The rebuild thread.

[jad]

We have a guy on our team that explodes your whole theory that heart and intangibles don't matter (if that is your point). That would be Dustin Pedroia who has no plus natural tool. He's not fast. He doesn't have a very stong arm. He doesn't have a lot of power. And his diminutive size doesn't help either. He was drafted with the 64th pick. No one projected him as an MVP type player. His physical abilities just did not dictate such a projection. However, when you watch the guy on a daily basis, you realize that his desire and his exceptional instincts make him a great player. Heart, desire and innate baseball IQ all matter and they are very difficult to scout.

 

Well, there's no argument that DP is a great player AND has heart. I don't see how that supports the notion of the importance of 'intangibles', since what he does is perfectly measurable (hitting/fielding). There's no way of knowing if he's a great player BECAUSE he has heart, or that heart is "why" he's a great player. Manny, for example, was a great player but (according to some) didn't have heart; and I'm sure there are thousands of professional players languishing in the minors who have much more 'heart' than he does. What makes a great player is how they perform, and how they perform is measurable (although not perfectly). We fans like displays of energy or heart; statistics don't care about that. But what matters in sports is performance--the fact that the ball gets over the fence--not how it got there. I'm thinking of Youkilis's childish displays of 'heart'--or the displays of 'heart' (that is 'tantrums') by, say, any 4-year-old or, alas, us 'post-middle-age' would-be athletes.

[a700hitter]

Well, there's no argument that DP is a great player AND has heart. I don't see how that supports the notion of the importance of 'intangibles', since what he does is perfectly measurable (hitting/fielding). There's no way of knowing if he's a great player BECAUSE he has heart, or that heart is "why" he's a great player. Manny, for example, was a great player but (according to some) didn't have heart; and I'm sure there are thousands of professional players languishing in the minors who have much more 'heart' than he does. What makes a great player is how they perform, and how they perform is measurable (although not perfectly). We fans like displays of energy or heart; statistics don't care about that. But what matters in sports is performance--the fact that the ball gets over the fence--not how it got there. I'm thinking of Youkilis's childish displays of 'heart'--or the displays of 'heart' (that is 'tantrums') by, say, any 4-year-old or, alas, us 'post-middle-age' would-be athletes.

The discussion was about scouting, not judging performance after a player has been a professional. You can't scout based on stats. High School stats mean nothing. For the most part, college stats mean nothing. Scouts evaluate tools. They judge arm, speed, and power first, because the belief is that everything else can be learned through coaching. Stats don't mean a thing until the minor leagues and even those don't have a complete correlation to success or failure, and by the time a player is compiling meaningful stats, he has already been drafted. Drive and desire are very hard to evaluate, because you need to invest a lot of time observing the player, and scouts cant devote so much time to individual players. It is what makes talent evaluation so imprecise.

 

As for your example of Manny Ramirez not having heart, you are mistaking hustle for drive and desire. While Manny may have been a jerk who didn't want to be bothered running hard etc., his desire to be a great hitter was unmatched. He never missed his batting practice, and I can tell you that I witnessed him several times take live bp in the outfield cages at City of Palms Park in Fort Myers after taking his reps on the field. He would hit continuously for another 30 minutes stopping only to change pitchers and restock baseballs. It was my favorite part of spring training watching him take his private bp. It was pretty awesome to see. The guy was phenomenal to watch. His swing was so fluid and looked so easy, but up close you could see the power and speed and the last instant adjustments to pitch location. Manny loved to hit and his passion drove him to excel. He took far more private bp than the other players. Also, he played in most spring training games (almost every home game) and he never came out until he got his 3 or 4 ABs.

[vjcsmoke]

I'll agree with that. Manny may have been a knucklehead but he was a genius hitter. And even genius hitters don't stay at such a high level unless they work at their game. Manny always struck fear when he stepped into the box. As a fan you held your breath because you knew at any time, with one swing he could change an entire ballgame. Ortiz+Ramirez were the 1-2 punch that formed the heart of the Red Sox lineup during their championship wins in 2004 and 2007.

