Referendum on John Farrell

[Maxbialystock]

A bad decision is a bad decision is a bad decision. Simple as that.

 

You are conflating different issues. The fact that it has not prevented the Sox success does not take away the fact that it's not the correct deployment of assets.

 

The fact that the Sox haven't faced many lefties doesn't force Farrell to start him against righties, or the pinch hitting decisions (which are even more head-scratching). The usage patterns have subsided, and we're about to play some more lefties, but the point stands.

 

I don't think I'm conflating anything. Young has been used sparingly despite being the 4th outfielder and Holt being called upon to play in the infield now and then. If you are right that he should only be platooned against lefty starters, the Sox are basically paying him $2.5M basically to sit on the bench. If he is as bad as you say he is, why did the Yankees play him in 140 games last year?

 

And,remember, this is all in the context of whether Farrell should be fired. There is no way, no how any MLB manager would be fired because he gave some at bats and innings in the field to his 4th outfielder in April. As I pointed out earlier, for all we know Dombrowski asked him to play Young a few times just to see what he can do because we know the Sox would love to bring Castillo back but only if he can help.

[User Name]

One AB in a critical situation (loss @ Cleveland) can mean the difference between a win and a loss.

 

Again, a bad decision is a bad decision in and of itself. I don't understand why this is such a problematic issue.

[devildavid]

One AB in a critical situation (loss @ Cleveland) can mean the difference between a win and a loss.

 

Again, a bad decision is a bad decision in and of itself. I don't understand why this is such a problematic issue.

 

Are you talking about pinch hitting with Sandoval? In the one loss to Cleveland, Chris Young had a pinch hit double and scored a run. So that decision was a good one.

[mvp 78]

Farrell is a wirse manager than Young is at hitting RHP. Dump him already.

[User Name]

Are you talking about pinch hitting with Sandoval? In the one loss to Cleveland, Chris Young had a pinch hit double and scored a run. So that decision was a good one.

 

You are correct, however:

 

04/10 Vs vs Tor:

 

Young starts vs Estrada (I assume the train of thought is that he has similar splits vs righties and lefties). 7th inning, 2-0 game, Estrada in his last inning. Shaw walks, and Young is allowed to his against Estrada and predictably fails with Holt and Panda on the bench and Storen warming up.

 

17/04 vs Toronto:

 

Young starts vs Sanchez. 9th inning. Hanley singles, Shaw homers, Young K's against Osuna, who is very tough on righties, with Holt on the bench. Sox lose 5-3.

 

Couple games later starts against another righty (Fiers), in a loss to Hou. I assume it's because Fiers has a slight reverse split. But Young is coming off a sub -600 OPS season against righties.

 

I mean, I have clearly admitted the usage patterns have improved (no longer pinch hitting for Shaw, limiting exposure for righties) but that doesn't make it impossible to admit he handled Young crappily in the beginning of the season for the sake of "getting him AB's".

[sk7326]

Are you talking about pinch hitting with Sandoval? In the one loss to Cleveland, Chris Young had a pinch hit double and scored a run. So that decision was a good one.

 

Even the opener - if you want a less obvious decision was not lifting Holt for Young with the bases juiced and the Sox having a chance to blow the game open.

[User Name]

Even the opener - if you want a less obvious decision was not lifting Holt for Young with the bases juiced and the Sox having a chance to blow the game open.

 

That's actually the game I was thinking about, but they won that one of course.

[devildavid]

Even the opener - if you want a less obvious decision was not lifting Holt for Young with the bases juiced and the Sox having a chance to blow the game open.

 

That's actually the game I was thinking about, but they won that one of course.

 

And this just demonstrates how difficult it really is to judge in game moves. Sometimes what we judge as wrong does no harm and what we judge as right does not succeed. For me, baseball is not a highly strategic sport. One bad pitch can lose a game, and the manager has as much chance of predicting it as we do. He does not have as much control over the results as some like to believe. His strategic approach has to combine the long term with the short term as far as utilization of his players. Unless he has a lot of input in the makeup of his roster, this can be difficult to do. Farrell is no Earl Weaver, but he is not a complete buffoon.

[User Name]

No one in this thread has claimed he's a buffoon. However, as is expected, his moves are heavily dissected. I have admitted ho good he is at the other aspects of managing, but his in-game managing leaves a lot to be desired.

[devildavid]

No one in this thread has claimed he's a buffoon. However, as is expected, his moves are heavily dissected. I have admitted ho good he is at the other aspects of managing, but his in-game managing leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Maybe micro-dissected.

