Referendum on John Farrell

[sk7326]

With the money that Lovullo signed for.....that's not bench coach $$$$.....he WILL be the manager at some point. Right now the SOx are doing decent. It's not Farrells fault Kimbrell gave up 3 saves, Price had 2 lousy starts, Buch is a mess and Betts started slow...... However, he is KILLING the BP right now. I hope to God that Smith comes back soon and Kelly when healthy goes to the BP where I said he should be when we first got him in trade.....

 

I think the pen is a bit out of his control with the lack of innings the starters were giving him. The one thing I give him crap for is when he warms up Uehara without using him (which happened in the TB series). You know his miles are limited - make them count.

[User Name]

There are 30 managerial positions, tons of candidates and yet mosst of the postions are filled with people who just aren't very bright or good managers of people.

 

The trend, however, is moving in the opposite direction. That's where the phrase "in 2016" comes to work. Besides, as I mention above, there are four main phases to managing an MLB team: On-field, corporate, leading the roster, and media relations. Someone who is objectively stupid and ill-prepared cannot adequately handle most of the aspects of the job.

[a700hitter]

I think a lot of guys still think the job is like the managers in the movies. I think in 2016, it is a much more corporate gig and the guys who can work that part as well as the baseball are a much more exclusive set. The combination of media relations, executing organizational strategy, managing a coaching staff ... in addition to the stuff in the dugouts during those 3 or so hour a night ... that is a really complex deal.

If the job is bigger than it used to be, then baseball needs to do a better job of getting people who can at least walk and chew gum at the same time.

[User Name]

If the job is bigger than it used to be, then baseball needs to do a better job of getting people who can at least walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

Ah, this is the actual point that needs to be addressed. However, look at the new wave of managers: Guys like Ausmus, Matheny, Green, Servais. All ex-players lauded during their playing careers for their high intelligence and awareness, and in the case of the former two, genuinely smart guys who cut their teeth handling the media as leading players of contending teams.

[sk7326]

There are 30 managerial positions, tons of candidates and yet mosst of the postions are filled with people who just aren't very bright or good managers of people.

 

Are you sure most of them are bad managers of people? That seems unlikely - players play hard for the most part. There are lot who deploy them incorrectly. Hell, Showalter is very accomplished, and managed to take a preseason favorite and lead them to a 69 win season.

[a700hitter]

The media aspect of the job is highly overblown. These guys basically say nothing beyond platitudes. A manager's post game press conference is useless, boring, and robotic. Rarely does any insight into a game come out of a press conference. It's all very formal, sterile and formulaic. The Press got better stories and more insight in the 60's, 70's and 80's when these meeting were informal and in the manager's office. The managers were less guarded, because the atmosphere was such that the managers talked to reporters when they had something to get off their chests. The result was more candor, because they didn't feel pressured to field questions like a politician at a Town Hall.

[sk7326]

Ah, this is the actual point that needs to be addressed. However, look at the new wave of managers: Guys like Ausmus, Matheny, Green, Servais. All ex-players lauded during their playing careers for their high intelligence and awareness, and in the case of the former two, genuinely smart guys who cut their teeth handling the media as leading players of contending teams.

 

Now there are some problems - Rosenthal wrote a great piece on it - fancy degreed GMs hiring people they know and skipping over guys who have cut their teeth managing in the minors. It also makes the field unnecessarily whitebread.

 

It's what makes Farrell a particular disappointment. His resume was perfect for the job but it has not worked out as well as it should have on paper.

[a700hitter]

Are you sure most of them are bad managers of people? That seems unlikely - players play hard for the most part. There are lot who deploy them incorrectly. Hell, Showalter is very accomplished, and managed to take a preseason favorite and lead them to a 69 win season.

Showalter ...yuk. I can't stand that guy. His ego outsizes his brain by an immeasurable magnitude.

[bosoxmal]

well said.

[sk7326]

The media aspect of the job is highly overblown. These guys basically say nothing beyond platitudes. A manager's post game press conference is useless, boring, and robotic. Rarely does any insight into a game come out of a press conference. It's all very formal, sterile and formulaic. The Press got better stories and more insight in the 60's, 70's and 80's when these meeting were informal and in the manager's office. The managers were less guarded, because the atmosphere was such that the managers talked to reporters when they had something to get off their chests. The result was more candor, because they didn't feel pressured to field questions like a politician at a Town Hall.

 

Oh, quite the opposite. Yes, they don't say anything interesting ... but the job of getting between the media pressure/fans need to know and the players (whose job is tough enough already) is extremely underrated. Francona's work there was crucial to allowing the team to trot out Dustin Pedroia day after day at 2B the first couple months of his career, look completely unqualified to be a major leaguer and figure this thing out himself.

[User Name]

The media aspect of the job is highly overblown. These guys basically say nothing beyond platitudes. A manager's post game press conference is useless, boring, and robotic. Rarely does any insight into a game come out of a press conference. It's all very formal, sterile and formulaic. The Press got better stories and more insight in the 60's, 70's and 80's when these meeting were informal and in the manager's office. The managers were less guarded, because the atmosphere was such that the managers talked to reporters when they had something to get off their chests. The result was more candor, because they didn't feel pressured to field questions like a politician at a Town Hall.