 

As for your example of Manny Ramirez not having heart, you are mistaking hustle for drive and desire. While Manny may have been a jerk who didn't want to be bothered running hard etc., his desire to be a great hitter was unmatched. He never missed his batting practice, and I can tell you that I witnessed him several times take live bp in the outfield cages at City of Palms Park in Fort Myers after taking his reps on the field. He would hit continuously for another 30 minutes stopping only to change pitchers and restock baseballs. It was my favorite part of spring training watching him take his private bp. It was pretty awesome to see. The guy was phenomenal to watch. His swing was so fluid and looked so easy, but up close you could see the power and speed and the last instant adjustments to pitch location. Manny loved to hit and his passion drove him to excel. He took far more private bp than the other players. Also, he played in most spring training games (almost every home game) and he never came out until he got his 3 or 4 ABs.

[Spitball]

Well, there's no argument that DP is a great player AND has heart. I don't see how that supports the notion of the importance of 'intangibles', since what he does is perfectly measurable (hitting/fielding). There's no way of knowing if he's a great player BECAUSE he has heart, or that heart is "why" he's a great player. Manny, for example, was a great player but (according to some) didn't have heart; and I'm sure there are thousands of professional players languishing in the minors who have much more 'heart' than he does. What makes a great player is how they perform, and how they perform is measurable (although not perfectly). We fans like displays of energy or heart; statistics don't care about that. But what matters in sports is performance--the fact that the ball gets over the fence--not how it got there. I'm thinking of Youkilis's childish displays of 'heart'--or the displays of 'heart' (that is 'tantrums') by, say, any 4-year-old or, alas, us 'post-middle-age' would-be athletes.

 

You are exactly right. Pedroia is a poster child for sabermetrics. Scouts would say he was too small, was not fast enough, his arm was not strong , and his swing was too big.

 

Why was he drafted by the Red Sox with the 65th pick when so many passed on him? Because in his senior year at a college power house Arizona State, he had a .392/.502/.611 slash line. His obvious physical shortcomings that scouts typically measure belied his true talents that his statistics showed, and Bill James had been hired by the Red Sox the year before.

 

Dustin Pedroia is an example of a sabermetric victory.

[jad]

Never meant to imply that Manny didn't have 'heart' or whatever (this is the problem when we argue using abstractions!). He's the best hitter I ever saw--and I'm sure he didn't get what looked like perfect balance and timing by what many call "Manny being Manny".

[a700hitter]

You are exactly right. Pedroia is a poster child for sabermetrics. Scouts would say he was too small, was not fast enough, his arm was not strong , and his swing was too big.

 

Why was he drafted by the Red Sox with the 65th pick when so many passed on him? Because in his senior year at a college power house Arizona State, he had a .392/.502/.611 slash line. His obvious physical shortcomings that scouts typically measure belied his true talents that his statistics showed, and Bill James had been hired by the Red Sox the year before.

 

Dustin Pedroia is an example of a sabermetric victory.

He's a poster child for the excellent reputation of the AZ State program. If he had put up those numbers at a lesser college, he would not have been drafted until a much later round. College numbers are not very reliable indicators. Also, with regard to your Bill James reference in your post, you are talking out of your ass --- as usual.

[alphilip77]

Some (or all) will disagree with me on this, but I think the Red Sox need to fire John Farrell. This bit of, "Hey, let's hire guys because of familiarity" is getting old. The one time they actually went outside the Francona gang was when they picked the absolute worst candidate available (Valentine). Even though they're 15 or whatever games under .500, outside of Pedey and some of the young kids, there's no hustle. I don't care if they're guys like Kelly Johnson who are staying for a cup of coffee or one of the "can't miss prospects" sucking camel dick; find something to play for for the next 30 days. Whether your incentive is pride or setting yourself up for a nice pay day this winter, I don't care, just have a purpose to play when you show up at the ballpark. It doesnt matter if they win or lose, either, just have some pride.

 

Let's call it last year what it was by the way; the whole organization had a golden horseshoe lodged up their collective asses. If Myers doesn't f*** up that fly ball in the ALDS or Benoit actually got Ortiz out in Gm 2, there is no story book ending. There's more but I'm not going to bother since it's been established numerous times the last few months.

 

I think the Sox should find a way to pry Maddon from the Rays. If it takes giving them JBJ or some other buy-low prospect, so be it. The guy might be a prick, but unlike Valentine he's got a competent record, and he's doing it in one of, if not the smallest market in all of baseball. Plus he's no stranger to the Boston media. I'd love to see what he could do with some of our younger players. Farrell has done nothing to show that he can teach the kids. Just a Francona redux.

