Referendum on John Farrell

[a700hitter]

We are 0-6 in his starts, 5-10 in his appearances. So not too good so far.

Hence, why I hate seeing his name in the lineup.

[Maxbialystock]

What are you even talking about? I have not glossed over anything. First off, you have not been on this board long enough to know my opinion on any of these issues. I have been a defender of Farrell on this board ever since he got on board. The fact that I defend him doesn't make me look over when he makes stupid decisions. Starting Young against RHP is a stupid decision, full stop.

 

I've wondered out loud if Lovullo isn't a better option given the team's overpay to keep him around, but I haven't asked for Farrell's head (I say a lot of stupid s*** in GT's, but we all do) with a clear head. Stop trying to tell me what I think.

 

Good for you for defending Farrell, which I mostly stopped doing last year when I thought it probably was time to fire him. This year I am defending an idea more than the man, and the idea is that managers rarely get fired for making bad in-game decisions and usually get fired for the simplest of reasons: the team is losing or not playing up to expectations. A corollary to that idea is that managers have a wealth of information and relatively abundant time to make in game decisions, on top of which most of them have bench coaches who surely are there to be a sounding board if nothing else. The guy you like, Lovullo, is currently the bench coach for Farrell and no doubt a participant in all those decisions you take exception to. On top of that, managers don't have to make a whole lot of decisions during a game as I have pointed out before. I therefore think it is illogical to assume that, just because a decision turns out badly or we don't readily see why it was made, it was a bad decision.

 

Let me also acknowledge that Young ain't hitting righties this year--a big swing in OPS between his lefty and righty splits. So it is fair, at least on the surface, to ask why in the wide, wide world of sports Farrell--possibly with the support of Lovullo--persists in batting Young against righties.

 

The first part of the answer has already been stated: the Sox have faced a lot of righty pitchers this month and not many lefties. How many righties? Betts leads the team in at bats with 104, and only 7 of those have been against lefties. Similar ratios apply to the other key righty bats--Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ramirez, and both catchers. Thus has the point already been made that, if Young should not be used against righties, he basically shouldn't be used at all--or, at the most, very sparingly.

 

Let us note in passing that almost every hitter on this team actually hits righties better that lefties, which helps to explain why Farrell has stayed with pretty much the same lineup--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, Shaw, Holt, catcher, Bradley. Betts, it turns out, only hits righties slightly better than lefties, but almost everyone else, including the other righty hitters, hit righty pitchers way better than lefty pitchers. The two exceptions have been Swihart, now at Pawtucket and a switch hitter, and the increasingly infamous (on this board) Young.

 

Other than the simple fact that the Sox have faced a whole lot of righty pitchers so far, there is another reason for seeing Young bat against them. He is, true, the fourth outfielder, but we should also note the ubiquity of the third outfielder, Holt, who we all know also plays 3B, SS, 2B, and 1B. Because of that, Holt is more likely than most regular outfielders to end up playing in the infield, especially since Sandoval went on the DL. This means that Young gets to hit a little more often than the usual fourth outfielder (vice a platoon outfielder) and inevitably will face righties, at least in April 2016.

 

On top of that situation is the Castillo business. He ain't hitting and his fielding is erratic, but the Sox are paying him a whole lot of money to be down there at Pawtucket. I think they want to bring back Castillo, but only if he can contribute. So right now it seems to me to make sense to give Young a few more at bats and fielding opportunities so that the Sox can make a more informed decision about who to play in the outfield after Betts, Bradley, and Holt, remembering that Holt can always be a backup infielder, also that the Sox are paying Young $2.5M this year (after playing in 140 games last year for the Yankees).

 

One more small point. To date Young has 26 at bats, 16 against righties and 10 against lefties. This means he has a faced a far larger proportion of lefty pitchers than anyone else on the team, so Farrell is not ignoring the fact that he is far better against lefties than righties.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[Elktonnick]

Good for you for defending Farrell, which I mostly stopped doing last year when I thought it probably was time to fire him. This year I am defending an idea more than the man, and the idea is that managers rarely get fired for making bad in-game decisions and usually get fired for the simplest of reasons: the team is losing or not playing up to expectations. A corollary to that idea is that managers have a wealth of information and relatively abundant time to make in game decisions, on top of which most of them have bench coaches who surely are there to be a sounding board if nothing else. The guy you like, Lovullo, is currently the bench coach for Farrell and no doubt a participant in all those decisions you take exception to. On top of that, managers don't have to make a whole lot of decisions during a game as I have pointed out before. I therefore think it is illogical to assume that, just because a decision turns out badly or we don't readily see why it was made, it was a bad decision.

