Gomes Vs. Nava

[marklmw]

Yeah, that's because he was basically a platoon player. You can't compare a platoon player with a full-time player straight-up and then claim superiority from the platoon guy. I don't care about the Nava vs. Gomes argument, because Nava has clearly been better, but let's not get carried away here.

 

My thinking is that Nava earned more AB's in the post season ... especially against RHP ... players need to play to have opportunity to increase their value.

[mvp 78]

And the bat boy is 7-4 ... there is no logic here.

 

The bat boy does not affect the game. Be somewhat reasonable here.

[mvp 78]

players need to play to have opportunity to increase their value.

 

This makes zero sense.

[marklmw]

The bat boy does not affect the game. Be somewhat reasonable here.

Be reasonable ... what is reasonable about batting a weaker hitter against RHP in the Tigers series ... what logic and reason is that?

[marklmw]

This makes zero sense.

 

Seriously? makes no sense that athletes are generally compensated for past performance ... this is fact

[sk7326]

My thinking is that Nava earned more AB's in the post season ... especially against RHP ... players need to play to have opportunity to increase their value.

 

The way neither have hit, it's hard to say ... but if you want some clues:

 

Wainwright: lefties .631, righties .639 ... OPS against

Wacha: lefties .493, righties .710 (but only 32 IP, so take with a giant block of salt)

Lynn: lefties .765, righties .652

Kelly: lefties .690, righties .696

Miller: lefties .761, righties .588

 

Rotation all righties, but doesn't mean there aren't splits. Nava will probably start against Lynn and if they want to deploy Shelby Miller (they haven't so far). Gomes could find his way into this series too - as there are not huge splits across the other starters, and Busch (in particular) is a pitcher's park with a lot of ground to cover.

[mvp 78]

Seriously? makes no sense that athletes are generally compensated for past performance ... this is fact

 

Huh? What does that have to do with "players need to play to increase their value?" What does this have to do with starting Nava over Gomes?

[mvp 78]

Be reasonable ... what is reasonable about batting a weaker hitter against RHP in the Tigers series ... what logic and reason is that?

 

Because only looking at batting negates Gomes' baserunning and defensive advantages.

[marklmw]

The way neither have hit, it's hard to say ... but if you want some clues:

 

Wainwright: lefties .631, righties .639 ... OPS against

Wacha: lefties .493, righties .710 (but only 32 IP, so take with a giant block of salt)

Lynn: lefties .765, righties .652

Kelly: lefties .690, righties .696

Miller: lefties .761, righties .588

 

Rotation all righties, but doesn't mean there aren't splits. Nava will probably start against Lynn and if they want to deploy Shelby Miller (they haven't so far). Gomes could find his way into this series too - as there are not huge splits across the other starters, and Busch (in particular) is a pitcher's park with a lot of ground to cover.

 

based on these numbers Nava should start against Wainwright and Gomes against Wacha.

[marklmw]

Because only looking at batting negates Gomes' baserunning and defensive advantages.

 

Need to get on base to run the bases and as far as playing LF they are comparable.

[marklmw]

Huh? What does that have to do with "players need to play to increase their value?" What does this have to do with starting Nava over Gomes?

 

It means that throughout the season Nava earned more AB's in the playoffs especially against RHP's

[sk7326]

based on these numbers Nava should start against Wainwright and Gomes against Wacha.

 

Well Wainwright and Kelly, you have to make more of a "stuff" based decision. Neither guy screams "play a lefty" or whatever. Lynn is probably where Navy will get a turn (and maybe Carp also). Wacha has a large split but only a small number of innings, and he has been dominant in the postseason.

 

Wainwright is fastball-slider-cutter mostly ... so Nava could work out there.

[marklmw]

Well Wainwright and Kelly, you have to make more of a "stuff" based decision. Neither guy screams "play a lefty" or whatever. Lynn is probably where Navy will get a turn (and maybe Carp also). Wacha has a large split but only a small number of innings, and he has been dominant in the postseason.

 

Wainwright is fastball-slider-cutter mostly ... so Nava could work out there.

 

Be sure to work both sides of the equation ... How pitches pitch against RHB or LHB and how hitters hit against RHP or LHP.

[Bellhorn04]

Farrell will not say so but I think he just has a lot more confidence in Gomes, including the ability to come up with the big hit. Which he did in Game 6 with the double off Scherzer that was a foot or two from being a game-tying home run.