[Behindenemylines]

Some (or all) will disagree with me on this, but I think the Red Sox need to fire John Farrell. This bit of, "Hey, let's hire guys because of familiarity" is getting old. The one time they actually went outside the Francona gang was when they picked the absolute worst candidate available (Valentine). Even though they're 15 or whatever games under .500, outside of Pedey and some of the young kids, there's no hustle. I don't care if they're guys like Kelly Johnson who are staying for a cup of coffee or one of the "can't miss prospects" sucking camel dick; find something to play for for the next 30 days. Whether your incentive is pride or setting yourself up for a nice pay day this winter, I don't care, just have a purpose to play when you show up at the ballpark. It doesnt matter if they win or lose, either, just have some pride.

 

Let's call it last year what it was by the way; the whole organization had a golden horseshoe lodged up their collective asses. If Myers doesn't f*** up that fly ball in the ALDS or Benoit actually got Ortiz out in Gm 2, there is no story book ending. There's more but I'm not going to bother since it's been established numerous times the last few months.

 

I think the Sox should find a way to pry Maddon from the Rays. If it takes giving them JBJ or some other buy-low prospect, so be it. The guy might be a prick, but unlike Valentine he's got a competent record, and he's doing it in one of, if not the smallest market in all of baseball. Plus he's no stranger to the Boston media. I'd love to see what he could do with some of our younger players. Farrell has done nothing to show that he can teach the kids. Just a Francona redux.

 

Farrell is safe this year. If we are sitting in the same place a year from now you can have this conversation. As far as the Sox winning the WS last year being lucky, maybe, but you can make the same statement about a lot of teams that end up being the champions. There are a ton of examples where the best team did not win.

[a700hitter]

I don't know why Ben is wasting his time with this trade. What is the point of getting back Ivan dejesus. He's a zero as is jemile Weeks.

 

Orioles Acquire Kelly Johnson

By Charlie Wilmoth [August 30, 2014 at 9:29pm CDT]

The Orioles have announced that they’ve acquired infielders Kelly Johnson and Michael Almanzar from the Red Sox for infielders Jemile Weeks and Ivan De Jesus. This is the Orioles’ second significant trade of the evening, having also recently acquired outfielder Alejandro De Aza from the White Sox. The Johnson deal gives the Orioles a bit of low-cost infield depth.

 

Johnson, 32, began the season with the Yankees, then headed to Boston in a trade for Stephen Drew. (He also played for the Rays in 2013 and the Blue Jays in 2011 and 2012, meaning that he’s now been or will be on the roster of all five AL East teams, with no non-AL East teams in between.) He’s played mostly third base and first base since 2012, and he’s hit .212/.290/.354 for the season. With the Orioles, he’ll likely play mostly at third base in the wake of the team’s loss of Manny Machado for the rest of the year.

 

The Orioles selected Almanzar from the Red Sox in the Rule 5 Draft last winter, but returned him in early July. Since then, he’s hit .280/.360/.427 in 186 plate appearances for Double-A Portland, mostly playing third base. At 23, he’s the youngest player in the deal.

 

Weeks was a first-round draft pick by the Athletics in 2008, and they sent him to Baltimore in 2013 in the Jim Johnson trade. The 27-year-old Weeks played in 215 games with the A’s in 2011 and 2012 but has spent most of the past two seasons in the minors. This season, he’s hit .278/.391/.385 in 254 plate appearances for Triple-A Norfolk. Despite the high on-base percentage, the second baseman probably profiles mostly as depth at this point, although CSNNE.com’s Sean McAdam tweets that Weeks will join the Red Sox’ big-league team. (Dustin Pedroia may have suffered a concussion in Saturday’s game, but the timing of Weeks’ acquisition appears to be a coincidence.)

 

De Jesus, who heads back to the Red Sox after spending a few months in the organization in 2012, also appears to be mostly a depth player. De Jesus came to Boston from the Dodgers in the Adrian Gonzalez / Carl Crawford / Josh Beckett blockbuster, then headed to Pittsburgh almost immediately as the Red Sox traded for Joel Hanrahan and Brock Holt. The Pirates showed little interest in him despite a strong offensive season in Triple-A in 2013, and he signed with the Orioles after the season. The 27-year-old hit .282/.358/.389 in 469 plate appearances for Norfolk this year, mostly playing shortstop.

[Spudboy]

Meh.

[Dojji]

Some (or all) will disagree with me on this, but I think the Red Sox need to fire John Farrell.