 

Two words: Ozzie Guillen. Being diplomatic and saying "just platitudes" is an ability a lot of these guys don't have. That "highly overblown aspect" has made a lot of guys who can't keep their foot out of their mouths lose managerial gigs over the years.

[a700hitter]

Ah, this is the actual point that needs to be addressed. However, look at the new wave of managers: Guys like Ausmus, Matheny, Green, Servais. All ex-players lauded during their playing careers for their high intelligence and awareness, and in the case of the former two, genuinely smart guys who cut their teeth handling the media as leading players of contending teams.

For all the plaudits regarding the intelligence of some managers, they rarely live up to their press clippings. Matheny had a big hand in losing the 2013 World Series. He insisted on pitching to Big Papi for the first 5 games when he was our only hot hitter. It was bizarre. I took great delight in it. Papi continued to destroy the Cards and Matheny finally walked Ortiz in game 6 (4 times) when the rest of the bats came alive -- even Drew went deep with his second hit of the Series (the other being an infield pop that fell in front of the pitcher's mound in game 1). I don't think much of Ausmus either. You don't need to be a member of Mensa to be a good manager. The studying of every stat and spray chart is over kill. Player's tendencies are pretty well known after they are in the league for a while. It doesn't take a lot of studying. Their main job is to keep the troops ready and motivated -- and even the best of managers has a limited shelf life in that regard with an organization. As for in-game management, the managers that have the ability to think ahead usually are the best, not the ones who are pouring over data in the dugouts trying to figure out matchups or defensive alignments. That stuff should be done before the game. Doing it during the game demonstrates unpreparedness to me and it is a distraction for the manager who should be completely alert to the game. Edited April 27, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Two words: Ozzie Guillen. Being diplomatic and saying "just platitudes" is an ability a lot of these guys don't have. That "highly overblown aspect" has made a lot of guys who can't keep their foot out of their mouths lose managerial gigs over the years.

Yet, Ozzie was successful, interesting and colorful. He would not have been a better manager if he kept his mouth shut. He just would have had his job longer.

[Slasher9]

Yeah Tek has no coaching experience, this is not a good team for untried manager

 

fair enough. but by that thought process Bobby Valentine had a ton of coaching experience....

[Slasher9]

maybe, but tek did his homework, he has the respect of the players, and being manager doesn't require a lot of smarts or ability. That being said, i would make lovullo the manager and tek the bench coach.

 

like

[sk7326]

For all the plaudits regarding the intelligence of some managers, they rarely live up to their press clippings. Matheny had a big hand in losing the 2013 World Series. He insisted on pitching to Big Papi for the first 5 games when he was our only hot hitter. It was bizarre. I took great delight in it. Papi continued to destroy the Cards and Matheny finally walked Ortiz in game 6 (4 times) when the rest of the bats came alive -- even Drew went deep with his second hit of the Series (the other being an infield pop that fell in front of the pitcher's mound in game 1). I don't think much of Ausmus either. You don't need to be a member of Mensa to be a good manager. The studying of every stat and spray chart is over kill. Player's tendencies are pretty well known after they are in the league for a while. It doesn't take a lot of studying. Their main job is to keep the troops ready and motivated -- and even the best of managers has a limited shelf life in that regard with an organization. As for in-game management, the managers that have the ability to think ahead usually are the best, not the ones who are pouring over data in the dugouts trying to figure out matchups or defensive alignments. That stuff should be done before the game. Doing it during the game demonstrates unpreparedness to me and it is a distraction for the manager who should be completely alert to the game.

 

1. There is literally nobody who is going over printouts when a dude is on deck. The manager already knows the guys to call up in situations and such. Heck, I think the Pirates have an analytics guy on staff traveling with Hurdle to advise him on defensive positioning.

2. Repeatedly walking a guy is generally crappy baseball. Ortiz was ungodly hot for 6 games coming off of a series where he went 2 for 22. Sometimes you tip your hat to the other guy. Pitching around a guy is like bunting - it sounds like a good idea, but in fact very rarely is.

3. Agreed on Matheny and Ausmus, who in game miss things which seem obvious. At the same time they have won a lot (which tells you a lot about the actual magnitude of the impact of in game tactics). In particular Matheny has handled young players well as the Cardinals put new guys out all the time.

[sk7326]

fair enough. but by that thought process Bobby Valentine had a ton of coaching experience....

 

There are no absolutes. I think managing in 2012 had passed Bobby by. His experience was not recent.

[Slasher9]

2. Repeatedly walking a guy is generally crappy baseball. Ortiz was ungodly hot for 6 games coming off of a series where he went 2 for 22. Sometimes you tip your hat to the other guy. Pitching around a guy is like bunting - it sounds like a good idea, but in fact very rarely is.

 

Pretty sure the Angels won a WS by repeatedly walking Mr. Barry Bonds.