 

Let me also acknowledge that Young ain't hitting righties this year--a big swing in OPS between his lefty and righty splits. So it is fair, at least on the surface, to ask why in the wide, wide world of sports Farrell--possibly with the support of Lovullo--persists in batting Young against righties.

 

The first part of the answer has already been stated: the Sox have faced a lot of righty pitchers this month and not many lefties. How many righties? Betts leads the team in at bats with 104, and only 7 of those have been against lefties. Similar ratios apply to the other key righty bats--Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ramirez, and both catchers. Thus has the point already been made that, if Young should not be used against righties, he basically shouldn't be used at all--or, at the most, very sparingly.

 

Let us note in passing that almost every hitter on this team actually hits righties better that lefties, which helps to explain why Farrell has stayed with pretty much the same lineup--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, Shaw, Holt, catcher, Bradley. Betts, it turns out, only hits righties slightly better than lefties, but almost everyone else, including the other righty hitters, hit righty pitchers way better than lefty pitchers. The two exceptions have been Swihart, now at Pawtucket and a switch hitter, and the increasingly infamous (on this board) Young.

 

Other than the simple fact that the Sox have faced a whole lot of righty pitchers so far, there is another reason for seeing Young bat against them. He is, true, the fourth outfielder, but we should also note the ubiquity of the third outfielder, Holt, who we all know also plays 3B, SS, 2B, and 1B. Because of that, Holt is more likely than most regular outfielders to end up playing in the infield, especially since Sandoval went on the DL. This means that Young gets to hit a little more often than the usual fourth outfielder (vice a platoon outfielder) and inevitably will face righties, at least in April 2016.

 

On top of that situation is the Castillo business. He ain't hitting and his fielding is erratic, but the Sox are paying him a whole lot of money to be down there at Pawtucket. I think they want to bring back Castillo, but only if he can contribute. So right now it seems to me to make sense to give Young a few more at bats and fielding opportunities so that the Sox can make a more informed decision about who to play in the outfield after Betts, Bradley, and Holt, remembering that Holt can always be a backup infielder, also that the Sox are paying Young $2.5M this year (after playing in 140 games last year for the Yankees).

 

One more small point. To date Young has 26 at bats, 16 against righties and 10 against lefties. This means he has a faced a far larger proportion of lefty pitchers than anyone else on the team, so Farrell is not ignoring the fact that he is far better against lefties than righties.

Your comments about Castillo are right on. I saw him play in Ft Myers and his defense (or lack of it) was surprising. Given the way Vaz and Hannigan are playing it is no wonder that DD wants Swihart to try out in left. It appears that DD wants insurance in the event that Castillo continues to disappoint.

[User Name]

Good for you for defending Farrell, which I mostly stopped doing last year when I thought it probably was time to fire him. This year I am defending an idea more than the man, and the idea is that managers rarely get fired for making bad in-game decisions and usually get fired for the simplest of reasons: the team is losing or not playing up to expectations. A corollary to that idea is that managers have a wealth of information and relatively abundant time to make in game decisions, on top of which most of them have bench coaches who surely are there to be a sounding board if nothing else. The guy you like, Lovullo, is currently the bench coach for Farrell and no doubt a participant in all those decisions you take exception to. On top of that, managers don't have to make a whole lot of decisions during a game as I have pointed out before. I therefore think it is illogical to assume that, just because a decision turns out badly or we don't readily see why it was made, it was a bad decision.

 

Let me also acknowledge that Young ain't hitting righties this year--a big swing in OPS between his lefty and righty splits. So it is fair, at least on the surface, to ask why in the wide, wide world of sports Farrell--possibly with the support of Lovullo--persists in batting Young against righties.

 

The first part of the answer has already been stated: the Sox have faced a lot of righty pitchers this month and not many lefties. How many righties? Betts leads the team in at bats with 104, and only 7 of those have been against lefties. Similar ratios apply to the other key righty bats--Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ramirez, and both catchers. Thus has the point already been made that, if Young should not be used against righties, he basically shouldn't be used at all--or, at the most, very sparingly.

 

Let us note in passing that almost every hitter on this team actually hits righties better that lefties, which helps to explain why Farrell has stayed with pretty much the same lineup--Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz, Ramirez, Shaw, Holt, catcher, Bradley. Betts, it turns out, only hits righties slightly better than lefties, but almost everyone else, including the other righty hitters, hit righty pitchers way better than lefty pitchers. The two exceptions have been Swihart, now at Pawtucket and a switch hitter, and the increasingly infamous (on this board) Young.

