Referendum on John Farrell

[devildavid]

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

 

I would argue that you have to look at in game management in the aggregate, and not just pick out single instances of what you perceive as bad decisions. Over the course of a season, in game decisions will always fluctuate. Sometimes good decisions are made in losses and bad decisions in wins. Long term strategy and in game decisions are inextricably linked together. Sometimes you need to rest a starting player and use a bench player for the long term benefit of team performance.

[Maxbialystock]

I would argue that you have to look at in game management in the aggregate, and not just pick out single instances of what you perceive as bad decisions. Over the course of a season, in game decisions will always fluctuate. Sometimes good decisions are made in losses and bad decisions in wins. Long term strategy and in game decisions are inextricably linked together. Sometimes you need to rest a starting player and use a bench player for the long term benefit of team performance.

 

You said it better than I because you are more concise.

[sk7326]

Another couple of exhibits in the "Farrell Game Management" museum

 

1. Flip flopping Bradley and Vasquez. With the top of the order Boston has, slightly lowering the probability of the top of the order coming on with guys to knock in is not good. Now that is a fairly minor offense compared to ...

 

2. Sending Betts up to bunt when Vasquez was already in scoring position. Bunting is one of those things like intentional walks, which seems like a smart, professional managery thing to do - but it very very rarely is.

 

3. Managing the bullpen by score. Somehow down a run is different than tied - so Tommy Layne gets the call instead of Uehara or Carson Smith. That is kind of baffling to me, although he is consistent with that logic. Same with having both Kimbrel and Uehara up for the 9th. After all, it's not like Koji can't finish. Should not be so fearful of putting Kimbrel into a tie game.

[mvp 78]

Layne is fine and had no trouble. Smith and Uegara need their innings monitored.

[sk7326]

Layne is fine and had no trouble. Smith and Uegara need their innings monitored.

 

Smith last pitched Monday - the game was very much on the table. For me #2 of the 3 noted was worst by far. I don't get the general philosophy that a 1 run deficit requires your best relievers to sit - raising a white flag in relative terms.

[Dojji]

Add to that the fact that our lower echelon relievers really had to put it on the line the previous night, and it was kinda time for the upper echelon guys to get back in the game.

[Bellhorn04]

Smith last pitched Monday - the game was very much on the table. For me #2 of the 3 noted was worst by far. I don't get the general philosophy that a 1 run deficit requires your best relievers to sit - raising a white flag in relative terms.

 

But what is the expected win % down 1 run in the late innings?

[mvp 78]

Smith last pitched Monday - the game was very much on the table. For me #2 of the 3 noted was worst by far. I don't get the general philosophy that a 1 run deficit requires your best relievers to sit - raising a white flag in relative terms.

 

How many runs did Layne give up?

[Dojji]

How many runs did Layne give up?

 

It's a fair point that Layne had no trouble getting through the inning. It's still a move that can be subject to reasonable and fair criticism.

[mvp 78]

I guess. I also trust Layne more than most posters. I don't cringe when he or Ross come in. I don't see it as throwing in the white towel. I'd agree if Noe or a lesser arm came in.

[Dojji]

I think some of our posters are approaching the discussion more from a theoretical standpoint, not so much about the individual pitcher as about calling on the guy who occupies that position in the bullpen deptn in that situation. Our pen has been excellent this year so far, but Layne is still literally the last man out of the pen at the moment.

[Kimmi]

2. Sending Betts up to bunt when Vasquez was already in scoring position. Bunting is one of those things like intentional walks, which seems like a smart, professional managery thing to do - but it very very rarely is.

 

Betts was bunting on his own last night. I can understand why he would, since he had been scuffling a bit and because he has the speed to bunt for a hit. But I agree with you completely on the sac bunt issue.

 

I've been tracking the team's sac bunts / attempts this season. So far, Farrell is doing a very good job of not misusing it. Here is what Farrell had to say about Mookie's attempted sac bunt, which is refreshing.

 

Mookie Betts' seventh-inning bunt was on his own, Farrell said Friday night.

 

After Christian Vazquez's leadoff double, Betts popped up a bunt on a 2-1 pitch from left-handed reliever Chasen Shreve.

 

"Our approach has always been, a leadoff double, we'll take three shots at driving the guy in. That is the preference," Farrell said Saturday morning. "But you also have to understand they're humans, as we know, and guys are going to feel more confident at times. I can't fault a guy for feeling the way he does in the box at the moment."

[Kimmi]

3. Managing the bullpen by score. Somehow down a run is different than tied - so Tommy Layne gets the call instead of Uehara or Carson Smith. That is kind of baffling to me, although he is consistent with that logic. Same with having both Kimbrel and Uehara up for the 9th. After all, it's not like Koji can't finish. Should not be so fearful of putting Kimbrel into a tie game.

 

I think this probably has more to do with the relievers having the mentality of an "expected role" than anything else. But for whatever reason, managers don't typically bring their closers into tie games on the road. That has always baffled me because sometimes the "close" situation that the manager is saving for the closer never ends up happening.

[Maxbialystock]

It's a fair point that Layne had no trouble getting through the inning. It's still a move that can be subject to reasonable and fair criticism.

 

Really? Is it reasonable and fair to criticize decisions that work out as well as those that don't? Better to say, "I just don't like him as a manager, whatever he does. The Sox finished last in 2014 and in 2015, end of story."

 

My own belief is that the overwhelming majority of decisions by any manager, not just Farrell, are better informed than any alternatives we can think up. He not only has his own experience and knowledge of the players, but the benefit of all kinds of stats and inside knowledge, to say nothing of--in the case of a pitcher--insights from both the pitching coach and the bench coach.

