Referendum on John Farrell

[Spudboy]

I still think Farrell's teams run the bases like idiots. The personnel here is much better, so that covers for some mistakes, but some gaffes from Hanley/Shaw tell you that they need to be a little more conservative with some of the slower guys. In general, though, if there's a team constructed to run the bases like idiots with little to no negative consequences, it's this one.

 

This is how I see the issue.

[Maxbialystock]

Why do you keep talking like you know what other people are thinking? First off, the complaints about Farrell playing Young against righties are and were, valid. Now he's playing out of necessity and doing relatively well, but come on, dude was a OPS'ing low .600's in a limited sample size. I've been a staunch Farrell defender on this board since they hired him (and a700 can confirm this) he was my guy as soon as Vallentine was let go, but that doesn't shield him from my criticism when he does something I consider stupid.

 

Farrell barely received any criticism here anyway. We discussed his in-game moves because he started the season with some head-scratchers he clearly isn't commiting now, but here, in this baseball forum dedicated to the Boston Red Sox, we are allowed to discuss managerial moves, either negatively, or positively (you conveniently forget how many of the "bashers" whatever that idiocy means, have given props to his improved performance).

 

The subject of the OP is referendum on John Farrell, and I choose to defend him. At the beginning of the thread, there were lots of folks saying he needed to go. Now not so many. You say that that's because Farrell's decisions have miraculously improved, and I say it's the same Farrell making decisions they way he always has. This doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, but it is my opinion.

[Maxbialystock]

I still think Farrell's teams run the bases like idiots. The personnel here is much better, so that covers for some mistakes, but some gaffes from Hanley/Shaw tell you that they need to be a little more conservative with some of the slower guys. In general, though, if there's a team constructed to run the bases like idiots with little to no negative consequences, it's this one.

 

They are aggressive, but the evidence is that it's been effective and not, as you say, idiocy. The Sox currently lead the AL in runs scored by 93 runs, which is a ridiculous margin--close to 2 runs/game than 1 run per game. And you honestly believe they are running the bases like idiots?

Edited June 7, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[User Name]

Dear Lord, do you owe Farrell money? Is he holding one of your kids for ransom at gunpoint?

[a700hitter]

Why do you keep talking like you know what other people are thinking? First off, the complaints about Farrell playing Young against righties are and were, valid. Now he's playing out of necessity and doing relatively well, but come on, dude was a OPS'ing low .600's in a limited sample size. I've been a staunch Farrell defender on this board since they hired him (and a700 can confirm this) he was my guy as soon as Vallentine was let go, but that doesn't shield him from my criticism when he does something I consider stupid.

 

Farrell barely received any criticism here anyway. We discussed his in-game moves because he started the season with some head-scratchers he clearly isn't commiting now, but here, in this baseball forum dedicated to the Boston Red Sox, we are allowed to discuss managerial moves, either negatively, or positively (you conveniently forget how many of the "bashers" whatever that idiocy means, have given props to his improved performance).

This is accurate. No dispute from me. You advocated to get him at the beginning. I did not, but I had no other preferred candidate. While I don't have a high opinion of Farrell's in-game moves, I have no particular issue with the job that he has done this year. My bar is low for managers as you know. I don't have a very high opinion of any managers. Farrell is within the margin of error one way or the other when comparing him to other managers.

[a700hitter]

I still think Farrell's teams run the bases like idiots. The personnel here is much better, so that covers for some mistakes, but some gaffes from Hanley/Shaw tell you that they need to be a little more conservative with some of the slower guys. In general, though, if there's a team constructed to run the bases like idiots with little to no negative consequences, it's this one.

Every one of Farrell's teams ran the bases like mindless little leaguers. It was so bad in Toronto that Omar Vizquel (a very well respected veteran and borderline Hall of famer) noted that the Blue jay running game was bizarre.

[Maxbialystock]

They are aggressive, but the evidence is that it's been effective and not, as you say, idiocy. The Sox currently lead the AL in runs scored by 93 runs, which is a ridiculous margin--close to 2 runs/game than 1 run per game. And you honestly believe they are running the bases like idiots?

 

That 93 run differential is wrong. It's really half that. I was looking at hits and converted them to runs.

[Maxbialystock]

This is accurate. No dispute from me. You advocated to get him at the beginning. I did not, but I had no other preferred candidate. While I don't have a high opinion of Farrell's in-game moves, I have no particular issue with the job that he has done this year. My bar is low for managers as you know. I don't have a very high opinion of any managers. Farrell is within the margin of error one way or the other when comparing him to other managers.

