Gomes Vs. Nava

[User Name]

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

 

If he wasn't, we wouldn't be staring down the Cardinals in a WS matchup.

[mvp 78]

Worst manager ever to be in a WS...

[sk7326]

There have been some shabby tactical managers to win pennants - my very first Red Sox manager (John McNamara), Dusty Baker, Ron Washington (oh, Ron Washington), some parts of Tony LaRussa (Mr. Small Sample Size himself).

 

But clearly Farrell has done a good job - and I do give him a lot of credit for bullpen usage this postseason ... the Game 6 move was a shocking lapse given his previous behavior.

[User Name]

There have been some shabby tactical managers to win pennants - my very first Red Sox manager (John McNamara), Dusty Baker, Ron Washington (oh, Ron Washington), some parts of Tony LaRussa (Mr. Small Sample Size himself).

 

But clearly Farrell has done a good job - and I do give him a lot of credit for bullpen usage this postseason ... the Game 6 move was a shocking lapse given his previous behavior.

 

Yeah which one of them brought their team back from a 69-win season to a 97-win one and a WS berth?

[sk7326]

Yeah which one of them brought their team back from a 69-win season to a 97-win one and a WS berth?

 

Hey, Farrell deserves plaudits - he also did not magically heal our best players (a HUGE contribution to the 69-win-ness). That can't be understated. He's not great in terms of pushing the buttons IMO, but he is not awful either. And at the end of the day, the players have done a great job and the work he and the coaching staff have done during the season show in the product. He has run a terrific coaching staff.

[Bellhorn04]

It seems that Farrell has put himself in the position that he can only put Nava in for Gomes if we lose a game.

 

Kind of a weird situation, that's for sure.

 

But I guess it wouldn't be the Red Sox if there wasn't something weird going on...

[mvp 78]

Wacha has a reverse split, Gomes should start game 2. Nava should start game 3.

[jad]

Ok--Gomes goes 0-3 with an error, after not hitting very well at any time during the playoffs. Nava comes in after hitting ok during the playoffs, getting on base, and tonight gets a hit in his only AB. Gomes starts again? Why? Does Farrell really believe in some magical property Gomes exudes (along with his boy Drew--hey! he lit it up last night, huh? Finally got that big hit, so I guess he's getting his swing back too).

[mvp 78]

Gomes is 7-0.

Nava is 1-3.

[Bellhorn04]

Ok--Gomes goes 0-3 with an error, after not hitting very well at any time during the playoffs. Nava comes in after hitting ok during the playoffs, getting on base, and tonight gets a hit in his only AB. Gomes starts again? Why? Does Farrell really believe in some magical property Gomes exudes (along with his boy Drew--hey! he lit it up last night, huh? Finally got that big hit, so I guess he's getting his swing back too).

 

There's a difference. Drew has been playing solid, sometimes stellar, defence game in and game out.

[jung]

We don't count win/loss as a relevant stat when we value pitchers for crying out loud. We are going to count it for LFer's...ridiculous.....Farrell binkie-ism

 

However the reverse split thing is a different story. Reverse splits are as relevant as splits and anytime they are there I would pay as much attention to them as I would to splits.

[User Name]

We don't count win/loss as a relevant stat when we value pitchers for crying out loud. We are going to count it for LFer's...ridiculous.....Farrell binkie-ism

 

However the reverse split thing is a different story. Reverse splits are as relevant as splits and anytime they are there I would pay as much attention to them as I would to splits.

 

I don't understand exactly what you mean here jung. Could you explain?

[mvp 78]

What is more important: a WS win or Nava getting a few hits?

 

Gimmie the wins all day!

[jung]

I don't understand exactly what you mean here jung. Could you explain?

 

Meaning that if a hitter has better numbers against a same handed pitcher than the alternative platoon player has, regardless of the fact that the alternate player is not same handed, I would really have to pay attention to the better numbers being produced by the like handed hitter. Would I automatically go with the like handed hitter in that situation? Not automatically....but it would have a very big impact on my decision.

[User Name]

Meaning that if a hitter has better numbers against a same handed pitcher than the alternative platoon player has, regardless of the fact that the alternate player is not same handed, I would really have to pay attention to the better numbers being produced by the like handed hitter. Would I automatically go with the like handed hitter in that situation? Not automatically....but it would have a very big impact on my decision.

 

I get that. What i didn't understand was your reference to reverse splits as an entirely different animal to splits. I thought that by definition, reverse splits were part of the general splits definition. I'm just picking nits though.

[Dojji]

I get that. What i didn't understand was your reference to reverse splits as an entirely different animal to splits. I thought that by definition, reverse splits were part of the general splits definition. I'm just picking nits though.

 

I understood his point. He said that playing against a pltcher's reverse splits should factor into a team's calculations as much as their hitter's splits.

[User Name]

I understood his point. He said that playing against a pltcher's reverse splits should factor into a team's calculations as much as their hitter's splits.

 

Again, i got that. My question was directed at the separation of "splits" from "reverse splits".

[marklmw]

Gomes is 7-0.

Nava is 1-3.

