Referendum on John Farrell

[a700hitter]

I think Farrell has a lot to do with the current success. And no one can prove I'm wrong.

You are quoting me out of context. I don't think Farrell should be fired. When things are going right, he has demonstrated a knack of staying out of the way and letting good things happen. He did that in 2013. He has a problem when there is a bumpy road. In rose circumstances, he has demonstrated a lack of ability to right a sinking ship Edited May 15, 2016 by a700hitter

[devildavid]

You are quoting me out of context. I don't think Farrell should be fired. When things are going right, he has demonstrated a knack of staying out of the way and letting good things happen. He did that in 2013. He has a problem when there is a bumpy road. In rose circumstances, he has demonstrated a leak of ability to right a sinking ship

 

Like most managers, he can't win when his players perform poorly. Last season he had to work with underperforming veterans and injured players until cancer shelved him. The team that finished the season was not the one he was saddled with at the beginning. Now the team resembles that one more and he is having success. How many managers make a poor team into a good one without the talent on the field?

[sk7326]

Like most managers, he can't win when his players perform poorly. Last season he had to work with underperforming veterans and injured players until cancer shelved him. The team that finished the season was not the one he was saddled with at the beginning. Now the team resembles that one more and he is having success. How many managers make a poor team into a good one without the talent on the field?

 

Good teams have had bad tactical managers (the team that I came of Red Sox age - 1986 - had one). Happens all the time. Ned Yost is awful, but the Royals have won a lot lately.

[devildavid]

Good teams have had bad tactical managers (the team that I came of Red Sox age - 1986 - had one). Happens all the time. Ned Yost is awful, but the Royals have won a lot lately.

 

Kind of suggests that baseball managing success does not depend a lot on in game tactics doesn't it?

[Youk Of The Nation]

I wonder why no one player-manages anymore.

[mvp 78]

Guys play hard for him - and he clearly is very good at a lot of the "stuff we don't see". The org has committed to the young position players and they have flourished. The prior dithering about them when they did not turn into All-Stars in seconds seems like above his pay grade.

 

Did they play hard for him in 14 or 15?

[Dojji]

I wonder why no one player-manages anymore.

 

I think the prepwork required to do two full time jobs at the highest level of the sport in a time where either one could easily consume all the hours in the day, makes it very unlikely that we'll ever see a player-manager again. It would take a pretty unique individual to handle the physical emotional and mental challenges of managing and playing both at the same time when both can take up everything you have and want more.

[Dojji]

Did they play hard for him in 14 or 15?

 

yes. 14 and 15 were chiefly defined by problems with the roster, regardless of your bizarre determination to delude yourself into thinking that a bhetter manager makes a broken roster somehow not broken.

 

Some of those problems, such as flaky starting rotation, are obviously still with us. Fortunately the development of our young talent improved radically over the past 2-3 years so we can grow our way out of some of them such as our horrible infield defense in 14 and our weak infield offense in 15.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Dojji

[Bellhorn04]

I wonder why no one player-manages anymore.

 

The last guy who tried it may have sullied the image a bit by not only playing and managing but betting on the games.

[Bellhorn04]

Kind of suggests that baseball managing success does not depend a lot on in game tactics doesn't it?

 

That's a tricky one, because as Sox fans know all too well, bad decisions can cost you big games.

 

It's kind of random, really, how often a managerial decision directly affects the outcome of a game.

 

The biggest in game decisions are making the pitching changes at the right time with the right guy. More now than ever with the big workload carried by bullpens.

[Maxbialystock]

I continue to maintain that fans are mostly clueless about what constitutes good or bad in-game decisions. Rare, for example, is there any mention in any game thread that the manager made a good one. Frequent, however, are complaints about so-called bad ones.

