Referendum on John Farrell

[mvp 78]

Being thrown out on a close play is fine.

 

Being thrown out by 5 feet is hot garbage (ala Hanley).

 

These aren't Dale Sveum's Sox anymore... There's no excuse for it.

[illinoisredsox]

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.

 

It becomes a matter of being able to read plays and knowing the outfielders. Napoli was good at it. Mike Lowell was good at it. Ortiz, when he could still run a little, was good at it. Nava never was. Slow guys who knew how to run the bases. Nava, not a speedster, was terrible.

 

Back in the day, teams didn't run on Dwight Evans. Right now, it makes zero sense to run on Bautista. OTOH, you take every chance you can to run when an Ellsbury or a Damon is out there. Will they occasionally get you? Sure, but it doesn't make it a bad play when they do.

Edited June 7, 2016 by illinoisredsox

[illinoisredsox]

Being thrown out on a close play is fine.

 

Being thrown out by 5 feet is hot garbage (ala Hanley).

 

These aren't Dale Sveum's Sox anymore... There's no excuse for it.

 

It's not so much that Hanley gets thrown out by 5 feet, it's that he's done it several times and on guys he had no business trying it on. He may have gotten away with it when he was younger and a step faster, but that step is your 5 feet.

[mvp 78]

It's not so much that Hanley gets thrown out by 5 feet, it's that he's done it several times and on guys he had no business trying it on. He may have gotten away with it when he was younger and a step faster, but that step is your 5 feet.

 

I agree.

[S5Dewey]

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?

 

No, what I implied was that if someone does something REPEATEDLY with no negative consequences it wouldn't be idiotic. If someone does something repeatedly with no negative consequences it's a reasonable thing to be doing. The Sox have attempted 43 stolen bases and have been successful 38 times.

 

It's called "Sample Size" and my example of a sample size of 43 is more meaningful that your sample size of.... 1.

[Kimmi]

Agree with your thoughts on this thread. I love the Young example. All the Farrell bashers were tripping over themselves in ripping Farrell when Young played against a righty. But now look at his overall stats. And even though a .224 BA against righties isn't great, all four of his homers are against lefties, six of his 11 hits against righties are for extra bases and an .807 OPS against righties is very respectable. Critics loved to point out how he hit just. .182 against RHP in 2015. But while a manager should be aware of those numbers, he needs to be flexible too. In 2014, Young hit .243 against RHP and just .143 against LHP. Things do change from year to year.

 

As for pitching or being a good in-game manager. The Sox first manager I remember is Eddie Kasko. So let's go down the list (off the top of my head): Kasko, Johnson, Zimmer, Houk, McNamara, Morgan, Hobson, Kennedy, Williams, Little, Francona, Valentine, Farrell -- of them, who were good in-game managers according to fans?

 

I thought that Farrell made a couple of head scratcher moves early on, among them pinch hitting Young for Shaw. It wasn't so much playing Young, but rather taking Shaw out of the game. I disagreed with the move at the time, but I do try to give the manager the benefit of the doubt. He is much more qualified than I am.

 

I have always agreed with the idea that while a move may seem bad in the moment, the long term benefits are more important. In other words, the old cliche' about managing a marathon, not a sprint, ring true. When a player knows that a manager has his back, it usually goes a long way in terms of confidence and production. That aspect of managing is more important than the tactical in game decisions.

[Bellhorn04]

I have always agreed with the idea that while a move may seem bad in the moment, the long term benefits are more important. In other words, the old cliche' about managing a marathon, not a sprint, ring true. When a player knows that a manager has his back, it usually goes a long way in terms of confidence and production. That aspect of managing is more important than the tactical in game decisions.

 

It's a delicate balance though, isn't it? You want the player to think you have confidence in them, but if they blow a certain number of chances the axe has to fall, like it did with Buchholz.

[Kimmi]

On the topic of baserunning and how good or bad the Sox have been, there are stats for that.

 

For overall baserunning skills, BsR, the Sox rank 7th in MLB at 5.4 runs above average.

 

The Sox do very well in stealing bases, as mentioned in other posts. They are ranked first with 4.9 runs above average. They also do well in staying out of double plays, ranking 4th with 2.2 runs above average.

