don't claim that.
 
My point is that those calling for the firing of any manager should base at least the major portion of their opinion on substance, including a cause/effect on the team's overall performance, and not their performance in a couple of games or series. The teams listed have all had dramatic changes in performance over a period of 1 year. Why?

 
Ah, I misread you then.  I completely agree.