[Slasher9]

There are no absolutes. I think managing in 2012 had passed Bobby by. His experience was not recent.

 

agreed - no absolutes. but the landscape both present and past is littered with Managers with experience that are terrible at their job. i simply used Bobby V as an example we would all agree did a terrible job.

[User Name]

Pretty sure the Angels won a WS by repeatedly walking Mr. Barry Bonds.

 

He said "Rarely" and if there's an exception to that rule, Barry Bonds was it.

[User Name]

1. There is literally nobody who is going over printouts when a dude is on deck. The manager already knows the guys to call up in situations and such. Heck, I think the Pirates have an analytics guy on staff traveling with Hurdle to advise him on defensive positioning.

2. Repeatedly walking a guy is generally crappy baseball. Ortiz was ungodly hot for 6 games coming off of a series where he went 2 for 22. Sometimes you tip your hat to the other guy. Pitching around a guy is like bunting - it sounds like a good idea, but in fact very rarely is.

3. Agreed on Matheny and Ausmus, who in game miss things which seem obvious. At the same time they have won a lot (which tells you a lot about the actual magnitude of the impact of in game tactics). In particular Matheny has handled young players well as the Cardinals put new guys out all the time.

 

You nicely summed up what was going to be my retort.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's a challenge - somebody name a manager they think is great, and then explain exactly why he's great.

[sk7326]

Pretty sure the Angels won a WS by repeatedly walking Mr. Barry Bonds.

 

The World Series where Bonds was .471/.700/1.294 and hit 4 homeruns?

 

The Angels won the World Series because the Giants could not hold a 5 run lead with 9 outs to go.

[a700hitter]

1. There is literally nobody who is going over printouts when a dude is on deck. The manager already knows the guys to call up in situations and such. Heck, I think the Pirates have an analytics guy on staff traveling with Hurdle to advise him on defensive positioning.

I have seen this. You will not see it n TV -- one of the things that you will see if you are at the games. Last year, Terry Collins would go to his flip binder often last year. At times, they even caught him doing it on TV.

 

Repeatedly walking a guy is generally crappy baseball. Ortiz was ungodly hot for 6 games coming off of a series where he went 2 for 22. Sometimes you tip your hat to the other guy. Pitching around a guy is like bunting - it sounds like a good idea, but in fact very rarely is.

The 2013 World Series was the time to do it. Ortiz was not only the best and most dangerous hitter on the team but as UN would say, he was hotter than blacksmith's coal and everyone else was stone cold. I'll have to disagree with you on this. I kept expecting him to walk Ortiz, and I was glad that he did not. It dawned on him in game 6 and then the other bats got it going.

[sk7326]

I have seen this. You will not see it n TV -- one of the things that you will see if you are at the games. Last year, Terry Collins would go to his flip binder often last year. At times, they even caught him doing it on TV.

 

The 2013 World Series was the time to do it. Ortiz was not only the best and most dangerous hitter on the team but as UN would say, he was hotter than blacksmith's coal and everyone else was stone cold. I'll have to disagree with you on this. I kept expecting him to walk Ortiz, and I was glad that he did not. It dawned on him in game 6 and then the other bats got it going.

 

He had it going - a mere 3 games before that he had not. C'est baseball.

 

Fun aside: Ortiz' 2013 ALCS is probably the most fondly remembered crappy performance in baseball history.

[a700hitter]

Here's a challenge - somebody name a manager they think is great, and then explain exactly why he's great.

When I hear ex-players talk about managers that they admired, it is usually guys who impressed them with seeing things that they the players didn't see themselves. I have heard many players who were awestruck when they were young players after speaking to a coach or manager after a game, because of the coaches insights and observations. I don't think Yogi Berra was a great manager, because he lacked the ability to inspire or motivate, but he was a great coach. I heard many stories from former players who would be awestruck at the things Berra saw in a game. He wasn't a "see the ball, hit the ball" dummy like people would like to believe.

[Dojji]

Here's a challenge - somebody name a manager they think is great, and then explain exactly why he's great.

 

tito Francona. He managed the media well and his teams always seemed to be relaxed and confident. Also Joe Torre, for similar reasons.

[a700hitter]

He had it going - a mere 3 games before that he had not. C'est baseball.

 

Fun aside: Ortiz' 2013 ALCS is probably the most fondly remembered crappy performance in baseball history.

It was pretty obvious in that World Series that he was locked in and everyone else was flailing like they were swinging at a pinata. He adjusted much to slowly to the conditions within the game and the series, and he got outmanaged by Farrell, who pushed mainly all the right buttons in that Series.

[a700hitter]

tito Francona. He managed the media well and his teams always seemed to be relaxed and confident. Also Joe Torre, for similar reasons.

Also, Torre was very adept at looking the other way when half of his team had needles stuck in their buttocks.

[Slasher9]

He had it going - a mere 3 games before that he had not. C'est baseball.

 

Fun aside: Ortiz' 2013 ALCS is probably the most fondly remembered crappy performance in baseball history.

 

truth. any others come to mind?