 

However, in terms of UBR, Ultimate Base Running, the Sox are below average, ranking 23rd with -1.7 runs above average. This stat measures things like advancing to 3rd from 2nd on a ball hit to the shortstop, going 1st to 3rd on a single, and scoring on a sac fly, among other things.

 

So overall, their aggressiveness on the basepaths has helped them. However, take away the stolen bases and they haven't done as well with their aggressiveness as some think.

 

These stats are available for individual players also, if you want to see how well a particular player is running the bases. Sometimes it is obvious. Other times, not so much. Fangraphs is a wonderful site, as MVP78 will attest to.

[Kimmi]

It's a delicate balance though, isn't it? You want the player to think you have confidence in them, but if they blow a certain number of chances the axe has to fall, like it did with Buchholz.

 

Agreed. At some point, the axe indeed has to fall. In Buchholz' case, he had ample time and opportunity to get it together. In general though, I think that fans are far too impatient when it comes to letting players ride through their struggles.

[mvp 78]

Agreed. At some point, the axe indeed has to fall. In Buchholz' case, he had ample time and opportunity to get it together. In general though, I think that fans are far too impatient when it comes to letting players ride through their struggles.

 

Buch's entire career then?

[Kimmi]

Buch's entire career then?

 

No, I understand the impatience with Buchholz, which is independent of the opinion that picking up his option was a no brainer.

 

I'm talking about "in general". Young is a fine example.

[mvp 78]

No, I understand the impatience with Buchholz, which is independent of the opinion that picking up his option was a no brainer.

 

I'm talking about "in general". Young is a fine example.

 

Young is a great example then...

[User Name]

No, what I implied was that if someone does something REPEATEDLY with no negative consequences it wouldn't be idiotic. If someone does something repeatedly with no negative consequences it's a reasonable thing to be doing. The Sox have attempted 43 stolen bases and have been successful 38 times.

 

It's called "Sample Size" and my example of a sample size of 43 is more meaningful that your sample size of.... 1.

 

Except that this is both a logical fallacy and a terrible example, because your "sample size" doesn't include every other baserunning play other than stolen bases. That is skewed at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, since stolen bases are attempted more than 90% of the time by the best runners on the team either way.

[User Name]

On the topic of baserunning and how good or bad the Sox have been, there are stats for that.

 

For overall baserunning skills, BsR, the Sox rank 7th in MLB at 5.4 runs above average.

 

The Sox do very well in stealing bases, as mentioned in other posts. They are ranked first with 4.9 runs above average. They also do well in staying out of double plays, ranking 4th with 2.2 runs above average.

 

However, in terms of UBR, Ultimate Base Running, the Sox are below average, ranking 23rd with -1.7 runs above average. This stat measures things like advancing to 3rd from 2nd on a ball hit to the shortstop, going 1st to 3rd on a single, and scoring on a sac fly, among other things.

 

So overall, their aggressiveness on the basepaths has helped them. However, take away the stolen bases and they haven't done as well with their aggressiveness as some think.

 

These stats are available for individual players also, if you want to see how well a particular player is running the bases. Sometimes it is obvious. Other times, not so much. Fangraphs is a wonderful site, as MVP78 will attest to.

 

I was researching this, but then noticed that the female version of myself, has done so already. Kudos.

[a700hitter]

On the topic of baserunning and how good or bad the Sox have been, there are stats for that.

 

For overall baserunning skills, BsR, the Sox rank 7th in MLB at 5.4 runs above average.

 

The Sox do very well in stealing bases, as mentioned in other posts. They are ranked first with 4.9 runs above average. They also do well in staying out of double plays, ranking 4th with 2.2 runs above average.

 

However, in terms of UBR, Ultimate Base Running, the Sox are below average, ranking 23rd with -1.7 runs above average. This stat measures things like advancing to 3rd from 2nd on a ball hit to the shortstop, going 1st to 3rd on a single, and scoring on a sac fly, among other things.

 

So overall, their aggressiveness on the basepaths has helped them. However, take away the stolen bases and they haven't done as well with their aggressiveness as some think.