 

If the truth be known, I too have a low bar for managers. I think they are mostly, not always, interchangeable.

[SoxnCycles]

I still think Farrell's teams run the bases like idiots. The personnel here is much better, so that covers for some mistakes, but some gaffes from Hanley/Shaw tell you that they need to be a little more conservative with some of the slower guys. In general, though, if there's a team constructed to run the bases like idiots with little to no negative consequences, it's this one.

 

So, you're telling me that Farrell is still having the players run the bases as badly as last year, but now some of the players are smart enough not to listen to him all the time?

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

They sucked at baserunning last year because they were mostly young and lacked experience.

It's basically the same roster, they've simply gotten smarter about picking their spots to be aggressive.

 

As far as gaffes from the slower guys, you'll see that with any team.

And, occasionally, you have to make the defense make a play.

[S5Dewey]

I don't understand the statement that they're running the bases like idiots with no negative consequences. Those two statements are counter-intuitive to me. How can a team do anything repeatedly with no negative consequences and still be doing it like idiots? I'm all about results. If it works, it works. If I don't see why it works maybe it's MY fault.

 

The Sox are 12th in baseball in Stolen Base attempts, 4th in stolen bases and led all of baseball in SB success rate. That tells me that rather than being idiots they're doing something right.

[southpaw777]

Butter is known for being very aggressive on the basepaths....some players have acted on their own in that regard as well. I like aggressive base running, but not dumb. Early in the year there were a few more dumb ones than not. Obviously some things have changed and it looks like they have reeled in the overly aggressive, or dumb, base running.

As far as Farrells overall job? His working of the entire pitching staff ihas been questionable since he came here IMHO. Some things werent his fault and some things he caused from misuse of some guys.

Take Taz for instance. farrell had hm warming up and he threw a bunch of pitches in the pen but never used him. Did the same the next day and his performance sucked. He does this a lot.

There was one game this year where taz, koji, and kimbrel were all not available...how the f*** does that happen?? Oh yeah, because he kept using them and they were all worn out...For a former pitching coach i dont like the way he handles a pitching staff...

Hey, but what the hell do i know. Right?

Just one fans observations and opinions based of the info and facts i have

Edited June 7, 2016 by southpaw777

[Hugh2]

Bill Belichick said something that stuck with me last year. Players win games, but Coaches can lose them. I think people give too much credit to the outcome of games, win or lose to the manager. With that said, at times they can make decisions that just seem very stupid at times that end up with horrible results.

[illinoisredsox]

So, you're telling me that Farrell is still having the players run the bases as badly as last year, but now some of the players are smart enough not to listen to him all the time?

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

They sucked at baserunning last year because they were mostly young and lacked experience.

It's basically the same roster, they've simply gotten smarter about picking their spots to be aggressive.

 

As far as gaffes from the slower guys, you'll see that with any team.

And, occasionally, you have to make the defense make a play.

 

Agree 100%. Hanley makes a lot of mistakes for an experienced player; he's lost a step and stuff he got away as a younger player he doesn't anymore. Shaw hopefully will learn.

 

I always thought Mike Napoli to be an excellent baserunner, even though he was slow. He knew the outfielders and he knew when to try for an extra base and when not to. Big Papi was similar and was even moreso when he was younger and could actually run a bit. Even though he was faster than Napoli and Ortiz, Daniel Nava was a horrible baserunner and consistently made all kinds of mistakes.

 

A runner being thrown out does not always mean a mistake and a guy being safe does not always mean he was correct. A runner being thrown out by an eyelash on a perfect play by the defense probably did not make a mistake. Sometimes the defense makes a play and sometimes they don't.

[mvp 78]

Hanley seems to run into a few outs every week. I'm not sure you can coach that out of him at this point.

 

I just don't find that much fault with this coaching staff in terms of how the players are running the basepaths. It's not like they hired Wendell Kim again.

[Bellhorn04]

As far as Farrells overall job? His working of the entire pitching staff ihas been questionable since he came here IMHO. Some things werent his fault and some things he caused from misuse of some guys.

Take Taz for instance. farrell had hm warming up and he threw a bunch of pitches in the pen but never used him. Did the same the next day and his performance sucked. He does this a lot.

There was one game this year where taz, koji, and kimbrel were all not available...how the f*** does that happen??

 

Do you remember which game? I'd like to check out the particulars because I don't recall Farrell doing anything quite that egregious.

