Referendum on John Farrell

[southpaw777]

I appreciate these quotes.

 

Basically, they are saying that managing the players and the clubhouse are more important than the in game decisions, which has always been my opinion.

 

Not mine...balance of both...a manager that doesnt manage his pitching staff well (Farrell) can really mess things up.

[southpaw777]

"It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

 

Thats about 20lbs of ******** in a 10lb bag...all the numbers in the world can not convince me of that. Not.one.bit.

Thay also have this thing called the "HumanElement" to baseball that no numbers can quantify. A "feel" for the game going on and your players in that game. This, Farrell isnt good at.

Edited August 5, 2016 by southpaw777

[Bellhorn04]

"It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

 

Thats about 20lbs of ******** in a 10lb bag...all the numbers in the world can not convince me of that. Not.one.bit.

 

I think I understand what the principle behind the statement is, it's all based on averages and differentials between players and win expectancy.

 

I'm guessing that if this principle was applied to Pedro/Grady it would show that pulling Pedro for Timlin or Embree didn't greatly improve our chances. But I suspect that the formula may be disregarding situational factors like Pedro being gassed.

 

It certainly seems to defy common sense.

 

Kimmi has her work cut out explaining and defending this one.

[Bellhorn04]

I didn't see last night's game but the box score suggests that Farrell made the right moves this time around.

[southpaw777]

I think I understand what the principle behind the statement is, it's all based on averages and differentials between players and win expectancy.

 

I'm guessing that if this principle was applied to Pedro/Grady it would show that pulling Pedro for Timlin or Embree didn't greatly improve our chances. But I suspect that the formula may be disregarding situational factors like Pedro being gassed.

 

It certainly seems to defy common sense.

 

Kimmi has her work cut out explaining and defending this one.

 

Numbers cant Possibly take into account the human element. This is what some numbers people dont get. Not saying this about Kimmi as i have a great amount of respect for her, but still....

[southpaw777]

I didn't see last night's game but the box score suggests that Farrell made the right moves this time around.

 

Yes, fairly routine moves and the players did their jobs.

The night before there was zero reason to take Barnes out, who was painting 98 on the corners to a LHH seth smith...owned him...why the F do you pull the guy? I realize what the numbers said about Abad, but Barnes was ON, and when hes on he can get anyone out...he just fanned a power LHH for christ sakes...overthinking. Sometimes the numbers will make you overthink something thats otherwise obvious... baseball instincs

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, fairly routine moves and the players did their jobs.

The night before there was zero reason to take Barnes out, who was painting 98 on the corners to a LHH seth smith...owned him...why the F do you pull the guy? I realize what the numbers said about Abad, but Barnes was ON, and when hes on he can get anyone out...he just fanned a power LHH for christ sakes...overthinking. Sometimes the numbers will make you overthink something thats otherwise obvious... baseball instincs

 

Those are probably the toughest decisions - when numbers tell you one thing and instincts tell you something else.

[oldtimer]

I think I understand what the principle behind the statement is, it's all based on averages and differentials between players and win expectancy.

 

I'm guessing that if this principle was applied to Pedro/Grady it would show that pulling Pedro for Timlin or Embree didn't greatly improve our chances. But I suspect that the formula may be disregarding situational factors like Pedro being gassed.

 

It certainly seems to defy common sense.

 

Kimmi has her work cut out explaining and defending this one.

 

I can't believe a manager makes 50 to 200 moves a game. Once the lineup is set the moves deal with pitching (warmups and pitching changes), lineup changes for defense, and pinch hitting and to replace injured players and perhaps come to that number only if you include decision to steal, to hit and run and to take pitches. In addition, there may be pitchouts or throws to first.

 

Many of those decisions, such as to take pitches, throws to first, etc. are probably left to coaches, so the manager is probably involved in pitching and other important decisions a lot less than 50 times a game.

 

I believe one poor inaction or action can cost a game. In the example most talked about here, Farrell was slow to get a relief pitcher up, slow to make the change for Price and some would argue (not me, I'm ambivalent on that one) that the second change didn't make sense. In my book that was two areas that put the Mariners in a position to win the game and win they did.

[Bellhorn04]

I believe one poor inaction or action can cost a game.

 

I tend to agree.

[sk7326]

"It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

 

Thats about 20lbs of ******** in a 10lb bag...all the numbers in the world can not convince me of that. Not.one.bit.

Thay also have this thing called the "HumanElement" to baseball that no numbers can quantify. A "feel" for the game going on and your players in that game. This, Farrell isnt good at.

 

I am not sure if the number is right. But I do agree with her in general that the majority of a manager's impact is the stuff we don't see. The marginal impact of the various levers he can pull during a game are fairly small. The largest parts are filling up the lineup card and managing the bullpen.