 

Last night, I think on espn.com, the story was that Buchholz fully expected to go back out for the 6th inning because his pitch count was under 90. But Farrell sent in a reliever, which I think was the right decision if only because right now the Sox have 8 relievers and the night before Farrell didn't need the bullpen. But guess what? If Farrell had sent Buchholz out, I would defend that too because I trust his collective judgment and insight a whole lot more than mine.

[Maxbialystock]

I think this probably has more to do with the relievers having the mentality of an "expected role" than anything else. But for whatever reason, managers don't typically bring their closers into tie games on the road. That has always baffled me because sometimes the "close" situation that the manager is saving for the closer never ends up happening.

 

Maybe it depends on the closer. Kimbrel hasn't been so great in tie games and has been much better when a save is on the line. Rivera of the Yankees, on the other hand, seemed to be fine either way. Uehara too, at least in 2013.

 

The great unknown in all these close games is usually what your own hitters will do. In the 3-2 loss to the Yankees, I thought we would do nothing, but I was wrong. Miller got the save, but only by the skin of his teeth.

[sk7326]

Really? Is it reasonable and fair to criticize decisions that work out as well as those that don't? Better to say, "I just don't like him as a manager, whatever he does. The Sox finished last in 2014 and in 2015, end of story."

 

My own belief is that the overwhelming majority of decisions by any manager, not just Farrell, are better informed than any alternatives we can think up. He not only has his own experience and knowledge of the players, but the benefit of all kinds of stats and inside knowledge, to say nothing of--in the case of a pitcher--insights from both the pitching coach and the bench coach.

 

Last night, I think on espn.com, the story was that Buchholz fully expected to go back out for the 6th inning because his pitch count was under 90. But Farrell sent in a reliever, which I think was the right decision if only because right now the Sox have 8 relievers and the night before Farrell didn't need the bullpen. But guess what? If Farrell had sent Buchholz out, I would defend that too because I trust his collective judgment and insight a whole lot more than mine.

 

Your posts seem to be arguing against an active engagement with the game as it's going on - which is cool ... but it's fun to think along with him.

[sk7326]

Maybe it depends on the closer. Kimbrel hasn't been so great in tie games and has been much better when a save is on the line. Rivera of the Yankees, on the other hand, seemed to be fine either way. Uehara too, at least in 2013.

 

The great unknown in all these close games is usually what your own hitters will do. In the 3-2 loss to the Yankees, I thought we would do nothing, but I was wrong. Miller got the save, but only by the skin of his teeth.

 

That implies that Kimbrel tries harder with a lead, which is a pretty serious indictment.

[Slasher9]

That implies that Kimbrel tries harder with a lead, which is a pretty serious indictment.

 

the stats would indicate it.

sav sit:

SO/BB = 5.71 BA .145 OPS .422 WHIP .784

nonsav sit:

SO/BB = 2.67 BA .185 OPS .580 WHIP 1.267

[Maxbialystock]

That implies that Kimbrel tries harder with a lead, which is a pretty serious indictment.

 

I'm not sure I want to indict him. I just kind of agree with Kimmi that maybe closers have one track minds and are only at their best when they are in fact closing.

[Maxbialystock]

Your posts seem to be arguing against an active engagement with the game as it's going on - which is cool ... but it's fun to think along with him.

 

A pretty good point. I actually have no problems with anything said during a game and on a game thread--they should be fun and open to all kinds of assertions.

[Bellhorn04]

That implies that Kimbrel tries harder with a lead, which is a pretty serious indictment.

 

Not really. I think it's considered to be more of a psychological thing.

[Slasher9]

Not really. I think it's considered to be more of a psychological thing.

 

wait...isn't "trying" a mental/psychological thing?

[Bellhorn04]

wait...isn't "trying" a mental/psychological thing?

 

Maybe a mental thing, but not really a psychological thing. I was talking about things that affect a player involuntarily, that they can't control. Like Lester's thing about not being able to throw to first base. That's psychological. Trying is something you control.

[SoxnCycles]

I'm not sure I want to indict him. I just kind of agree with Kimmi that maybe closers have one track minds and are only at their best when they are in fact closing.

 

Yup, the idea that closers tend to get more amped up (and more effective) with a game on the line isn't a new one.

[Bellhorn04]

Rivera

Career OPS against .555

Career OPS against in tie games .655

 

Papelbon

Career OPS against .588

Career OPS against in tie games .623

 

Kimbrel

Career OPS against .471

Career OPS against in tie games .569

[mvp 78]

Rivera

Career OPS against .555

Career OPS against in tie games .655

 

Papelbon

Career OPS against .588

Career OPS against in tie games .623

 

Kimbrel

Career OPS against .471

Career OPS against in tie games .569

 

I should sig this.

[Maxbialystock]

Rivera

Career OPS against .555

Career OPS against in tie games .655

 

Papelbon

Career OPS against .588

Career OPS against in tie games .623

 

Kimbrel

Career OPS against .471

Career OPS against in tie games .569

 

That's an eye-opener. Wow--especially on the Rivera numbers.

[sk7326]

Rivera

Career OPS against .555

Career OPS against in tie games .655

 

Papelbon

Career OPS against .588

Career OPS against in tie games .623

 

Kimbrel

Career OPS against .471

Career OPS against in tie games .569

 

None of those are very significant - all of them are very good. Ties are pretty darn significant.

[Bellhorn04]

None of those are very significant - all of them are very good. Ties are pretty darn significant.

 

I'm surprised you don't find 100 points of OPS over a career significant. How much would it take to be a significant difference?

[illinoisredsox]

I'm surprised you don't find 100 points of OPS over a career significant. How much would it take to be a significant difference?

 

Keep in mind that Rivera's numbers encompassed the peak of the steroid era, Papelbon's a little less so. Kimbrel is pitching in a lower OPS era.