[Slasher9]

i love the aggressive running game. no issues.

[User Name]

So, you're telling me that Farrell is still having the players run the bases as badly as last year, but now some of the players are smart enough not to listen to him all the time?

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

They sucked at baserunning last year because they were mostly young and lacked experience.

It's basically the same roster, they've simply gotten smarter about picking their spots to be aggressive.

 

As far as gaffes from the slower guys, you'll see that with any team.

And, occasionally, you have to make the defense make a play.

 

How in the world did you infer that from my statement? You just literally said what I said but tried to make it sound as if we have contrarian opinions.....what?

[User Name]

I don't understand the statement that they're running the bases like idiots with no negative consequences. Those two statements are counter-intuitive to me. How can a team do anything repeatedly with no negative consequences and still be doing it like idiots? I'm all about results. If it works, it works. If I don't see why it works maybe it's MY fault.

 

The Sox are 12th in baseball in Stolen Base attempts, 4th in stolen bases and led all of baseball in SB success rate. That tells me that rather than being idiots they're doing something right.

 

If something works, it doesn't mean it was correct. If there's a dichotomy here, it's in that statement. You can bring a lefty specialist to face Mike Trout in a tie game, and might get Trout out. Was it the right call based on results?

[SoxnCycles]

How in the world did you infer that from my statement? You just literally said what I said but tried to make it sound as if we have contrarian opinions.....what?

 

No, the Sox do not run the bases like "idiots" this year.

And no, the players are not "covering mistakes, they're simply better at it this year.

 

Does that clear things up for you?

[User Name]

No, the Sox do not run the bases like "idiots" this year.

And no, the players are not "covering mistakes, they're simply better at it this year.

 

Does that clear things up for you?

 

Let me rephrase the "covering mistakes part", since it seems to be your hang up:

 

The Sox are overly aggressive on the basepaths, but they can be, because they have great personnel for it. A big part of that is more experience from Betts, Bradley et al, and part of that has been the coaching staff holding back some of the slower guys as the season has progressed.

[SoxnCycles]

Let me rephrase the "covering mistakes part", since it seems to be your hang up:

 

The Sox are overly aggressive on the basepaths, but they can be, because they have great personnel for it. A big part of that is more experience from Betts, Bradley et al, and part of that has been the coaching staff holding back some of the slower guys as the season has progressed.

 

So, is that a positive or a negative for Farrell?

[royf19]

Why do you keep talking like you know what other people are thinking? First off, the complaints about Farrell playing Young against righties are and were, valid. Now he's playing out of necessity and doing relatively well, but come on, dude was a OPS'ing low .600's in a limited sample size. I've been a staunch Farrell defender on this board since they hired him (and a700 can confirm this) he was my guy as soon as Vallentine was let go, but that doesn't shield him from my criticism when he does something I consider stupid.

 

Farrell barely received any criticism here anyway. We discussed his in-game moves because he started the season with some head-scratchers he clearly isn't commiting now, but here, in this baseball forum dedicated to the Boston Red Sox, we are allowed to discuss managerial moves, either negatively, or positively (you conveniently forget how many of the "bashers" whatever that idiocy means, have given props to his improved performance).

 

The complaint about Farrell playing against righties was valid? No, that's your opinion. Players can't languish on the bench forever and be expected to produce. The Sox were in a stretch where they weren't seeing any lefties, so it wasn't a bad idea to get Young in. Maybe that's why he when he started seeing lefties he was able to hit well against them. Plus, it was April. You can't just simply look at numbers from a year ago make decisions this year on those numbers. Things change year to year. In some years, Young did hit righties. And look now -- while his average is just .224 against righties, he is productive. Maybe it's because Farrell made sure he didn't sit too long.

 

"...head-scratchers he clearly isn't committing now ..." is an arrogant statement. Just because a fan doesn't agree with a move or non-move doesn't mean the fan is right and Farrell is wrong. For instance, Farrell took a lot of criticism for using Sandoval. Now I didn't agree with pinch-hitting for Shaw because Shaw had been good against lefties. But I also understood that Farrrell had try to see -- especially in April -- if he could get anything out of Sandoval. If you have a guy on the bench, you have to find a role for the player, otherwise, why play him.

 

I've never objected to anyone being critical of a manager's decision. But I do feel it's tremendously arrogant of fans to always assume that what they would have done would have worked.

[royf19]

The Sox have been very good overall at running the bases, taking the extra base when possible. They've been aggressive. But with aggressive baserunning comes the occasional poor decision. But I'll take that as a whole than not being aggressive and going station to station.