 

I hate this line of thinking, because it's so hard to argue with. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's right or logical. More in the sense that it's lazy and shortsighted, and is generally a move suggested based on emotion and frustration rather than analysis.

 

There's a sense after a bad stretch or a bad year that Something Must Be Done, and firing the manager is always the easiest thing. It can have absolutely nothing to with whether any of the ills of the team actually come back to the manager's performance or not. Ownership wants to show they're engaged in the team, and they want to divorce the team for last year's failures, and in that environment the manager is the laziest thing to change. It gives the illusion of a shake-up without ruffling the feathers of all your guaranteed big money contracts. And at the end of the day most of the same cast of characters are running the clubhouse (nothing empowers the clubhouse more than a rookie manager).

 

It's the ultimate low-carb move. Either the new guy gets the credit if the team does well next year, or if it doesn't, then you sacrifice the next goat to the gods of PR and select your new victim. It's a tiresome little dog and pony show when half of the retired veteran ballplayers in this league with any interest in managing would be no better or worse as a manager than each other.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

I hate this line of thinking, because it's so hard to argue with. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's right or logical. More in the sense that it's lazy and shortsighted, and is generally a move suggested based on emotion and frustration rather than analysis.

 

There's a sense after a bad stretch or a bad year that Something Must Be Done, and firing the manager is always the easiest thing. It can have absolutely nothing to with whether any of the ills of the team actually come back to the manager's performance or not. Ownership wants to show they're engaged in the team, and they want to divorce the team for last year's failures, and in that environment the manager is the laziest thing to change. It gives the illusion of a shake-up without ruffling the feathers of all your guaranteed big money contracts. And at the end of the day most of the same cast of characters are running the clubhouse (nothing empowers the clubhouse more than a rookie manager).

 

It's the ultimate low-carb move. Either the new guy gets the credit if the team does well next year, or if it doesn't, then you sacrifice the next goat to the gods of PR and select your new victim. It's a tiresome little dog and pony show when half of the retired veteran ballplayers in this league with any interest in managing would be no better or worse as a manager than each other.

 

Good post.

[alphilip77]

I hate this line of thinking, because it's so hard to argue with. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's right or logical. More in the sense that it's lazy and shortsighted, and is generally a move suggested based on emotion and frustration rather than analysis.

 

There's a sense after a bad stretch or a bad year that Something Must Be Done, and firing the manager is always the easiest thing. It can have absolutely nothing to with whether any of the ills of the team actually come back to the manager's performance or not. Ownership wants to show they're engaged in the team, and they want to divorce the team for last year's failures, and in that environment the manager is the laziest thing to change. It gives the illusion of a shake-up without ruffling the feathers of all your guaranteed big money contracts. And at the end of the day most of the same cast of characters are running the clubhouse (nothing empowers the clubhouse more than a rookie manager).

 

It's the ultimate low-carb move. Either the new guy gets the credit if the team does well next year, or if it doesn't, then you sacrifice the next goat to the gods of PR and select your new victim. It's a tiresome little dog and pony show when half of the retired veteran ballplayers in this league with any interest in managing would be no better or worse as a manager than each other.

 

I see where you're coming from. And you're right, my response was mostly emotional. But a week later, I still feel the same way. I've honestly seen nothing from the coaching staff to suggest that next year we'll be any better. When you're trotting out your set up man, who clearly has dead arm, every other day in a meaningless season, further jeopardizing any chance you have at being competitive next year, I have a problem with that. And if you want a frame of reference as to how bad our manager is, look at our division. Joe Girardi has kept the Yankees in the playoff hunt with Chris Capuano and Brandon McCarthy. Think about that for a second: two guys who have absolutely no business starting games, let alone in the AL East, acquired for next to nothing are contributing. The Rays absolutely sucked to start the year due to injuries, traded their ace pitcher, and are STILL only a couple games under .500 and within shouting distance of the second wild card spot. And Showalter goes without saying. Like I stated earlier, I'd love to see what a competent manager could do with some of these kids like Maddon does in Tampa, but unfortunately it won't be happening anytime soon.