[User Name]

Maybe micro-dissected.

 

Is that a problem?

[devildavid]

Is that a problem?

 

It is if you want a realistic, objective evaluation of Farrell.

[CliffKlowers]

Great post. I totally agree.

[User Name]

It is if you want a realistic, objective evaluation of Farrell.

 

So we are not allowed to express our viewpoints on his game management and assess other poeple's viewpoints on the issue? I didn't realize this was "talk certain things about the sox". I thought it was talksox, period.

 

Also, no one here is objective. Everyone has their bias.

[CliffKlowers]

The team jelled on the field after Farrell got cancer. Hitting and pitching improved greatly. If you wish to male a causal statistical relationship on if it being the absence of Farrell or the managing of Lovullo then that is up to you. My guess is that the difference was the players and not the manager. Lovullo has said he same.

[User Name]

But who here has criticized anything other than Farrell's in-game management? That's countering a point no one has brought up.

[sk7326]

And this just demonstrates how difficult it really is to judge in game moves. Sometimes what we judge as wrong does no harm and what we judge as right does not succeed. For me, baseball is not a highly strategic sport. One bad pitch can lose a game, and the manager has as much chance of predicting it as we do. He does not have as much control over the results as some like to believe. His strategic approach has to combine the long term with the short term as far as utilization of his players. Unless he has a lot of input in the makeup of his roster, this can be difficult to do. Farrell is no Earl Weaver, but he is not a complete buffoon.

 

Here is the thing - the right thing and the wrong thing (mostly) are right and wrong regardless of result. All you can grade is process, because process involves playing percentages. By definition playing percentages means there is something left to chance. Not swapping a lefty on lefty for a lefty killer - absolutely reduces the probability of a successful outcome. Now, games aren't played on paper - they're played in TV sets - so you can't control the outcome. But you can increase or decrease probability - and from an in-game tactics perspective, that is totally fair game.

[Maxbialystock]

Here is the thing - the right thing and the wrong thing (mostly) are right and wrong regardless of result. All you can grade is process, because process involves playing percentages. By definition playing percentages means there is something left to chance. Not swapping a lefty on lefty for a lefty killer - absolutely reduces the probability of a successful outcome. Now, games aren't played on paper - they're played in TV sets - so you can't control the outcome. But you can increase or decrease probability - and from an in-game tactics perspective, that is totally fair game.

 

Yes, but where I am coming from is that Farrell has a far better grasp of in-game tactics and stats than any of us. Plus he has a pretty good bench coach, Lovullo, helping him. So, quite frankly, I assume that every single in-game decision is well-informed and a good one regardless of outcome. Red Sox fans tend to assume that a bad outcome has to mean a bad decision. Last night, for example, playing Young had to be a bad decision because he didn't get a hit, score a run, sacrifice, or drive a run home. Me, I'm fine with that because I think the chances Holt would have done better are small. Moreover, it is always useful to give a bench player a game now and then. Plus the Sox are paying Young $2.5M, so it makes sense to see what he can do. From that standpoint, a bad outcome (no hits, etc) is almost as useful info as a good one.

 

I think the only time in-game decisions are relevant is when they are considered in the aggregate and tied to the team's overall success. Before last night the Sox were 5 games above .500 for the first time since 2013. Therefore the cumulative in-game decisions are fine from my perspective.

 

I also notice that no one, repeat no one, gave Farrell any credit when he had a hit and run on Sunday night when Vazquez came to bat with I think Holt on 1B. I think he did it mostly because he expected Betances to throw a first pitch fast ball strike because he had just come into the game. Farrell gets no credit for the dinger, or course, but should get lots for having Vazquez swinging at what was indeed a very hittable pitch. Let me hasten to add that, had Vazquez swung and missed and Holt been thrown out, it would have still been a good decision.

[sk7326]

Yes, but where I am coming from is that Farrell has a far better grasp of in-game tactics and stats than any of us. Plus he has a pretty good bench coach, Lovullo, helping him. So, quite frankly, I assume that every single in-game decision is well-informed and a good one regardless of outcome. Red Sox fans tend to assume that a bad outcome has to mean a bad decision. Last night, for example, playing Young had to be a bad decision because he didn't get a hit, score a run, sacrifice, or drive a run home. Me, I'm fine with that because I think the chances Holt would have done better are small. Moreover, it is always useful to give a bench player a game now and then. Plus the Sox are paying Young $2.5M, so it makes sense to see what he can do. From that standpoint, a bad outcome (no hits, etc) is almost as useful info as a good one.