 

Other than the simple fact that the Sox have faced a whole lot of righty pitchers so far, there is another reason for seeing Young bat against them. He is, true, the fourth outfielder, but we should also note the ubiquity of the third outfielder, Holt, who we all know also plays 3B, SS, 2B, and 1B. Because of that, Holt is more likely than most regular outfielders to end up playing in the infield, especially since Sandoval went on the DL. This means that Young gets to hit a little more often than the usual fourth outfielder (vice a platoon outfielder) and inevitably will face righties, at least in April 2016.

 

On top of that situation is the Castillo business. He ain't hitting and his fielding is erratic, but the Sox are paying him a whole lot of money to be down there at Pawtucket. I think they want to bring back Castillo, but only if he can contribute. So right now it seems to me to make sense to give Young a few more at bats and fielding opportunities so that the Sox can make a more informed decision about who to play in the outfield after Betts, Bradley, and Holt, remembering that Holt can always be a backup infielder, also that the Sox are paying Young $2.5M this year (after playing in 140 games last year for the Yankees).

 

One more small point. To date Young has 26 at bats, 16 against righties and 10 against lefties. This means he has a faced a far larger proportion of lefty pitchers than anyone else on the team, so Farrell is not ignoring the fact that he is far better against lefties than righties.

 

Your defense of an "idea" means very little to me. While the Castillo point is very much valid, trying to deflect the blame of Farrell's decision onto Lovullo is intelectually dishonest, and shows a general agreement with the fact that Young's deployment has at least been sub-optimal. You can't have it both ways. Saying that managers have a wealth of information is correct, but they do offer explanations for their decisions (in Farrell's case, he wanted to get Young AB's) and when they do, and it's stupid, we get to call them out.

 

This is a forum for baseball discussion. If I want to criticize the manager's decision, I will, because I can. Trying to invalidate my opinion with platitudes gets the discussion nowhere.

[mvp 78]

Biggest problem with the argument is Young hitting more in April because of Holt subbing elsewhere. More often than not, Holt was on the bench when Young played.

[Maxbialystock]

Your defense of an "idea" means very little to me. While the Castillo point is very much valid, trying to deflect the blame of Farrell's decision onto Lovullo is intelectually dishonest, and shows a general agreement with the fact that Young's deployment has at least been sub-optimal. You can't have it both ways. Saying that managers have a wealth of information is correct, but they do offer explanations for their decisions (in Farrell's case, he wanted to get Young AB's) and when they do, and it's stupid, we get to call them out.

 

This is a forum for baseball discussion. If I want to criticize the manager's decision, I will, because I can. Trying to invalidate my opinion with platitudes gets the discussion nowhere.

 

I didn't say you couldn't criticize the manager, especially on a forum like this. I simply provided some counterbalancing points. It was not intellectually dishonest to mention Lovullo because he is in fact the bench coach. Are you arguing that Farrell has a bench coach he doesn't talk to about lineups and other decisions?

 

And did I not reconfirm and indeed emphasize that Young isn't hitting righties, which is basically your only point? I notice you stayed away from two key points because you have no counter to them--that Sox hitters have overwhelmingly face righty pitchers and that the Sox, Farrell, would have other reasons for getting Young some at bats besides letting him hit only against lefty pitchers, which proportionately he has done more than any other Sox hitter.

 

This is indeed an open forum, but you have decided I can't have an opinion because it differs from yours, because I'm new to the site, and, dare I say it, because my arguments are more compelling than yours.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[Maxbialystock]

Biggest problem with the argument is Young hitting more in April because of Holt subbing elsewhere. More often than not, Holt was on the bench when Young played.

 

You need to read more carefully. I said Young is the fourth outfielder, which means he can replace any of the first three, including Holt. He can also replace Holt whenever he is used in the infield.

 

The biggest problem with my argument is that you can't defeat it. If you could, you would.

[Spudboy]

Boy. You are making friends all over the place.

[illinoisredsox]

Biggest problem with the argument is Young hitting more in April because of Holt subbing elsewhere. More often than not, Holt was on the bench when Young played.

 

Which would be wrong:

 

1 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

2 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

3 started, Holt DNP

4 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

5 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

6 started, Holt DNP

7 started, Holt DNP

8 started, Holt DNP

9 ph for Bogaerts, Holt stayed in

10 ph for Bradley, Holt played all 9 innings on defense (Rutledge ph for him in 9th)

11 ran for Bogaerts, Holt stayed in

12 started, Holt played ss

13 ph for Price, Holt replaced in double switch

14 ph for Betts, Holt stayed in

Edited April 30, 2016 by illinoisredsox

[User Name]

I didn't say you couldn't criticize the manager, especially on a forum like this. I simply provided some counterbalancing points. It was not intellectually dishonest to mention Lovullo because he is in fact the bench coach. Are you arguing that Farrell has a bench coach he doesn't talk to about lineups and other decisions?