 

Some of Farrell's moves in other areas bother me. I had some issues with whether his staff was doing its job with the players last year. But the "off the diamond stuff" part of it seems pretty solid.

[Slasher9]

No I did not, but nice try.

 

you did. you expect Farrell to treat Price the same as mariners manager treated Iwa. that's an apples to apples comparison.

[Slasher9]

Those are probably the toughest decisions - when numbers tell you one thing and instincts tell you something else.

 

in those cases most managers will go with the numbers so they are not second guessed......

[Maxbialystock]

Yes, fairly routine moves and the players did their jobs.

The night before there was zero reason to take Barnes out, who was painting 98 on the corners to a LHH seth smith...owned him...why the F do you pull the guy? I realize what the numbers said about Abad, but Barnes was ON, and when hes on he can get anyone out...he just fanned a power LHH for christ sakes...overthinking. Sometimes the numbers will make you overthink something thats otherwise obvious... baseball instincs

 

I hope you realize that the lion's share of the Farrell criticism for Tuesday night is about leaving Price in too long. The argument goes that FArrell should have had guys warming up when Price went to the mound, that he should have dashed out to talk to him after the first batter's dinger, etc. But, borrowing your approach, going into that inning Price was going great guns and the smart move was not to panic just because it was the 8th and the Sox only had a 4-0 lead (joke) and Price had already thrown 89 pitches (a low number for him). I too thought Barnes was lights out--but that was just one batter. Coming up was one of the best lefty hitters in the game. Yes, Barnes has that good fastball, but we have many times seen that a good fastball is still hittable when the batter knows it's coming.

 

But my real point is this. If Barnes had stayed in and given up the dinger, you would be insisting that Farrell failed to use that great lefty arm, Abad, who had a good record against Cano. Heck, I might even agree that Barnes was a slightly better choice against Cano, but I only expect a manager to make a reasonable choice.

[cp176]

"It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

 

Thats about 20lbs of ******** in a 10lb bag...all the numbers in the world can not convince me of that. Not.one.bit.

Thay also have this thing called the "HumanElement" to baseball that no numbers can quantify. A "feel" for the game going on and your players in that game. This, Farrell isnt good at.

 

Correcto - who ever spends that amount of time to just try to determine the number of bad decisions made by managers before they cost games, might not be having a beer with me on the porch. Too much time in a dark room. I agree with you very much that there are many things that could come under the heading of "human element" that can not be statistically measured. Confidence, anxiety, stress, attitude of the clubhouse in general, as well as a feel for the game.

[Kimmi]

If it takes 50 to 200 bad decisions to cost one win, that means that a manager can't actually cost you one individual game, ever. It means Grady leaving Pedro in the game in 2003 had little impact.

 

It is based off of win expectancy. The reasons why using win expectancy makes sense are:

 

1. A manager really has no control over a player's performance once the player is on the field. In other words, a manager could make the absolute right move and the player just doesn't execute.

 

2. No one knows what would have happened if a different move had been made. So if Farrell had pulled Price after he gave up the HR, the BP might have blown the game anyway.

 

The reason why this idea seems so absurd is because once Abad gave up the 3 run HR, the win expectancy changed drastically. So yes, that 'event' had a huge impact on the game.

 

But before starting that inning, the difference between any decision that Farrell might have made was probably a 1-2% change in win expectancy. The rest is hindsight and second guessing.

[Kimmi]

The only way we can know definitively if a move is the right move is if it works. If a move works and has the desired outcome, it can never be considered to be wrong, because it worked. If it doesn't work, it can be up for debate whether an alternate move would have worked.

 

Then Farrell was a genius in last night's game?

 

I agree with you that if a move doesn't work, it is up for debate whether an alternate move would have worked. It's nothing more than second guessing, and it doesn't mean that the original move was necessarily wrong.

[Spudboy]

So where do the 50-200 decisions come into play? I think that is what people here are not understanding and doubting.

[Kimmi]

"It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

 

Thats about 20lbs of ******** in a 10lb bag...all the numbers in the world can not convince me of that. Not.one.bit.

Thay also have this thing called the "HumanElement" to baseball that no numbers can quantify. A "feel" for the game going on and your players in that game. This, Farrell isnt good at.

 

Believe me, I have never been one to underestimate the importance of the human element. Neither do most of the stat geeks.

 

I completely agree that there are many things that stats cannot capture. That said, I still don't believe that a manager's decision has as much impact over the course of a season that most people believe it does.

 

I have never been one to blame a game, much less an entire series on one 'bad' move made by the manager. There is far too much that goes on in any one game to assign a loss to a manager because, for instance, he put Abad into the game instead of leaving Barnes in.