 

These stats are available for individual players also, if you want to see how well a particular player is running the bases. Sometimes it is obvious. Other times, not so much. Fangraphs is a wonderful site, as MVP78 will attest to.

And once again, the stats backup what I already knew about the Red Sox.

[User Name]

And once again, the stats backup what I already knew about the Red Sox.

 

Stats are good ain't they?

[SoxnCycles]

On the topic of baserunning and how good or bad the Sox have been, there are stats for that.

 

For overall baserunning skills, BsR, the Sox rank 7th in MLB at 5.4 runs above average.

 

The Sox do very well in stealing bases, as mentioned in other posts. They are ranked first with 4.9 runs above average. They also do well in staying out of double plays, ranking 4th with 2.2 runs above average.

 

However, in terms of UBR, Ultimate Base Running, the Sox are below average, ranking 23rd with -1.7 runs above average. This stat measures things like advancing to 3rd from 2nd on a ball hit to the shortstop, going 1st to 3rd on a single, and scoring on a sac fly, among other things.

 

So overall, their aggressiveness on the basepaths has helped them. However, take away the stolen bases and they haven't done as well with their aggressiveness as some think.

 

These stats are available for individual players also, if you want to see how well a particular player is running the bases. Sometimes it is obvious. Other times, not so much. Fangraphs is a wonderful site, as MVP78 will attest to.

 

Any idea how they rank vs the previous year or two?

[SoxnCycles]

I was researching this, but then noticed that the female version of myself, has done so already. Kudos.

 

So, we're back to "idiots" being a negative now?

Dang, I need scorecard for this s***...

[User Name]

So, we're back to "idiots" being a negative now?

Dang, I need scorecard for this s***...

 

You know, I was going to make an idiot joke here, but I'll pass. Just know that in 2004, being an idiot was en vogue.

[User Name]

Any idea how they rank vs the previous year or two?

 

2013:-1.0

2014:-3.5

2015:0.2

2-16:-1.7

[SoxnCycles]

2013:-1.0

2014:-3.5

2015:0.2

2-16:-1.7

 

Thanks.

Not so bad last year.

Just brutal the year before.

Interesting that they were below average in '13.

 

Guess it's not that big of a deal, in the long run.

[mvp 78]

2013:-1.0

2014:-3.5

2015:0.2

2-16:-1.7

 

Thank Lovullo! More reason to fire Farrell!

[a700hitter]

Stats are good ain't they?

For those who doubt themselves they are helpful.

[User Name]

You should doubt yourself more often Ted.

[a700hitter]

In 2013, we ran like idiots too, but that team was so resilient that they always picked up their team mates after they pulled a rock. I remember one game where Daniel Nava (who waddled like duck) trying to score from third on a foul pop behind home plate. It was one of the biggest base running rocks that i have seen.

[User Name]

In 2013, we ran like idiots too, but that team was so resilient that they always picked up their team mates after they pulled a rock. I remember one game where Daniel Nava (who waddled like duck) trying to score from third on a foul pop behind home plate. It was one of the biggest base running rocks that i have seen.

 

Oh God I remember that. I think Nava may have single-handedly been responsible for the Sox' below average 2013 baserunning rating. God that dude sucks on the bases.

[mvp 78]

Rumor is that if you say Nava while spinning around three times that Dojji while appear in your mirror.

[User Name]

You've been funny lately. Keep it up.

[Maxbialystock]

2013:-1.0

2014:-3.5

2015:0.2

2-16:-1.7

 

A question. What rating would a team have if they simply didn't steal bases, didn't try to stretch singles into doubles or double into triples, didn't try to take that extra base on a single to center or right, didn't try to score from 2d on singles or from 3d on a fly? In other words, are the baserunning stats skewed toward being cautious?

[devildavid]

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.

 

I am mostly against any philosophy that accepts that it is ok to make some outs in order to gain a perceived advantage. The only general philosophies that I think work have to do with prevention. Pitchers should do their best not to walk batters to prevent baserunners. Hitters who get on base should not take too many risks of running into outs. There are of course exceptions even to these general philosophies. But they both focus on the most important aspect of baseball. Each team gets 27 outs per game. That is baseball's clock. You want to preserve your outs and make your opponents use up theirs.