 

Another aspect that I think needs to be seriously evaluated is the GM. Maybe not this winter, but definitely next winter if there's no improvement next year. Look at his track record as far as trades. We gave the Pirates a guy who turned into their closer for a fat sack of s*** who pitched all of 5 or so games, and out of the Punto trade, all we have to show for it is Rubby with Webster looking like s*** and the other two players being traded (up until last night with DeJesus coming back). And say what you want about what the Rays got for Price, at least they got young, cost controlled prospects with upside. And the best we got for Lester? A competitive pick and a Cuban version of Mike Napoli, who only has one year left on his deal. Unacceptable. I don't care if he only had a few months left on his deal. A year ago the Cubs got Olt and three other prospects for a rental of f***ing Matt Garza. Then they go and get Addison Russell and other prospects this year for Samardzija and a s***** Jason Hammel. If Billy Beane or anyone else wanted Jon Lester so bad, put their balls in a vice and demand proper compensation. Worst case scenario, you hold onto him, take the draft pick and tell the public what was being offered if/when they start bitching. No reason on God's green earth to settle when you have a f***ing 2x WS winning ace who has pitched in the toughest of markets. And if they were so worried about the length of the deal, offer him a shorter deal at a higher AAV. It's atrocious that they let their best homegrown pitcher this side of Clemens go for nothing.

[a700hitter]

I hate this line of thinking, because it's so hard to argue with. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's right or logical. More in the sense that it's lazy and shortsighted, and is generally a move suggested based on emotion and frustration rather than analysis.

 

There's a sense after a bad stretch or a bad year that Something Must Be Done, and firing the manager is always the easiest thing. It can have absolutely nothing to with whether any of the ills of the team actually come back to the manager's performance or not. Ownership wants to show they're engaged in the team, and they want to divorce the team for last year's failures, and in that environment the manager is the laziest thing to change. It gives the illusion of a shake-up without ruffling the feathers of all your guaranteed big money contracts. And at the end of the day most of the same cast of characters are running the clubhouse (nothing empowers the clubhouse more than a rookie manager).

 

It's the ultimate low-carb move. Either the new guy gets the credit if the team does well next year, or if it doesn't, then you sacrifice the next goat to the gods of PR and select your new victim. It's a tiresome little dog and pony show when half of the retired veteran ballplayers in this league with any interest in managing would be no better or worse as a manager than each other.

Sometimes it is called for, and a change at the helm changes the direction of the team. It was the right thing to do after 2012.

[Spudboy]

I can understand the frustration that fans feel this season. After all, I'm a Sox fan too.

 

In some cases a change of manager can help. But in this case Farrell was dealt a short hand and then the players did not show up in many games. There have been some injuries that have also help cripple the offense this year.

 

I don't think that we can blame just Farrell for this mess. It is true that like all managers he makes us scratch our heads sometimes with dopey moves that do not seem to make sense at the time. I think that because of the overall failure of this team this year that some of Farrell moves stick out because we are criticizing anything we see. If the Sox were playing much better and winning would we be bitching about Farrell so much?

 

I have my bones to pick with the guy ( an example is his "7 run rule" ). But I do not blame him entirely for the complete mess that is this years version of the Sox.

[seabeachfred]

I don't know why Ben is wasting his time with this trade. What is the point of getting back Ivan dejesus. He's a zero as is jemile Weeks.

 

Dejesus again????? This guy is s*** warmed over. We got rid of him once and now we take him back. As for Weeks, he has been a total dud. What the hell is Ben thinking. They have no future with the Red Sox. One more time Cherington and touched something and it has turned to s***. You're on a real roll Benny.....a s*** roll.

[Spitball]

Weeks and DeJesus don't make much sense, but sticking it to the Yankees does. That is probably not what happened today, but Kelly Johnson and Alejandro De Aza from the White Sox seem like very nice additions to help the Orioles avoid a late season collapse. Edited September 1, 2014 by Spitball

[Behindenemylines]

Dejesus again????? This guy is s*** warmed over. We got rid of him once and now we take him back. As for Weeks, he has been a total dud. What the hell is Ben thinking. They have no future with the Red Sox. One more time Cherington and touched something and it has turned to s***. You're on a real roll Benny.....a s*** roll.

 

Orioles needed someone who could play third, and the Sox picked up a couple pieces that could be 4th or 5th pieces in a big off season trade. Its all about collecting assests that can be used to correct team flaws. Johnson was not in the long term plans for the Sox so nothing given up.

