Referendum on John Farrell

[Bellhorn04]

Or with a better managed schedule, it may never have happened.

 

It's possible.

[Kimmi]

Should have let Buch go longer than use every arm in the pen. He sucks at managing workload.

 

Bye Farrellicia!

 

It's very difficult to manage a bullpen's workload when the starting pitching is not doing its job.

[Bellhorn04]

It's very difficult to manage a bullpen's workload when the starting pitching is not doing its job.

 

That, plus the injuries to key relievers, plus fragile Koji - a pretty tall assignment for any manager.

[Kimmi]

That, plus the injuries to key relievers, plus fragile Koji - a pretty tall assignment for any manager.

 

Agreed. I have had some questions regarding Farrell's decisions, but I think the criticism regarding Koji's overuse is unwarranted.

[illinoisredsox]

Well perhaps mvp could post what Koji's schedule/workload should be upon his return.

[Dojji]

Well perhaps mvp could post what Koji's schedule/workload should be upon his return.

 

Even if he did, you guys are ignoring the fact that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. you can have all the schedules and plans and facts and figures you want, situations are going to arise where failing to use Koji puts the game at needless risk.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if he did, you guys are ignoring the fact that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

 

As Mike Tyson put it, 'Everybody's got a game plan till they get hit in the mouth.'

[illinoisredsox]

Even if he did, you guys are ignoring the fact that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. you can have all the schedules and plans and facts and figures you want, situations are going to arise where failing to use Koji puts the game at needless risk.

 

Exactly.

 

OTOH, "Or with a better managed schedule, it may never have happened." MVP's words, so I think a reasonable request.

[mvp 78]

It's very difficult to manage a bullpen's workload when the starting pitching is not doing its job.

 

Should have left Buchholz in longer last night. It would have saved innings from Hembree and Lane. Let Buch work out of the jam and regain confidence.

[mvp 78]

Well perhaps mvp could post what Koji's schedule/workload should be upon his return.

 

Depends on when he gets back.

 

If he's out for a month, he should be well rested and you wouldn't have to worry because he's well rested, you know?

[Bellhorn04]

Should have left Buchholz in longer last night. It would have saved innings from Hembree and Lane. Let Buch work out of the jam and regain confidence.

 

That idea is certainly not without merit. But Buch has hardly pitched in July so I can understand the short leash. You could make arguments either way on it IMHO.

[mvp 78]

That idea is certainly not without merit. But Buch has hardly pitched in July so I can understand the short leash. You could make arguments either way on it IMHO.

 

He's well rested then.

[Bellhorn04]

He's well rested then.

 

Rusty would be my term.

[mvp 78]

Rusty would be my term.

 

If he's in the pen, you may as well use him. Most of the guys out there can't go more than an inning. We know Buch can at least go 3.

 

I just don't get why Farrell avoids certain players. Brentz was great before the break. Instead of starting him while Betts is hurt, they throw Martinez out there. Ross only had like 3 appearances in June. Buchholz is less likely to pitch than Noe. I don't get it.

[Spudboy]

If he's in the pen, you may as well use him. Most of the guys out there can't go more than an inning. We know Buch can at least go 3.

 

I just don't get why Farrell avoids certain players. Brentz was great before the break. Instead of starting him while Betts is hurt, they throw Martinez out there. Ross only had like 3 appearances in June. Buchholz is less likely to pitch than Noe. I don't get it.

 

You forget that Farrell does not always have both neurons firing at the same time.

[Bellhorn04]

The thing with Ross in June was weird. That's the type of thing the Sox beat reporters should be on. But it was crickets.

[a700hitter]

You forget that Farrell does not always have both neurons firing at the same time.

One is usually out for maintenance.

[mvp 78]

The thing with Ross in June was weird. That's the type of thing the Sox beat reporters should be on. But it was crickets.

 

Yup, they're useless.

[mvp 78]

One is usually out for maintenance.

 

The other is fixated on Guerin Austin's dress.

[southpaw777]

Yup...still hoping he wont be in the dugout come 2017...

[cp176]

If you want him gone, be careful what you are wishing for. He is plan A, and Louvollo is plan B. He has been sitting beside Farrell for sometime now. They seem to be getting along just fine. If a coaching change is made, they need to go outside of the org. to find someone who can make a difference. With the heir apparent, you get a younger version of the same guy.

[Dojji]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: John Farrell is an average manager. He is never going to be the reason your team wins, he is never going to be the REAL reason (outranged whinging fans notwithstanding) that your team loses. he's neither going to put you over the top or sink you, and he is going to be subject to the natural roll of the season rather than being able to rise above it.

 

The fact of the matter is that people calling for Farrell to be replaced don't know how good they have it. You can do better than an average manager, but you can do a hell of a lot worse. Statistically speaking we have as much to lose as we have to gain from moving on from Farrell. But it's hard to tell that since, as he's merely average, there's plenty to criticize when taking him against the magical ideal manager that never existed and never will, and it's hard to know or evaluate potential other managers who could be brought in, so a manager is usually judged against the ideal instead of against real replacements.

 

Long story short, swapping an average asset for a wildcard seems like a great idea until the wildcard turns out to be an absolute drooling moron.

[mvp 78]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: John Farrell is an average manager. He is never going to be the reason your team wins, he is never going to be the REAL reason (outranged whinging fans notwithstanding) that your team loses. he's neither going to put you over the top or sink you, and he is going to be subject to the natural roll of the season rather than being able to rise above it.