 

And did I not reconfirm and indeed emphasize that Young isn't hitting righties, which is basically your only point? I notice you stayed away from two key points because you have no counter to them--that Sox hitters have overwhelmingly face righty pitchers and that the Sox, Farrell, would have other reasons for getting Young some at bats besides letting him hit only against lefty pitchers, which proportionately he has done more than any other Sox hitter.

 

This is indeed an open forum, but you have decided I can't have an opinion because it differs from yours, because I'm new to the site, and, dare I say it, because my arguments are more compelling than yours.

 

Since when does the bench coach have a say in final managing decisions? That's not how managing works. Also bro, get off that high horse. Your arguments aren't that compelling. They are, however, very pretentious.

[User Name]

Boy. You are making friends all over the place.

 

They couldn't all be pleasant people.

[mvp 78]

Which would be wrong:

 

1 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

2 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

3 started, Holt DNP

4 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

5 ph for Shaw, Holt stayed in

6 started, Holt DNP

7 started, Holt DNP

8 started, Holt DNP

9 ph for Bogaerts, Holt stayed in

10 ph for Bradley, Holt played all 9 innings on defense (Rutledge ph for him in 9th)

11 ran for Bogaerts, Holt stayed in

12 started, Holt played ss

13 ph for Price, Holt replaced in double switch

14 ph for Betts, Holt stayed in

 

When he's started, Holt has been on the bench almost always.

[Maxbialystock]

Boy. You are making friends all over the place.

 

A fair point. Apparently, newbies on talksox are not supposed to have opinions or, if they do, they should only be to agree with what someone else said. I started this thread to get a discussion started and overall have been happy with the responses. But then I got my dander up when I was attacked by one guy largely because I just joined the site--a very mild form of cyberbullying.

 

Somewhere in there came the argument that playing Young was a clear case of mismanagement, so I decided, what the hey, why not look at the numbers? And the numbers say to me that there are good reasons to play Young despite the fact that he can't hit righties (so far this season, anyway). I was astounded to discover that Betts has 97 at bats against righties and just 7 against lefties. Even Shaw, who owns righties and is owned by lefties, sees a lot of righty pitchers. Then I looked at the roster and realized that Young is more likely than the typical fourth outfielder (who is not platooned) to get at bats. He plays whenever Holt sits and whenever Holt moves to the infield. Plus the Castillo things.

 

You call yourself "old fart," but I might be older (born 1940). I have found this thread to be rejuvenating.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[User Name]

No, you're just very unlikeable. Lots of newbies here have opinions and don't come off as terribly as you do. Chill out, and be a bit more pleasant.

[a700hitter]

A fair point. Apparently, newbies on talksox are not supposed to have opinions or, if they do, they should only be to agree with what someone else said. I started this thread to get a discussion started and overall have been happy with the responses. But then I got my dander up when I was attacked by one guy largely because I just joined the site--a very mild form of cyberbullying.

 

Somewhere in there came the argument that playing Young was a clear case of mismanagement, so I decided, what the hey, why not look at the numbers? And the numbers say to me that there are good reasons to play Young despite the fact that he can't hit righties (so far this season, anyway). I was astounded to discover that Betts has 97 at bats against righties and just 7 against lefties. Even Shaw, who owns righties and is owned by lefties, sees a lot of righty pitchers. Then I looked at the roster and realized that Young is more likely than the typical fourth outfielder (who is not platooned) to get at bats. He plays whenever Holt sits and whenever Holt moves to the infield. Plus the Castillo things.

 

You call yourself "old fart," but I might be older (born 1940). I have found this thread to be rejuvenating.

Don't get upset with the occasional douchey post or comment. I think you probably have a lot of interesting stories and insight.

[User Name]

Don't get upset with the occasional douchey post or comment. I think you probably have a lot of interesting stories and insight.

 

The 70+ guys sticking together....I like it! Us young 'uns with the functioning penises and non-achey joints will band together as well! I know I'm being ageist again, but I will enjoy my time until I get to be your age and have to endure prostate exams (unless you actually enjoy that in which case, more power to you)

[a700hitter]

The 70+ guys sticking together....I like it! Us young 'uns with the functioning penises and non-achey joints will band together as well! I know I'm being ageist again, but I will enjoy my time until I get to be your age and have to endure prostate exams (unless you actually enjoy that in which case, more power to you)

LOL!! Stop. I am not even old enough to get Social Security or Senior Citizen discounts. Give the new guys some latitude. We don't need to jump all over them and haze them. That's not welcoming, and we did welcome them.

