Referendum on John Farrell

[Slasher9]

Yes - although if they lose that 15-2, that could change things.

 

on the contrary...i think the "change" would be if they lose it 4-3 and a questionable coaching decision costs the game.

if they lose 15-2 that is solely on the players.....

[oldtimer]

on the contrary...i think the "change" would be if they lose it 4-3 and a questionable coaching decision costs the game.

if they lose 15-2 that is solely on the players.....

 

Really. What if the coach leaves the starter in too long and then goes with a weak RP because we are already in an unwinnable game. The point in the coach can lose the game with poor decisions no matter the score.

[sk7326]

on the contrary...i think the "change" would be if they lose it 4-3 and a questionable coaching decision costs the game.

if they lose 15-2 that is solely on the players.....

 

No - 15-2 means the guys weren't ready to play ... the 4-3 games (long run) are basically coin flips. Some moves are questionable - some are even doubtful ... but the players can always bail a decision out.

[Kimmi]

No - 15-2 means the guys weren't ready to play ... the 4-3 games (long run) are basically coin flips. Some moves are questionable - some are even doubtful ... but the players can always bail a decision out.

 

I very much like this post.

[Bellhorn04]

No - 15-2 means the guys weren't ready to play ... the 4-3 games (long run) are basically coin flips. Some moves are questionable - some are even doubtful ... but the players can always bail a decision out.

 

Grady Little notwithstanding.

[Slasher9]

Grady Little notwithstanding.

 

thats exactly who i was thinking of when i posted that. and guess what? he actually lost his job because of that game.

[sk7326]

thats exactly who i was thinking of when i posted that. and guess what? he actually lost his job because of that game.

 

That was a specific, unsupportable decision. 99% of managerial decisions do not work that way. And even in that game - that decision did not actually cost the Red Sox the game (though for fans spiritually it sure did - don't get me wrong).

[mvp 78]

Yup, even when the manager makes a few mistakes, it's still the players' fault... NO MATTER WHAT

[sk7326]

Yup, even when the manager makes a few mistakes, it's still the players' fault... NO MATTER WHAT

 

LOL - I do blame managers a lot - but it tends to be in big picture ways ... and also if the mistakes reflects a serious trend ... it is hard to get to the "actively hurting his team" threshhold (Matt Williams in Washington did that last year)

 

A lot of time I don't blame players either (it's not either/or) - just "baseball happens". I mean Papi hit into two double plays Sunday - but he hit the ball on the screws both times. I'd take those at-bats, but baseball happened.

[mvp 78]

DFA bad luck

[Bellhorn04]

That was a specific, unsupportable decision. 99% of managerial decisions do not work that way. And even in that game - that decision did not actually cost the Red Sox the game (though for fans spiritually it sure did - don't get me wrong).

 

A pretty strong case can be made that the decision did in fact cost the Red Sox the game.

[sk7326]

A pretty strong case can be made that the decision did in fact cost the Red Sox the game.

 

I agree with your argument (I was pro firing Grady for it).

 

But even with that, the Red Sox never lost the lead ... and stranded runners in scoring position in each of the next 2 innings.

[sk7326]

They did lose the lead.

 

Inning ended tied. And the Sox left runners at 2nd in the 9th and 10th.

 

It is a micro version of the 1986 thing - despite the horror, there was still another chance to save the season. (and as 1975 showed, it's certainly possible to recover from such a stomach punch)

[Bellhorn04]

Inning ended tied. And the Sox left runners at 2nd in the 9th and 10th.

 

You don't consider going from 3 runs up to tied losing the lead? In some sports you have the term co-leader, but that's when there are more than 2 competitors involved. I have never heard the term co-leader used in a baseball game. There's leading, tied or behind.

[sk7326]

You don't consider going from 3 runs up to tied losing the lead? In some sports you have the term co-leader, but that's when there are more than 2 competitors involved. I have never heard the term co-leader used in a baseball game. There's leading, tied or behind.

 

You are right - I misread. I was still thinking about whether it "lost the game", which (technically) it didn't.

[a700hitter]

You are right - I misread. I was still thinking about whether it "lost the game", which (technically) it didn't.

Technically, only the umpires' calls make the outcome of the game official.

[mvp 78]

Technically, only the umpires' calls make the outcome of the game official.

 

But if the umpires make calls that aren't correct, the players should be able to make up for it.

[Slasher9]

i'll try again in this thread...

do you expect ziegler warming up during the bottom of the 5th while the sox are up just in case erod (or whatever starter) gives up 3 quick hits in the top of the 6th and so called "imploding"?

how many times do you think ziegler (or any reliever you want to insert) can get up and down in a game?

in a week?

in a month?

in a season?

how many times when you switch from "Farrell left the starter in too long" to "Farrell overuses the bullpen"?

 

how fast do some of you think a Relief Pitcher can warm up?

 

seems like some of you think it takes 3 or 4 throws.....it also seems some of you think that a Relief Pitcher can warm up 3 or 4 times a game before actually being called upon and then be effective.

 

How many outs do you expect the Starting Pitcher to get a night?

How many outs do you expect ziegler to get a night?

how many outs do you expect Kimbrell to get a night?

total those 3 numbers up. do they equal 27?

if not, where do you get the remaining outs from?

if they do, how many games in a row do you expect ziegler & kimbrell to get those outs?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Slasher9

[a700hitter]

i'll try again in this thread...

do you expect ziegler warming up during the bottom of the 5th while the sox are up just in case erod (or whatever starter) gives up 3 quick hits in the top of the 6th and so called "imploding"?

how many times do you think ziegler (or any reliever you want to insert) can get up and down in a game?

in a week?

in a month?

in a season?

how many times when you switch from "Farrell left the starter in too long" to "Farrell overuses the bullpen"?