[marklmw]

Farrell will not say so but I think he just has a lot more confidence in Gomes, including the ability to come up with the big hit. Which he did in Game 6 with the double off Scherzer that was a foot or two from being a game-tying home run.

 

In the end the only thing that matters is what Farrell thinks. As a fan I have the option to disagree with everything that Farrell thinks and does.

[Bellhorn04]

In the end the only thing that matters is what Farrell thinks. As a fan I have the option to disagree with everything that Farrell thinks and does.

 

Absolutely true.

[marklmw]

Absolutely true.

 

To be more clear ... I have the option to disagree with some of the things that Farrell does. Not given Nava AB's is one of them.

[Beaneater]

Farrell will not say so but I think he just has a lot more confidence in Gomes, including the ability to come up with the big hit. Which he did in Game 6 with the double off Scherzer that was a foot or two from being a game-tying home run.

 

I think you're right about Farrell's psychology, Bellhorn. On the other hand, I find it a bit odd to prefer Gomes over Nava because Gomes got a certain big hit. When Gomes is playing and Nava isn't, it's hardly to Gomes' credit if he outperforms Nava. We just have no idea about the counterfactuals -- i.e. what would Nava have done in the same situation? Maybe he gets a couple of big hits earlier in the game, reducing the need for one big hit late in the game. Maybe he GIDPs every time he's at bat. Who knows? Unless Gomes had gone crazy with the bat (which he didn't), it's still just the wrong decision. It's a wrong decision that paid off in the win/loss column, but a wrong decision nonetheless.

[Bellhorn04]

I think you're right about Farrell's psychology, Bellhorn. On the other hand, I find it a bit odd to prefer Gomes over Nava because Gomes got a certain big hit. When Gomes is playing and Nava isn't, it's hardly to Gomes' credit if he outperforms Nava. We just have no idea about the counterfactuals -- i.e. what would Nava have done in the same situation? Maybe he gets a couple of big hits earlier in the game, reducing the need for one big hit late in the game. Maybe he GIDPs every time he's at bat. Who knows? Unless Gomes had gone crazy with the bat (which he didn't), it's still just the wrong decision. It's a wrong decision that paid off in the win/loss column, but a wrong decision nonetheless.

 

Personally I have to back the manager in a case like this.

[marklmw]

I think you're right about Farrell's psychology, Bellhorn. On the other hand, I find it a bit odd to prefer Gomes over Nava because Gomes got a certain big hit. When Gomes is playing and Nava isn't, it's hardly to Gomes' credit if he outperforms Nava. We just have no idea about the counterfactuals -- i.e. what would Nava have done in the same situation? Maybe he gets a couple of big hits earlier in the game, reducing the need for one big hit late in the game. Maybe he GIDPs every time he's at bat. Who knows? Unless Gomes had gone crazy with the bat (which he didn't), it's still just the wrong decision. It's a wrong decision that paid off in the win/loss column, but a wrong decision nonetheless.

 

I agree ... I hate when a manager says he has a hunch ... this is not some home poker game here ... The logic to back Gomes is flawed although don't get me wrong I do like Gomes and prefer him against a LHP. To think that if Gomes started in all the post season games that we would not have lost a game is wrong. To say that if Nava played in more games that we would have lost those games is also wrong. To leave off a player that bats what .320 against RHP with a very good OPS out of these games is silly.

[jung]

The problem is that Farrell has his binkies. Just the way he rationalizes some of his decisions tells you that. He is the Manager so he can have them if he wants. But it does not pay off in the end. Managers who have them more often than not die by them as opposed to living by them. They will eventually trust them in too many completely against the numbers, against the odds situation and will be left with no logical rationalization for the decision they made. "I had a hunch" eventually begins to sound strident and unsatisfying when the numbers really start to fall the wrong way which they surely will in time. That is why they are the "numbers". "We win with player X" is not a number that means anything unless you want to decide that chaos theory is worth considering as meaningful to baseball decision making. Farrell is already a little shaky when it comes to responding to questions about some of his less than sterling decisions. Sometimes it tumbles out of his mouth easily sometimes not but it rarely is based on anything that instills much in the way of confidence.