[User Name]

LOL!! Stop. I am not even old enough to get Social Security or Senior Citizen discounts. Give the new guys some latitude. We don't need to jump all over them and haze them. That's not welcoming, and we did welcome them.

 

I will be an ageist until I am an old fart myself, besides, you totally get seniior discounts. And new guy's the one being super pretentious. He should let down his guard a little bit.

[a700hitter]

I will be an ageist until I am an old fart myself, besides, you totally get seniior discounts. And new guy's the one being super pretentious. He should let down his guard a little bit.

LOL! I don't think I can get senior discounts at age 57. Maybe the guy is a little cranky today, but I wouldn't mind discussing some baseball that remembers Ted Williams playing days.

[Maxbialystock]

I will be an ageist until I am an old fart myself, besides, you totally get seniior discounts. And new guy's the one being super pretentious. He should let down his guard a little bit.

 

Let me make this very simple. You thrive on insulting newbies who disagree with you and even indulge in a little cyber bullying with your repeated insults. You are the one at fault, not I.

[User Name]

You really need to smoke a joint and chill out broski. Join our super chill community and stop with the victim act.

[User Name]

LOL! I don't think I can get senior discounts at age 57. Maybe the guy is a little cranky today, but I wouldn't mind discussing some baseball that remembers Ted Williams playing days.

 

57? Are you not counting leap years?

[Youk Of The Nation]

Let me make this very simple. You thrive on insulting newbies who disagree with you and even indulge in a little cyber bullying with your repeated insults. You are the one at fault, not I.

 

Oookay, let's all take a step back here. There's no reason for an argument like this to spawn from a disagreement about baseball. You were, in fact, being a little obnoxious. Telling people "I am right, you just can't defeat my argument" is not the way to discuss things. Just take a break from attacking each other's attitudes, BOTH of you, and argue about the opinions themselves. Key word: Opinions.

[a700hitter]

57? Are you not counting leap years?

LOL!! I am counting all years. And you might be shocked to know that I still have some hair on my head although it is starting to migrate to my ears and nose, so landscaping is required.

[User Name]

LOL!! I am counting all years. And you might be shocked to know that I still have some hair on my head although it is starting to migrate to my ears and nose, so landscaping is required.

 

Is any of that hair black though? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. I will admit though, I get some manscaping done meself.

[a700hitter]

Is any of that hair black though? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. I will admit though, I get some manscaping done meself.

It is dark brown #13. LOL!!

[mvp 78]

LOL!! I am counting all years. And you might be shocked to know that I still have some hair on my head although it is starting to migrate to my ears and nose, so landscaping is required.

 

At what age do I need to worry about the hair migration? Asking for a friend.

[User Name]

At what age do I need to worry about the hair migration? Asking for a friend.

 

Start buying some trimmers, dad pants.

[a700hitter]

At what age do I need to worry about the hair migration? Asking for a friend.

It starts slowly in the early 50's but the pace really accelerates after 55. If you are a good friend, you should buy yourself ahem I mean him a nose hair clipper.

[Maxbialystock]

Oookay, let's all take a step back here. There's no reason for an argument like this to spawn from a disagreement about baseball. You were, in fact, being a little obnoxious. Telling people "I am right, you just can't defeat my argument" is not the way to discuss things. Just take a break from attacking each other's attitudes, BOTH of you, and argue about the opinions themselves. Key word: Opinions.

 

I hear you, but have to say once again that I began this thread with a somewhat lengthy explanation of why I don't think Farrell needs to be fired right now. It was not only non-antagonistic and not high-handed, it was borderline apologetic because I said would have been fine with firing Farrell last year. I have said I agree that Young ain't hitting righties. And I did not say that my arguments or evidence were necessarily right, only that those disagreeing made no attempt to defeat them.

 

I entirely agree that I've been a little harsh and high-handed--you say obnoxious-- but believe those comments were in response to unmerited insults. I am beginning to discover that on this board insults are apparently normal, so clearly I need to adjust.

 

Meanwhile, I continue to believe the arguments and/or opinions that Farrell should be fired right now have little merit, that the team is playing solid ball (13-10 and leading the AL in runs scored) despite the issues with the rotation, and that a good case can be made for Farrell playing Young against righties, etc.