 

I tend to give the lion's share of the credit to the players myself, but last night I did think Farrell did a commendable job with the pitching--he left Buchholz in about the right length, 6 innings, and brought in 5 other guys to take care of the rest of the 11 innings. Buchholz gave up 5 runs in the first 2 innings, and he and the rest of the staff held Houston scoreless in the next 9 innings--a high-wire act, but one which of course got no kudos from talksox.com.

 

The other high-wire act--relying on youngsters like Bogaerts, JBJ, Shaw, Betts, and Vazquez--will continue through the season. I doubt that any other team in MLB with a winning record has so many young guys playing everyday (Vazquez only playing about half the games).

 

That 162 game season is a grind, and this particular one includes a ton of road games in the dog days of August and September, so, me, I love it when the young Sox of May and hopefully June beat up on the weak teams because it is my guess that we will need that cushion for what is ahead. Old fans like me remember the days when the June swoon was almost obligatory. However, in recent times it was a veteran Sox team that screwed the pooch in September 2011, a season that cost Francona his job. The Sox not only had the worst September for a contender in MLB history, but some of them were enjoying beer and chicken while games were being played.

 

I thought Lovullo was rehired with a pay raise because DD or maybe John Henry wanted him handy so they could fire Farrell. Perhaps. But two other reasons are that Lovullo's insights as a bench coach are also retained. Plus it's possible Farrell's health could suffer a relapse of last year.

[mvp 78]

I maintain that fans lecturing other fans is embarrassing.

 

Plus, the whole "old fans remember" gag is just dumb. Someone as young as Thunder could be as well versed as some of the grandpas on here.

 

Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make them wrong.

[devildavid]

yes. 14 and 15 were chiefly defined by problems with the roster, regardless of your bizarre determination to delude yourself into thinking that a bhetter manager makes a broken roster somehow not broken.

 

Some of those problems, such as flaky starting rotation, are obviously still with us. Fortunately the development of our young talent improved radically over the past 2-3 years so we can grow our way out of some of them such as our horrible infield defense in 14 and our weak infield offense in 15.

 

You nailed it. And Farrell does not get enough credit by some for the job he did in 2013. On paper, that team was not very impressive. They became a cohesive unit under Farrell's steady hand. In the playoffs he made the smart move of benching Middlebrooks in favor of Bogaerts. He had lot to do with that great championship.

[devildavid]

That's a tricky one, because as Sox fans know all too well, bad decisions can cost you big games.

 

It's kind of random, really, how often a managerial decision directly affects the outcome of a game.

 

The biggest in game decisions are making the pitching changes at the right time with the right guy. More now than ever with the big workload carried by bullpens.

 

I think the instances of obvious moves that lose games are outliers and even some of them are statistically debateable. Pitching changes are a combination of short and long term strategy and it is very tricky trying to balance the two.

[a700hitter]

September 2011 was on Theo imo. It was pretty clear going into that month that the starting pitching was in a shambles. Although we needed to win very few games that month to make the playoffs, I warned people that the team was spiraling down the drain without some pitching reinforcement. Still, with just one or two breaks we make the playoffs. Those breaks never came. In the last week of the season, he desperately tried to trade for Bruce Chen and Chris Capuano.

[sk7326]

Did they play hard for him in 14 or 15?

 

I think so - mostly. Now while it is easy to say Lovullo had some magic fairy dust last season - their perking up last season coincided with them simply playing the right 8 guys on the field, which injuries kind of forced them to do. I am not sure how much credit Lovullo gets there.

 

Further, he has been Farrell's top lieutentant for years - so I cannot really separate the two meaningfully. Anyhow, I think 2014 and 2015 was much more about roster composition and general philosophy about their kiddos. I don't think Farrell is amazing - tactically I have had real issues, although I imagine they were not bleeding wins - but when I think of the bigger picture, I do think the players have tried and played for him ... if anything they've pressed.

[royf19]

I think so - mostly. Now while it is easy to say Lovullo had some magic fairy dust last season - their perking up last season coincided with them simply playing the right 8 guys on the field, which injuries kind of forced them to do. I am not sure how much credit Lovullo gets there.