 

The idea that there is some magic in any of this, that any of them have some sort of crystal ball that makes their hunches better than some other manager's hunches is just laughable though nobody is directly suggesting that here. However if you play this out to its logical conclusion it should be obvious where stuff like this ends up going.

 

Farrell's strengths are his preparation which is quite complete and truly impressive, his ability to build a solid clubhouse atmosphere where he gets and demands respect from his players without coddling them and his underlying understanding for what makes pitcher's tick in an environment where pitching dominates the game. Pitching dominates baseball even more than goal tending dominates hockey. His weaknesses are his tendency to have binkies and his spur of the moment, on the spot, in-game decision making. Giving up on having binkies usually requires that a manager live through some very painful lessons and it is surely a question whether a manager can live through such painful lessons and still end up managing the same team. Maybe some other team ends up benefiting from lessons learned earlier and that is most often the case. At any rate, I expect Farrell to learn this lesson eventually as they almost always do.

 

As for his in-game decision making, I am not sure that will ever improve. Morales for Buch was a staggeringly bad decision. But there ya' go. Farrell's preparation is terrific. But you can't prepare for everything and Morales in that spot was just a terrible decision, not one that I can believe Farrell would make as part of his preparation. for that game. There is a yin and yang to this. I doubt the fact of his preparation being so good while his spur of the moment in-game decision making is somewhat weak is a coincidence. People have strengths and weaknesses. Their minds work a particular way and we all tend to rely on our strengths to pull us past our weaknesses. Will Farrell be considered one of the league's best or at least better managers ten years from now? Probably given his other managerial characteristics, much will depend on how quickly he learns the lesson about favorites or binkies. His other strengths would appear strong enough to pull him through...especially when you consider the competition....other ML managers......hardly a very daunting bunch I would say. Not sure that as a group they could successfully "manage" a tidily winks contest.

 

If I had my choice and having a superlative GM meant I had to have a manager that was no better than average I would take that over the opposite any day and twice on Sunday.

[marklmw]

The problem is that Farrell has his binkies. Just the way he rationalizes some of his decisions tells you that. He is the Manager so he can have them if he wants. But it does not pay off in the end. Managers who have them more often than not die by them as opposed to living by them. They will eventually trust them in too many completely against the numbers, against the odds situation and will be left with no logical rationalization for the decision they made. "I had a hunch" eventually begins to sound strident and unsatisfying when the numbers really start to fall the wrong way which they surely will in time. That is why they are the "numbers". "We win with player X" is not a number that means anything unless you want to decide that chaos theory is worth considering as meaningful to baseball decision making. Farrell is already a little shaky when it comes to responding to questions about some of his less than sterling decisions. Sometimes it tumbles out of his mouth easily sometimes not but it rarely is based on anything that instills much in the way of confidence.

 

The idea that there is some magic in any of this, that any of them have some sort of crystal ball that makes their hunches better than some other manager's hunches is just laughable though nobody is directly suggesting that here. However if you play this out to its logical conclusion it should be obvious where stuff like this ends up going.

 

Farrell's strengths are his preparation which is quite complete and truly impressive, his ability to build a solid clubhouse atmosphere where he gets and demands respect from his players without coddling them and his underlying understanding for what makes pitcher's tick in an environment where pitching dominates the game. Pitching dominates baseball even more than goal tending dominates hockey. His weaknesses are his tendency to have binkies and his spur of the moment, on the spot, in-game decision making. Giving up on having binkies usually requires that a manager live through some very painful lessons and it is surely a question whether a manager can live through such painful lessons and still end up managing the same team. Maybe some other team ends up benefiting from lessons learned earlier and that is most often the case. At any rate, I expect Farrell to learn this lesson eventually as they almost always do.

 

As for his in-game decision making, I am not sure that will ever improve. Morales for Buch was a staggeringly bad decision. But there ya' go. Farrell's preparation is terrific. But you can't prepare for everything and Morales in that spot was just a terrible decision, not one that I can believe Farrell would make as part of his preparation. for that game. There is a yin and yang to this. I doubt the fact of his preparation being so good while his spur of the moment in-game decision making is somewhat weak is a coincidence. People have strengths and weaknesses. Their minds work a particular way and we all tend to rely on our strengths to pull us past our weaknesses. Will Farrell be considered one of the league's best or at least better managers ten years from now? Probably given his other managerial characteristics, much will depend on how quickly he learns the lesson about favorites or binkies. His other strengths would appear strong enough to pull him through...especially when you consider the competition....other ML managers......hardly a very daunting bunch I would say. Not sure that as a group they could successfully "manage" a tidily winks contest.