 

Enough already MVP ... Boston is 8-3. Gomes has done very little relative to many other players on the team

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Lucky charm Jonny Gomes 1 for 15 in four straight starts. Farrell indicated Nava starts Game 3

[marklmw]

@PeteAbe: Lucky charm Jonny Gomes 1 for 15 in four straight starts. Farrell indicated Nava starts Game 3

 

Too bad it took a loss in game 2 to finally make the correct decision.

[mvp 78]

Too bad it took a loss in game 2 to finally make the correct decision.

 

Yeah, it's a shame how horribly this manager has gotten us within 3 wins of winning a WS.

[sk7326]

Too bad it took a loss in game 2 to finally make the correct decision.

 

Farrell has done a good job obviously - to get us this far, he has had a positive impact. His moving of the chess pieces in the game is not his greatest virtue though - he can get better at this.

[Dojji]

Farrell has done a good job obviously - to get us this far, he has had a positive impact. His moving of the chess pieces in the game is not his greatest virtue though - he can get better at this.

 

There aren't many real chessmasters in the league who call all teh right shots. In fact I daresay there aren't any. Too much of what managers do is a crapshot about which of two horrible ideas to admit they're stuck with.

[Bellhorn04]

And I'm still chuckling at the fact that the one Cardinals fan who showed up here says HIS manager is a 'moron' (in spite of 2 NLCS and 1 WS appearance in 2 years).

[Bellhorn04]

There aren't many real chessmasters in the league who call all teh right shots. In fact I daresay there aren't any. Too much of what managers do is a crapshot about which of two horrible ideas to admit they're stuck with.

 

The dirty truth is that there are many times managers just close their eyes, roll the dice and pray.

[sk7326]

There aren't many real chessmasters in the league who call all teh right shots. In fact I daresay there aren't any. Too much of what managers do is a crapshot about which of two horrible ideas to admit they're stuck with.

 

Whether moves WORK is a different thing (the players are human beings and performance is not guaranteed) than whether the move made sense. Farrell plays hunches and does suboptimal things a little more often than I am comfortable with. I don't mind going down in flames while playing the percentages (like say Uehara hanging a splitter to a Tampa Bay catcher for a walk off). But at the end of the day, the players performance train, and the manager can only put the guys out there. If Breslow doesn't throw that ball into the 3rd base seats, we might be having a different conversation. And Farrell has used his bullpen superbly - more or less right until the last two high leverage games. The indecision with Lackey:Breslow was not nearly in the "what a mistake!" as the Morales decision - but I think the indecision ended up creating perhaps the lowest probability option of the things on the table.

[marklmw]

Yeah, it's a shame how horribly this manager has gotten us within 3 wins of winning a WS.

 

You just don't get it MVP ... yes Farrell has done a great job this year ... his total body of work cannot go without appreciation. Did he hit a Grand Slam in game 2 against Detroit ... the answer is no ... that would be David Big Papi Ortiz. Did he have Ortiz in the lineup enabling him to hit that Grand Slam ... the answer is yes ... should we give Farrell credit for having Ortiz in the lineup and not replacing him with a pitch hitter? Maybe Nava has 2 home runs and throws a perfect strike to home plate last night if Farrell played him but there is no way of knowing. I do know however that Ortiz was in the lineup not based on any hunches but based on Ortiz's body of work over the 2013 season. When you have as many baseball fans and experts question the Nava-Gomes situation you know that something is not quite logical. Did Lester really need to go as many innings and throw as many pitches in game 1? I say NO based on the Sox pitching situation and leaving open the possibility of Lester pitching game 4. I like Farrell ... but I have the right as a fan to disagree with him from time to time just as you do.

[sk7326]

And I'm still chuckling at the fact that the one Cardinals fan who showed up here says HIS manager is a 'moron' (in spite of 2 NLCS and 1 WS appearance in 2 years).

 

It was a different manager who got into the other WS. And this manager did blow a 3-1 lead in the NLCS. I laugh a bit too - but players can overcome a LOT of managerial mistakes. Let's put it this way, if a team is putting of 6 runs a game, little of what a manager does is going to hurt them. But in razor's edge, high stakes games - there can be some negative impact.

 

In general, I do subscribe that good managers probably have less positive impact than bad managers can have a negative one.

[marklmw]

It was a different manager who got into the other WS. And this manager did blow a 3-1 lead in the NLCS. I laugh a bit too - but players can overcome a LOT of managerial mistakes. Let's put it this way, if a team is putting of 6 runs a game, little of what a manager does is going to hurt them. But in razor's edge, high stakes games - there can be some negative impact.

 

In general, I do subscribe that good managers probably have less positive impact than bad managers can have a negative one.

 

Agree ... hard to explain why Nava with an OBP of .429 in the playoffs is not appreciated by his manager. hard to explain the Morales decision. Farrell makes mistakes like all managers do. He is human, the players are human, there are too many variables and no control group. There is no way of knowing for sure is there. What we are talking about is making the correct decision based on the data. If you go by the data you cannot be criticized for making the decision ... it is explainable. There is no reason what-so-ever that Nava has not had at the very least an equal number of plate appearances as Gomes with all the RHP's that the Sox have faced.

[mvp 78]

Too bad it took a loss in game 2 to finally make the correct decision.

 

If there is "no way of knowing" how can you say what the correct decision is?

 

I get it. Do you? You seem to be saying numerous things that amount to "we don't know what would've happened, but we do know Farrell was wrong." That makes no sense.