 

I think the only time in-game decisions are relevant is when they are considered in the aggregate and tied to the team's overall success. Before last night the Sox were 5 games above .500 for the first time since 2013. Therefore the cumulative in-game decisions are fine from my perspective.

 

I also notice that no one, repeat no one, gave Farrell any credit when he had a hit and run on Sunday night when Vazquez came to bat with I think Holt on 1B. I think he did it mostly because he expected Betances to throw a first pitch fast ball strike because he had just come into the game. Farrell gets no credit for the dinger, or course, but should get lots for having Vazquez swinging at what was indeed a very hittable pitch. Let me hasten to add that, had Vazquez swung and missed and Holt been thrown out, it would have still been a good decision.

 

Oh, the appeal to authority ...

 

Playing Young last night was absolutely the right decision - now Young did not get a hit, but Farrell made the optimal choice among LFs.

 

Rest of your post I am not sure what we are arguing about. Good decisions and bad decisions are not necessarily outcome based. Now if the decisions seem good but keep failing - then you have to review the thought process.

[Maxbialystock]

sk7326,

 

We have little if anything to argue about.

[Maxbialystock]

But who here has criticized anything other than Farrell's in-game management? That's countering a point no one has brought up.

 

Here is where I am coming from--

 

Farrell has a far better grasp of in-game tactics and stats than any of us. Plus he has a pretty good bench coach, Lovullo, helping him. So, quite frankly, I assume that every single in-game decision is well-informed and a good one regardless of outcome. Red Sox fans tend to assume that a bad outcome has to mean a bad decision. Last night, for example, playing Young had to be a bad decision because he didn't get a hit, score a run, sacrifice, or drive a run home. Me, I'm fine with that because I think the chances Holt would have done better are small. Moreover, it is always useful to give a bench player a game now and then. Plus the Sox are paying Young $2.5M, so it makes sense to see what he can do. From that standpoint, a bad outcome (no hits, etc) is almost as useful info as a good one.

 

I think the only time in-game decisions are relevant is when they are considered in the aggregate and tied to the team's overall success. Before last night the Sox were 5 games above .500 for the first time since 2013. Therefore the cumulative in-game decisions are fine from my perspective.

 

I also notice that no one, repeat no one, gave Farrell any credit when he had a hit and run on Sunday night when Vazquez came to bat with I think Holt on 1B. I think he did it mostly because he expected Betances to throw a first pitch fast ball strike because he had just come into the game. Farrell gets no credit for the dinger, or course, but should get lots for having Vazquez swinging at what was indeed a very hittable pitch. Let me hasten to add that, had Vazquez swung and missed and Holt been thrown out, it would have still been a good decision to do the hit and run.

[mvp 78]

Here is where I am coming from--

 

Farrell has a far better grasp of in-game tactics and stats than any of us. Plus he has a pretty good bench coach, Lovullo, helping him. So, quite frankly, I assume that every single in-game decision is well-informed and a good one regardless of outcome. Red Sox fans tend to assume that a bad outcome has to mean a bad decision. Last night, for example, playing Young had to be a bad decision because he didn't get a hit, score a run, sacrifice, or drive a run home. Me, I'm fine with that because I think the chances Holt would have done better are small. Moreover, it is always useful to give a bench player a game now and then. Plus the Sox are paying Young $2.5M, so it makes sense to see what he can do. From that standpoint, a bad outcome (no hits, etc) is almost as useful info as a good one.

 

I think the only time in-game decisions are relevant is when they are considered in the aggregate and tied to the team's overall success. Before last night the Sox were 5 games above .500 for the first time since 2013. Therefore the cumulative in-game decisions are fine from my perspective.

 

I also notice that no one, repeat no one, gave Farrell any credit when he had a hit and run on Sunday night when Vazquez came to bat with I think Holt on 1B. I think he did it mostly because he expected Betances to throw a first pitch fast ball strike because he had just come into the game. Farrell gets no credit for the dinger, or course, but should get lots for having Vazquez swinging at what was indeed a very hittable pitch. Let me hasten to add that, had Vazquez swung and missed and Holt been thrown out, it would have still been a good decision to do the hit and run.

1. The bold sentence is the exact opposite of what UN has been saying. We are criticizing the strategy, not the results (i.e. why start Young against RHP if Holt is available).