 

If I had my choice and having a superlative GM meant I had to have a manager that was no better than average I would take that over the opposite any day and twice on Sunday.

 

Well in baseball there will always be second guessing. I have to disagree with your statement that pitching in baseball in more important than goal tending in hockey ... there is much more pressure on the goal tender. If a pitcher is having an off day he can easily be replaced with 1 of 9 or 10 other pitchers. I do agree that both positions can dominate a game but a goal tender has a greater chance of dominating an entire series. Anyway .... Nava's OBP against Tampa .429 ... his OBP against Detroit once again .429. He has hardly been slumping in either series. In 56 games in LF Nava had 1 error and no errors in the playoffs.

[mvp 78]

Farrell's binkies got him to the WS. They must be pretty good!

[marklmw]

Farrell's binkies got him to the WS. They must be pretty good!

 

The players had something to do with the Team getting to the WS ... Farrells situational mistakes do not necessarily doom the team ... unlike Leyland's mistakes in games 2.

[Julian]

Morales for Buch was a staggeringly bad decision.

 

 

Everybody in the universe knew that was a bad decision.

[marklmw]

Everybody in the universe knew that was a bad decision.

I was going nuts on that one .... announcing to everyone in the room that Farrell has lost his mind. But that was an in game decision ... why does Farrell not respect Nava?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Farrell has done so much s*** for the team, and you guys call him out for not putting in a player. You guys are nothing but couch managers. Before you say anything, just think of all the things he did with the team in his first year. He completely turned around the team because we were in last place last year. We won the AL East by a good margin. We had the best record in the AL. We won the pennant AND we're in the World Series. Not every manager is going to be perfect and make the right calls. Win or lose the WS, Farrell deserves a shitload of credit. Look at the bigger accomplishments and stop jumping on him for small mistakes which still haven't backfired on us.

[marklmw]

Farrell has done so much s*** for the team, and you guys call him out for not putting in a player. You guys are nothing but couch managers. Before you say anything, just think of all the things he did with the team in his first year. He completely turned around the team because we were in last place last year. We won the AL East by a good margin. We had the best record in the AL. We won the pennant AND we're in the World Series. Not every manager is going to be perfect and make the right calls. Win or lose the WS, Farrell deserves a shitload of credit. Look at the bigger accomplishments and stop jumping on him for small mistakes which still haven't backfired on us.

 

I agree with you on the big picture ... he surely has the inside for Manager of the Year.

[sk7326]

Farrell has done so much s*** for the team, and you guys call him out for not putting in a player. You guys are nothing but couch managers. Before you say anything, just think of all the things he did with the team in his first year. He completely turned around the team because we were in last place last year. We won the AL East by a good margin. We had the best record in the AL. We won the pennant AND we're in the World Series. Not every manager is going to be perfect and make the right calls. Win or lose the WS, Farrell deserves a shitload of credit. Look at the bigger accomplishments and stop jumping on him for small mistakes which still haven't backfired on us.

 

Farrell did a good job. As Jonah Keri in Grantland noted, HEALTH turned this team around at least as much as Farrell had. 47 extra games of Ortiz, 60 extra games of Ellsbury, 19 extra games of Pedroia. That is an average of 42 extra games from their best returning position players. It's another 189 innings of John Lackey being solid (2010 level, and a bit better than that). There have been other factors clearly, including returning to the 2003-2010 organizational blueprint, of which Farrell figures - but a lot of this has just been for once injuries not destroying the core group.

 

Farrell's preparation as Jung has noted - has been excellent. He does not manage the game as well as Francona did - but he is not actively hurting his team there (see Baker, Dusty or Washington, Ron for counterexamples). His bullpen moves have often been head scratching. He clearly deserves a B+ at worst this year. But the turnaround is on many shoulders - including just a 2 year string of horrible luck ending.

Edited October 22, 2013 by sk7326

[marklmw]

sk ... you are right on about that ... one thing Farrell has done is keep the team focused and also loose at the same time. The players have really enjoying playing ball for this team and that is no small task when dealing with highly paid professional athletes these days. I am a huge fan of Farrell but not a fan of everything he does or doesn't do. I am sure he is right more often than wrong.