 

The fact of the matter is that people calling for Farrell to be replaced don't know how good they have it. You can do better than an average manager, but you can do a hell of a lot worse. Statistically speaking we have as much to lose as we have to gain from moving on from Farrell. But it's hard to tell that since, as he's merely average, there's plenty to criticize when taking him against the magical ideal manager that never existed and never will, and it's hard to know or evaluate potential other managers who could be brought in, so a manager is usually judged against the ideal instead of against real replacements.

 

Long story short, swapping an average asset for a wildcard seems like a great idea until the wildcard turns out to be an absolute drooling moron.

 

Lovullo is as good as Farrell if not better. Keeping Farrell on is just a sign of complacency imo.

[Dojji]

We don't know that one way or another on the basis of what, 2 months? THAT'S suddenly enough games to evaluate a manager just because YOU want it to be?

 

Take a wild guess what Farrell's own record was in 2013, his first season as our manager, in the same span of time. The honeymoon wasn't even over at that point.

 

It took 2 years for people to decide Farrell was an idiot after praising him that first year. Why are you so sure on that basis of a tiny handful of games, that Lovullo is any less of a moron than Farrel "proved" to be?

 

The only reason people are so hot after Lovullo is he's not John Farrell. Period, end of sentence. No seriously, dassit. Nothing to do with any assessment of Lovullo's own skills because in that span of games, with as little true impact as a manager has on any one game, no actual assessment is possible.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Dojji

[a700hitter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: John Farrell is an average manager. He is never going to be the reason your team wins, he is never going to be the REAL reason (outranged whinging fans notwithstanding) that your team loses. he's neither going to put you over the top or sink you, and he is going to be subject to the natural roll of the season rather than being able to rise above it.

 

The fact of the matter is that people calling for Farrell to be replaced don't know how good they have it. You can do better than an average manager, but you can do a hell of a lot worse. Statistically speaking we have as much to lose as we have to gain from moving on from Farrell. But it's hard to tell that since, as he's merely average, there's plenty to criticize when taking him against the magical ideal manager that never existed and never will, and it's hard to know or evaluate potential other managers who could be brought in, so a manager is usually judged against the ideal instead of against real replacements.

 

Long story short, swapping an average asset for a wildcard seems like a great idea until the wildcard turns out to be an absolute drooling moron.

Most of them are dopey at best. The two World Series managers last season -- Collins and Yost can't chew gum and walk at the same time. Unless the manager is tearing apart a team's morale, they don't matter very much. The players seem to be responding to Farrell, so there is no reason for him to go right now. He should probably wear a helmet in the dugout to protect his 2 brain cells. Proof positive to me of the pervasive stupidity of managers is the copycat mentality that has led to overshifting on .220 hitters who get themselves out -- thus giving one of their squibs or pop flies a chance at being a hit.

[Dojji]

the problem with managers is that nearly every decision they make involves playing the odds. and so therefore nearly every decision they make has a very large minority of times when it fails, simply due to the laws of probability. Easy enough to let confirmation bias do your thinking for you when even the best managers fail nearly as often as they succeed.

 

Ignoring someone's successes and roosting like a nesting hen on the failures is something we humans are emotionally hard wired to do when we already decide we don't like them. Unless you're consciously guarding against it, it's a trap you WILL fall into.

[mvp 78]

We don't know that one way or another on the basis of what, 2 months? THAT'S suddenly enough games to evaluate a manager just because YOU want it to be?

 

Take a wild guess what Farrell's own record was in 2013, his first season as our manager, in the same span of time. The honeymoon wasn't even over at that point.

 

It took 2 years for people to decide Farrell was an idiot after praising him that first year. Why are you so sure on that basis of a tiny handful of games, that Lovullo is any less of a moron than Farrel "proved" to be?

 

The only reason people are so hot after Lovullo is he's not John Farrell. Period, end of sentence. No seriously, dassit. Nothing to do with any assessment of Lovullo's own skills because in that span of games, with as little true impact as a manager has on any one game, no actual assessment is possible.

 

Who praised him the first year? He lucked into a WS and made a ton of weird moves when he got there. People sang Ben's praises in 2013 and rightfully so. I don't remember anyone saying Farrell was above average.

 

And if people are hot for Lovullo because Farrell leaves a lot to be desired, great!

[mvp 78]

the problem with managers is that nearly every decision they make involves playing the odds. and so therefore nearly every decision they make has a very large minority of times when it fails, simply due to the laws of probability. Easy enough to let confirmation bias do your thinking for you when even the best managers fail nearly as often as they succeed.

 

Ignoring someone's successes and roosting like a nesting hen on the failures is something we humans are emotionally hard wired to do when we already decide we don't like them. Unless you're consciously guarding against it, it's a trap you WILL fall into.

 

Couldn't even win a series against the Twins. Farrell is a rollercoaster ride. The Sox need a steadier hand, which Lovullo seemed to wield last year. There's no downside to moving on from Farrell, a guy that has shown horrible instincts both on and off the field.

[Bellhorn04]

the problem with managers is that nearly every decision they make involves playing the odds. and so therefore nearly every decision they make has a very large minority of times when it fails, simply due to the laws of probability. Easy enough to let confirmation bias do your thinking for you when even the best managers fail nearly as often as they succeed.

 

Ignoring someone's successes and roosting like a nesting hen on the failures is something we humans are emotionally hard wired to do when we already decide we don't like them. Unless you're consciously guarding against it, it's a trap you WILL fall into.

 

I agree with you.

[Bellhorn04]

Who praised him the first year? He lucked into a WS and made a ton of weird moves when he got there.

 

I don't remember a ton of weird moves. Name a couple.