 

2. The record is more indicative of beating up on the Yankees and Braves, 2 of the worst teams in the league.

 

3. When we give Chili Davis credit for preparing Vazquez, Farrell gets all the indirect credit he can have. The leaders of well run organizations/departments typically will take the blame for corrective matters but will applaud their staff for any successes.

[Maxbialystock]

mvp78,

 

1. I hear you, but my point remains: Farrell knows what he is doing--certainly better than we do. Young is the 4th outfielder and was/is surely paid $2.5M/year to do more than ride the pine. The Sox were facing predominantly righty not lefty pitchers. If the Sox want to bring Castillo, who is paid even more than Young and also hits righty, back to Boston, it's worthwhile now to see what Young can do against both righties and lefties and in the field. Last season Young played in 140 games for the Yankees, so surely he has some ability against both righty and lefty pitchers.

 

2. The Yankees and Braves bad records are due in part to the solid play by the Sox. Two of the Yankees games were actually tough wins because even lousy teams can beat good teams, especially when a good team has a gawdawful rotation.

 

3. I'm not ready to give Chili Davis credit for Vazquez. The fact is that Farrell took a chance on that first pitch and it paid off. It helped that the Sox overall are known not to be first pitch hitters.

 

About point #1 I need to add that, while it's always fun to talk and argue about the best lineup, I firmly believe that one guy normally doesn't make or break a lineup, which is why managers will often leave a player in a slump in his usual slot in the lineup. Plus this is April for crying out loud, the perfect time for Farrell to put guys in there to see what they can do. I believe he is under the gun--that if the Sox are losing in May or June, he could be out of a job. So I give him credit for playing Young because the FO and he both need to know what he is capable of this year.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[mvp 78]

He's being paid $13M over 2 years. Where is the $2.5 coming from?

[mvp 78]

3. I'm not ready to give Chili Davis credit for Vazquez. The fact is that Farrell took a chance on that first pitch and it paid off. It helped that the Sox overall are known not to be first pitch hitters.

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/05/02/christian-vazquez-heeds-chili-davis-advice-hits-longest-home-run-of-life/

[mvp 78]

Also, the Yankees and Braves sucked long before they faced the Red Sox. They are two struggling teams.

[Maxbialystock]

He's being paid $13M over 2 years. Where is the $2.5 coming from?

 

espn.com has the Sox roster with salaries and lists his as $2.5M. If the is being paid $6.5M/year, all the more reason to see what he can do even when the Sox are not seeing many lefty pitchers as was the case in April.

[Maxbialystock]

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/05/02/christian-vazquez-heeds-chili-davis-advice-hits-longest-home-run-of-life/

 

Nice article. I just replayed the Vazquez dinger and it shows quite clearly that Holt was going on the first pitch. Holt is not, repeat not a risk-taker. He has two stolen bases so far. No way was he going on his own on the first pitch and in that situation (two outs, late inning, game tied). That play had to be a hit and run. I am confident that Davis did what he said he did--told Vazquez to be aggressive. That might even have inspired Farrell to call the hit and run. But I have no doubt hit and run was the play.

[illinoisredsox]

espn.com has the Sox roster with salaries and lists his as $2.5M. If the is being paid $6.5M/year, all the more reason to see what he can do even when the Sox are not seeing many lefty pitchers as was the case in April.

 

Baseball Reference has it at $6.5M for both years.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/youngch04.shtml#contracts

[Maxbialystock]

Also, the Yankees and Braves sucked long before they faced the Red Sox. They are two struggling teams.

 

 

Sucked in MLB ain't the same as in the NBA or NFL. You can be mired in last place and your manager in danger of losing his job and still be playing .400 ball. Go back and look at both series. In the four against the Braves, the Sox won the first one, 1-0, hardly a cakewalk. They lost the last game. And the 2d game was 6-4 going into the 9th when the Sox scored 5 runs. In the Yankees series two of the three games were close, exciting games to watch.

 

Speaking of sucking, are you unaware that our pitching sucks (or has sucked) with the 13th best ERA on the AL? That they gave up 7 or more runs against Cleveland, toronto, Baltimore twice, Tampa, Houston, and the Yankees? That Kimbrel was absolutely horrible in at least three games? That Price ain't worth the price (yet)? Hitting is keeping the Sox alive, and you guys are griping that Farrell is mismanaging the lineup and the pinch-hitting because Young has 16 at bats against righties. I mean, how bad can he be? I say again, I assume the manager is making good decisions as long as the aggregate decision-making (the wins vs. losses) is good. I also say again, the big decision was benching Sandoval and playing Shaw, and he got that one dead right.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Maxbialystock