[BigPapi]

Its been a real awful season for WMB. He went from looking like our next possible 30 hr 100 rbi guy after 2012, to someone who can't hit for average but could still run into 25 plus hrs in a full season after 2012, to unbelievably unproductive in 2014. I know he has had a series of injuries the past couple of seasons, but he is going to be 26 next week. This last month is huge for him. If he doesn't show some progress, he really leaves the red sox no other option but to ship him away( and sadly, he wouldn't even be viewed as a key guy in a deal).

[a700hitter]

Its been a real awful season for WMB. He went from looking like our next possible 30 hr 100 rbi guy after 2012, to someone who can't hit for average but could still run into 25 plus hrs in a full season after 2012, to unbelievably unproductive in 2014. I know he has had a series of injuries the past couple of seasons, but he is going to be 26 next week. This last month is huge for him. If he doesn't show some progress, he really leaves the red sox no other option but to ship him away( and sadly, he wouldn't even be viewed as a key guy in a deal).

Without power production, the guy is pretty much a zero. Load him on the moving van with Webster.

[a700hitter]

The possibility of firing Farrell has been discussed by some people recently. Some people think that it would be scapegoating. Maybe the player friendly approach was only an effective motivational tool for one year as a reaction to Bobby V's egotistical arrogance. What I have not seen is an analysis of some statistics. I think that we have lost the most 1 run games, and yesterday, I heard that we lead the league in extra inning losses. We can't blame these things on the back of the bullpen, because they have been very effective. One run games and extra inning games are where managerial tactics can be a deciding factor. If our players were more effective at bunting, maybe that couldd have helped. Maybe some hit a runs. On the other side, we made a ton of stupid outs on the bases. These thing can make a difference.

 

Edit: The Yankees have scored 9 more runs than the Red Sox and they are only marginally better in ERA ranking and run differential ranking, but yet they are 12 games better than us in the loss column. I think that has to be attributed largely to the managers.

Edited September 2, 2014 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

The possibility of firing Farrell has been discussed by some people recently. Some people think that it would be scapegoating. Maybe the player friendly approach was only an effective motivational tool for one year as a reaction to Bobby V's egotistical arrogance. What I have not seen is an analysis of some statistics. I think that we have lost the most 1 run games, and yesterday, I heard that we lead the league in extra inning losses. We can't blame these things on the back of the bullpen, because they have been very effective. One run games and extra inning games are where managerial tactics can be a deciding factor. If our players were more effective at bunting, maybe that couldd have helped. Maybe some hit a runs. On the other side, we made a ton of stupid outs on the bases. These thing can make a difference.

 

Edit: The Yankees have scored 9 more runs than the Red Sox and they are only marginally better in ERA ranking and run differential ranking, but yet they are 12 games better than us in the loss column. I think that has to be attributed largely to the managers.

 

Sox are 25-25 in one run games (huge number, I know).

 

Their Pythagorean record is identical to their actual record.

 

So there's nothing in the stats to point a finger at Farrell.

 

The Yankees are on the way to beating their Pythagorean record 2 years in a row, which is very unusual. Not sure it'll be much consolation if they miss the playoffs both years.

[BigPapi]

Sox are 25-25 in one run games (huge number, I know).

 

Their Pythagorean record is identical to their actual record.

 

So there's nothing in the stats to point a finger at Farrell.

 

The Yankees are on the way to beating their Pythagorean record 2 years in a row, which is very unusual. Not sure it'll be much consolation if they miss the playoffs both years.

 

 

Speaking of pythagorean win expectancy, I think the 2012 Orioles were like 11 games better than expected or something crazy like that.

[seabeachfred]

The possibility of firing Farrell has been discussed by some people recently. Some people think that it would be scapegoating. Maybe the player friendly approach was only an effective motivational tool for one year as a reaction to Bobby V's egotistical arrogance. What I have not seen is an analysis of some statistics. I think that we have lost the most 1 run games, and yesterday, I heard that we lead the league in extra inning losses. We can't blame these things on the back of the bullpen, because they have been very effective. One run games and extra inning games are where managerial tactics can be a deciding factor. If our players were more effective at bunting, maybe that couldd have helped. Maybe some hit a runs. On the other side, we made a ton of stupid outs on the bases. These thing can make a difference.

 

Edit: The Yankees have scored 9 more runs than the Red Sox and they are only marginally better in ERA ranking and run differential ranking, but yet they are 12 games better than us in the loss column. I think that has to be attributed largely to the managers.