[User Name]

The complaint about Farrell playing against righties was valid? No, that's your opinion. Players can't languish on the bench forever and be expected to produce. The Sox were in a stretch where they weren't seeing any lefties, so it wasn't a bad idea to get Young in. Maybe that's why he when he started seeing lefties he was able to hit well against them. Plus, it was April. You can't just simply look at numbers from a year ago make decisions this year on those numbers. Things change year to year. In some years, Young did hit righties. And look now -- while his average is just .224 against righties, he is productive. Maybe it's because Farrell made sure he didn't sit too long.

 

"...head-scratchers he clearly isn't committing now ..." is an arrogant statement. Just because a fan doesn't agree with a move or non-move doesn't mean the fan is right and Farrell is wrong. For instance, Farrell took a lot of criticism for using Sandoval. Now I didn't agree with pinch-hitting for Shaw because Shaw had been good against lefties. But I also understood that Farrrell had try to see -- especially in April -- if he could get anything out of Sandoval. If you have a guy on the bench, you have to find a role for the player, otherwise, why play him.

 

I've never objected to anyone being critical of a manager's decision. But I do feel it's tremendously arrogant of fans to always assume that what they would have done would have worked.

 

So all of this is not just your opinion? Is this factual? Whether or not you feel it "arrogant", we can discuss whatever we want about the Red Sox on this forum about the Boston Red Sox. If it was done in a manner that was disrespectful (like calling Francona "Francoma") I could see your point, but we are discussing managerial issues (or lack thereof) because we, as fans, are the backbone of the team after all.

[User Name]

So, is that a positive or a negative for Farrell?

 

Net positive, both in the maturation of the players (manager has a direct hand at that) as well as basing a roster around his play philosophy (both he and the FO).

[devildavid]

I am for the most part happy with Farrell except for his teams tendencies to be aggressive on the bases. This has always been my main criticism of him. Even though they have been mostly successful this season, I still would prefer a bit more caution to avoid running into outs. The one area in general where I always wondered if more teams should take advantage of is when the ball gets away from the catcher. But I do realize that the base runners have to be a bit on the aggressive side to take advantage of this, and it is hard to anticipate. So my philosophy is that once you get on base safely you should not give away outs by being too aggressive.

[royf19]

So all of this is not just your opinion? Is this factual? Whether or not you feel it "arrogant", we can discuss whatever we want about the Red Sox on this forum about the Boston Red Sox. If it was done in a manner that was disrespectful (like calling Francona "Francoma") I could see your point, but we are discussing managerial issues (or lack thereof) because we, as fans, are the backbone of the team after all.

 

Who anywhere on this thread has ever tried to tell you what you can or can't discuss. You're inferring things out of nowhere.

[User Name]

Who anywhere on this thread has ever tried to tell you what you can or can't discuss. You're inferring things out of nowhere.

 

It's easy to infer when you're labeling anyone who has the gall to qualify Farrell's work as a manager as an "arrogant" fan.

[SoxnCycles]

Net positive, both in the maturation of the players (manager has a direct hand at that) as well as basing a roster around his play philosophy (both he and the FO).

 

Ok, the "idiots" comment threw me.

That usually carries a negative connotation.

[Maxbialystock]

I am for the most part happy with Farrell except for his teams tendencies to be aggressive on the bases. This has always been my main criticism of him. Even though they have been mostly successful this season, I still would prefer a bit more caution to avoid running into outs. The one area in general where I always wondered if more teams should take advantage of is when the ball gets away from the catcher. But I do realize that the base runners have to be a bit on the aggressive side to take advantage of this, and it is hard to anticipate. So my philosophy is that once you get on base safely you should not give away outs by being too aggressive.

 

Actually, I would prefer that runners occasionally run into outs because never running into outs--trying to steal or trying to get an extra base--means you are taking zero risks on the basepaths. For example, in a recent game Betts was thrown out going from first to third on a single to right field, but it took a beautiful, dead-on throw to get him. I'm fine with that--that's exactly the way to run the bases, when only a perfect throw will beat you.

 

On the other hand, several years ago, maybe before Farrell, Nava was on 2B and someone hit a shot off the RF wall/fence at Fenway. About the time the ball hit the wall/fence, Nava was sliding back into 2B, just to be sure he couldn't be thrown out. He never got to 3B. That sir, is the result of cautious baserunning--or maybe idiocy.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Maxbialystock