 

Further, he has been Farrell's top lieutentant for years - so I cannot really separate the two meaningfully. Anyhow, I think 2014 and 2015 was much more about roster composition and general philosophy about their kiddos. I don't think Farrell is amazing - tactically I have had real issues, although I imagine they were not bleeding wins - but when I think of the bigger picture, I do think the players have tried and played for him ... if anything they've pressed.

 

And to add, the young guys were starting to hit and the Sox were playing well when Farrell when on sick leave. I know people like to rip Farrell and give all the credit for the finish to Lovullo, but the Sox were already on an upswing.

[sk7326]

And to add, the young guys were starting to hit and the Sox were playing well when Farrell when on sick leave. I know people like to rip Farrell and give all the credit for the finish to Lovullo, but the Sox were already on an upswing.

 

The Red Sox two biggest failings since the title were"

 

A. Machinations with the starting rotation

B. Not trusting their own evaluations, and just let the kids figure things out. Now the odds are strongly against Bradley being a .950 OPS guy the rest of the season ... but an onbase machine with an excellent glove was always on the table. Bogaerts is doing exactly what was predicted for him - although the shape of the performance is different (remembering coming up there was expectations of homerun power - based on minor league ISO and whatnot - and dicey defense ... instead it has been more gap power and he was worked to be a legitametely solid SS, not a 3B in hiding)

[jacksonianmarch]

Shaw over Panda took big ones, as did Holt over Castillo.

[Spudboy]

Shaw over Panda took big ones, as did Holt over Castillo.

 

But were these exclusively Farrell's decisions?

 

Is it possible that DD and others had major input?

[royf19]

The Red Sox two biggest failings since the title were"

 

A. Machinations with the starting rotation

B. Not trusting their own evaluations, and just let the kids figure things out. Now the odds are strongly against Bradley being a .950 OPS guy the rest of the season ... but an onbase machine with an excellent glove was always on the table. Bogaerts is doing exactly what was predicted for him - although the shape of the performance is different (remembering coming up there was expectations of homerun power - based on minor league ISO and whatnot - and dicey defense ... instead it has been more gap power and he was worked to be a legitametely solid SS, not a 3B in hiding)

 

Actually, I'd tweek the second part. The second failing was more that veterans like Napoli and Shane were on the decline or at the end, veterans like Pedey and Ortiz slumped at the wrong time -- Pedey was horrible early in 2014 at driving in runs and Ortiz slumped (like everyone) in May -- and the kids weren't ready to carry the team. Really what was needed was patience to weed out Napoli and Shane but more to let the kids develop. We saw that happening at the end of last year. Had Pablo and Hanley lived up to expectations in May at the plate in May -- Hanley did get hurt, which didn't help -- that might have helped the team tread water better during the first half of the season.

[sk7326]

But were these exclusively Farrell's decisions?

 

Is it possible that DD and others had major input?

 

DD probably had input to the degree that he let Farrell play the right players. The org decided to let Castillo and Panda win or not win those positions instead of giving them away. I doubt Farrell wanted to play less effective players.

[bosoxmal]

I'd say that whatever referendum was once a discussion point can now be put to rest. I don't know what influences he ws under, but he's an entirely different manager. All one has to de is check the Steals vs the CS numbers. They are taking advantage of things like minor passed balls, bad outfielder throws, etc. Go Sox!

[Dojji]

Actually, I'd tweek the second part. The second failing was more that veterans like Napoli and Shane were on the decline or at the end, veterans like Pedey and Ortiz slumped at the wrong time -- Pedey was horrible early in 2014 at driving in runs and Ortiz slumped (like everyone) in May -- and the kids weren't ready to carry the team. Really what was needed was patience to weed out Napoli and Shane but more to let the kids develop. We saw that happening at the end of last year. Had Pablo and Hanley lived up to expectations in May at the plate in May -- Hanley did get hurt, which didn't help -- that might have helped the team tread water better during the first half of the season.