 

Bravo Ted. I think you hit the nail on the head on the Farrell thing. The players were so damned disgusted with Valentine and his know-it-all ego that Farrell and his nursery philosophy was looked upon as a salve for the team----not to mention the arrival of gamers like Victorino, Napoli, Gomes, Koji, Ross and others who really didn't need a manager to know what to do. This year we see total ineptness in the dugout. We don't bunt, we don't hit and run, we never try a squeeze, we never turn runners loose and we have now come from behind to tie and then lose 20 times now. That is a telling statistic as to how we have a team that cannot finish the job and a leader in the dugout who should me MCing a kiddie show---The Big Dufus himself.

 

And let's not kid ourselves. Taken the five managers in the AL East and the best Dufus Farrell can do is finish in a tie for 4th place. He can't hold a candle to Maddon and he is certainly not in Girardi's class as we have seen this year with Joe managing almost with two hands tied behind his back with his rotation gone and age overcoming the team. As for Buck, are you kidding?

[a700hitter]

Sox are 25-25 in one run games (huge number, I know).

 

Their Pythagorean record is identical to their actual record.

 

So there's nothing in the stats to point a finger at Farrell.

 

The Yankees are on the way to beating their Pythagorean record 2 years in a row, which is very unusual. Not sure it'll be much consolation if they miss the playoffs both years.

The theorem is basically useless:

 

There's a reason Pythagorean Wins aren't listed on Baseball-Reference manager pages--it's not an accurate measure of managerial effectiveness. Like many other numbers, it's fun to look at to see if it increases our understanding, but in this case it appears to add little value. The next big thing in measuring managerial effectiveness is right around the corner as MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM) installs cameras that can track each play. When that is fully implemented the things a manager can really control, like fielder positioning can be measured and evaluated. Until then, we do the best we can with the tools at hand, and Pythagorean Wins for managers doesn't appear to be the best suited metric.

 

 

He loses too many one run games for a manager with a solid end of the game bullpen. His team is not fundamentally sound and it has no proficiency at manufacturing a run in tight game. That is on the manager. Bill James needs to stick to strat-o-matic. That was his sweet spot.

[Palodios]

In 2013, the Red Sox brought in Farrell because of the familiarity with the team and pitching staff. Bard burned out, Buchholz is terrible, and everyone else is brand new.

 

I would believe that Farrell's future belongs in the hands of Jon Lester. If they fire Farrell, Lester is not coming back.

[a700hitter]

In 2013, the Red Sox brought in Farrell because of the familiarity with the team and pitching staff. Bard burned out, Buchholz is terrible, and everyone else is brand new.

 

I would believe that Farrell's future belongs in the hands of Jon Lester. If they fire Farrell, Lester is not coming back.

Good point.

[Bellhorn04]

He loses too many one run games for a manager with a solid end of the game bullpen. His team is not fundamentally sound and it has no proficiency at manufacturing a run in tight game. That is on the manager. Bill James needs to stick to strat-o-matic. That was his sweet spot.

 

I'm not going to try to debate Farrell's managerial abilities. I try to stay away from that stuff, most of it is up for endless debate. But I can't see how having a .500 record in one-run games this year, when the overall record is 61-77, reflects badly on the manager. There's a lot of randomness in one-run games anyway.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2013, the Red Sox brought in Farrell because of the familiarity with the team and pitching staff. Bard burned out, Buchholz is terrible, and everyone else is brand new.

 

I would believe that Farrell's future belongs in the hands of Jon Lester. If they fire Farrell, Lester is not coming back.

 

Farrell's not getting fired. Cherington has already accepted a lot of the blame for this year's performance.

 

The only way Farrell would get fired, IMO, is if there's some friction behind the scenes we don't know about. It won't be because of the 2014 W-L record.

[a700hitter]

I'm not going to try to debate Farrell's managerial abilities. I try to stay away from that stuff, most of it is up for endless debate. But I can't see how having a .500 record in one-run games this year, when the overall record is 61-77, reflects badly on the manager. There's a lot of randomness in one-run games anyway.

The Yankees hitting, pitching and run differential is not appreciably better than that of the Red Sox, but they are 12 games better. The difference is in large part the manager. The one run games that are decided late should be a crap shoot that favors us, because we have a very solid end of the game bullpen -- better than most of our opponents. The one run games should have tilted in our favor for that reason. That advantage has been neutralized because lantern jawed Farrell's team is not fundamentally sound and he doesn't have a clue as to tactics to manufacture runs.