 

I am also very sure that had Farrell left Barnes in and he gave up the HR (which is not an unlikely scenario because Cano is pretty good), there would be plenty of people criticizing Farrell for not using Abad.

[Kimmi]

So where do the 50-200 decisions come into play? I think that is what people here are not understanding and doubting.

 

No one is saying that a manager necessarily makes that many decisions in one game. They are saying that each decision (before the actual outcome) has such little impact that a manager would have to make that many bad decisions in one game to be responsible for the loss.

[sk7326]

The sorts of moves you can blame a manager for to me are things like, say the Grady Little game ... because the percentages were so low. A manager cannot guarantee an outcome, but you can shift the odds. This applies with John McNamara in one of those other games which inspire expletives.

[Kimmi]

I think I understand what the principle behind the statement is, it's all based on averages and differentials between players and win expectancy.

 

I'm guessing that if this principle was applied to Pedro/Grady it would show that pulling Pedro for Timlin or Embree didn't greatly improve our chances. But I suspect that the formula may be disregarding situational factors like Pedro being gassed.

 

It certainly seems to defy common sense.

 

Kimmi has her work cut out explaining and defending this one.

 

I would agree with you that there are certain factors, like Pedro being gassed, that aren't taken into account here. Even with that, the chances one way or the other aren't as significant as some people think.

 

I also agree that it defies common sense because of the 'after the fact' thing. Once the outcome is known, the win expectancy can change significantly.

[Kimmi]

Numbers cant Possibly take into account the human element. This is what some numbers people dont get. Not saying this about Kimmi as i have a great amount of respect for her, but still....

 

I think you would be surprised at how much respect numbers people have for the human element.

[Kimmi]

Correcto - who ever spends that amount of time to just try to determine the number of bad decisions made by managers before they cost games, might not be having a beer with me on the porch. Too much time in a dark room. I agree with you very much that there are many things that could come under the heading of "human element" that can not be statistically measured. Confidence, anxiety, stress, attitude of the clubhouse in general, as well as a feel for the game.

 

These people might not be having a beer with you on the porch, but I can promise you that these people have jobs in the front offices of every MLB team. Why? Because their stuff works.

[sk7326]

Numbers cant Possibly take into account the human element. This is what some numbers people dont get. Not saying this about Kimmi as i have a great amount of respect for her, but still....

 

1. This is a strawman.

 

2. Often the numbers measure output. The human element is largely an input. There are lot of squishy things (that's why we have scouts and managers!) which work as inputs. Consistently positive measured outcomes usually are a pretty good indicator of all that human element stuff.

[Kimmi]

1. This is a strawman.

 

2. Often the numbers measure output. The human element is largely an input. There are lot of squishy things (that's why we have scouts and managers!) which work as inputs. Consistently positive measured outcomes usually are a pretty good indicator of all that human element stuff.

 

At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I am your biggest fan.

[a700hitter]

you did. you expect Farrell to treat Price the same as mariners manager treated Iwa. that's an apples to apples comparison.

Pure nonsense flows from your fingertips. I was comparing and contrasting a manger's late inning management when a team top starter is throwing a shutout. The pitcher is interchangeable with about 50 or more starting pitchers under the circumstances.

[a700hitter]

Then Farrell was a genius in last night's game?

 

I agree with you that if a move doesn't work, it is up for debate whether an alternate move would have worked. It's nothing more than second guessing, and it doesn't mean that the original move was necessarily wrong.

Genius? Being right doesn't make one a genius. You are often right.

[a700hitter]

So where do the 50-200 decisions come into play? I think that is what people here are not understanding and doubting.

If Farrell and even my all-time favorite Red Sox manager, Tito had to think 50 -200 times a game, each game would be a week long. LOL!!

[a700hitter]

I completely agree that there are many things that stats cannot capture. That said, I still don't believe that a manager's decision has as much impact over the course of a season that most people believe it does.

 

Which plays into my argument that none of these bozos should be making millions. If they have so little impact, they should make the league minimum, and teams should discard them like tissue paper. But yet people argue over whether the manager should be fired. It makes no difference who is in the dugout with the lineup card. Hand it to a trained monkey. At last they would be cute and entertaining. The combined brain power of the 30 MLB managers can generate about as much power as 2 hamsters running on wheels.

[Slasher9]

So where do the 50-200 decisions come into play? I think that is what people here are not understanding and doubting.

 

offense - every pitch...take, bunt, swing. . man on - steal, dont steal, hit n run.

defense - every pitch...positioning, type of pitch, pitchout, throwoever.

how many pitches in a game? thats how many times a manager "makes a decision". and on many pitches he is making multiple decisions.....