 

You raise an excellent point. We went through a generation shift between 2013 and this year, and it's only this year that some of the players in the new generation have begun to really find their feet. Farrell's job in the 2 intervening seasons couldn't have been to place first, since he didn't have the horses to do that, especially not in 2015. I think a lot of the 2015 season had more to do with who was going to be part of the future than it did about doing anything meaningful in 2015 -- which has implications for the media-driven (and this has been VERY media-driven, I don't recall even seeing a direct quote from any member of the FO that Farrell's job was anything other than completely secure) campaign against Farrell since he actually did a pretty decent job of finding players and helping new talent settle in in 2015, starting with Shaw.

[sk7326]

Actually, I'd tweek the second part. The second failing was more that veterans like Napoli and Shane were on the decline or at the end, veterans like Pedey and Ortiz slumped at the wrong time -- Pedey was horrible early in 2014 at driving in runs and Ortiz slumped (like everyone) in May -- and the kids weren't ready to carry the team. Really what was needed was patience to weed out Napoli and Shane but more to let the kids develop. We saw that happening at the end of last year. Had Pablo and Hanley lived up to expectations in May at the plate in May -- Hanley did get hurt, which didn't help -- that might have helped the team tread water better during the first half of the season.

 

I don't even know 100% if that's true. The kids weren't ready in April - but from the Grady Sizemore experiment to reacquiring Stephen Drew, the org was very itchy when they weren't making their dreams come true immediately. As opposed to betting on track record and just have Farrell smile and tell the press that the kids are doing exactly what we asked.

[Maxbialystock]

Right now only the Cubs have won more games than the Sox, and to me that's the measure of a manager. Yes, absolutely, the players deserve the lion's share of the credit. Give some as well to the hitting coach and maybe to the FO. But Farrell gets the blame and the credit when the team under performs whether or not it is his fault.

 

Funny thing, but I think he easiest part of his job is making up the lineup card that has very few, if any, holes. Trickier, however, is dealing with an inconsistent rotation, especially when that involves a lot of innings for the bullpen.

[sk7326]

Right now only the Cubs have won more games than the Sox, and to me that's the measure of a manager. Yes, absolutely, the players deserve the lion's share of the credit. Give some as well to the hitting coach and maybe to the FO. But Farrell gets the blame and the credit when the team under performs whether or not it is his fault.

 

Funny thing, but I think he easiest part of his job is making up the lineup card that has very few, if any, holes. Trickier, however, is dealing with an inconsistent rotation, especially when that involves a lot of innings for the bullpen.

 

it's a measure of the roster and some of the manager's off field contribution ... comically bad in game managers have won lots of games

[Dojji]

Tito wasn't the best tactician. His "francoma" nickname came from a long established tendency to prefer to stay the course and have faith in his players, which meant he was sometimes slow with the hook. but his handling of the media and the clubhouse (until his health failed in 2011) was masterful. Even in the worst year the team had under his tenure (2006) he found ways to keep the team loose and playing with confidence. The team always seemed to bounce back better after the touch stretches teams always have, under Tito, than under any other manager we've had recently.

[Maxbialystock]

Tito wasn't the best tactician. His "francoma" nickname came from a long established tendency to prefer to stay the course and have faith in his players, which meant he was sometimes slow with the hook. but his handling of the media and the clubhouse (until his health failed in 2011) was masterful. Even in the worst year the team had under his tenure (2006) he found ways to keep the team loose and playing with confidence. The team always seemed to bounce back better after the touch stretches teams always have, under Tito, than under any other manager we've had recently.

 

Francoma was convenient for the carping critics, but was not based on "a long established tendency to prefer to stay the course . . . and was sometimes slow with the hook." When you are too quick with the hook, you put the bullpen at risk.

[Dojji]

Tito put faith in his guys and would sometimes let them try to work out of situations where they really should have been pulled -- I'm not saying it as a criticism, just as a fact.