 

how fast do some of you think a Relief Pitcher can warm up?

 

seems like some of you think it takes 3 or 4 throws.....it also seems some of you think that a Relief Pitcher can warm up 3 or 4 times a game before actually being called upon and then be effective.

 

How many outs do you expect the Starting Pitcher to get a night?

How many outs do you expect ziegler to get a night?

how many outs do you expect Kimbrell to get a night?

total those 3 numbers up. do they equal 27?

if not, where do you get the remaining outs from?

if they do, how many games in a row do you expect ziegler & kimbrell to get those outs?

Send this questionnaire to Farrell. It will make his head hurt.

[mvp 78]

i'll try again in this thread...

Do you expect ziegler warming up during the bottom of the 5th while the sox are up just in case erod (or whatever starter) gives up 3 quick hits in the top of the 6th and so called "imploding"? Nah, ziegler shouldn't come in any sooner than the 7th

how many times do you think ziegler (or any reliever you want to insert) can get up and down in a game? For ziegs, once

in a week? 3 out of every 7 games

in a month? See above

in a season? See above

how many times when you switch from "farrell left the starter in too long" to "farrell overuses the bullpen"? Is this english?

 

How fast do some of you think a relief pitcher can warm up? Depends on the pitcher

 

seems like some of you think it takes 3 or 4 throws.....it also seems some of you think that a relief pitcher can warm up 3 or 4 times a game before actually being called upon and then be effective. Nope

 

how many outs do you expect the starting pitcher to get a night? I'd like 27, but would be happy with 6 innings depending on the guy and game situation

how many outs do you expect ziegler to get a night? I would sit him after 3 outs depending on matchups and pitch count.

How many outs do you expect kimbrell to get a night? I would pitch him for 3 outs, maybe 4 or 5 in rare cases.

Total those 3 numbers up. Do they equal 27? It depends

if not, where do you get the remaining outs from? All of the other bullpen guys

if they do, how many games in a row do you expect ziegler & kimbrell to get those outs? Both combined? Two at most unless there was an off day.

 

um, ok!

[Slasher9]

um, ok!

 

thank you for answering.

 

my non english question was for those that complain the Farrell left starter in too long one night and then the next night (or week or month) complain when the Farrell pulls the starter too quickly.

still may not be english but my brain knows what i mean and my brain is all that really matters....

[a700hitter]

thank you for answering.

 

my non english question was for those that complain the Farrell left starter in too long one night and then the next night (or week or month) complain when the Farrell pulls the starter too quickly.

still may not be english but my brain knows what i mean and my brain is all that really matters....

And you expect Farrell to know what you mean?

[mvp 78]

thank you for answering.

 

my non english question was for those that complain the Farrell left starter in too long one night and then the next night (or week or month) complain when the Farrell pulls the starter too quickly.

still may not be english but my brain knows what i mean and my brain is all that really matters....

 

Oh, I don't know how to answer that question. I think sometimes he can leave in a starter too long and sometimes he can pull a starter too quickly. I will say that his tendency seems to be to leave a guy in too long rather than pull him too quickly.

 

Was it Farrell's fault that Barnes screwed up the other night? Nope. Was that the right move to make at the time? Probably. I wasn't watching that game so I couldn't say for sure.

 

I get angrier about missed ump calls than Farrell's utilization of the bullpen.

[Maxbialystock]

A bad manager can cost his team a significant amount of games. Leaving a starter in too long, leaving a reliever in too long, sub-optimal lineup construction.

 

The impact a crappy manager has on his team is way more significant than the impact a good manager that doesn't get in his own way.

 

Baloney. The only difference between a good manager and a bad one is a good bullpen, and the Sox right now have a lousy bullpen, which leaves Farrell with a choice of picking his poison. All managers without exception have access to all kinds of useful stats and trends, have pretty good game experience themselves, have at least two good coaches (pitching and bench) immediately available for additional insights, and usually have plenty of time to make real time decisions. This doesn't mean every decision will prove to be successful because that is not the nature of baseball, but it does mean every decision is reasonable.

 

Did you not notice all the last minute moves around August 1 by the good teams to get the best possible arms for their bullpens? I think most people would say Joe Maddon of the Cubs is pretty good, and in fact the Cubs have a terrific record this year, best in MLB. But no way was Epstein going to pass on the chance to get the Yankees' Chapman and simply say, "we don't need not stinkin' arms in the pen. Joe will figure it out by magically knowing when to pull a starter or a reliever."

 

As for suboptimal lineups, that too is a crock. There is zero statistical evidence that merely changing the batting order will magically produce success. Some things seem obvious, like putting the better hitters closer to the top of the order, but even that isn't sacrosanct. This year both JBJ and Benintendi have flourished batting 9th. I thought moving Betts down in the order was smart, but guess what? He led the teams in runs scored and was second in rbi's throughout the time he was batting lead off. The simple fact was/is Betts is good almost anywhere in the lineup and Shaw is not so good almost anywhere in the lineup. Platooning Holt and Young in LF seemed to me to work well, but Benintendi staying there also worked. The best way to fix a lineup is to get some good hitters.

[Bellhorn04]

Baloney. The only difference between a good manager and a bad one is a good bullpen, and the Sox right now have a lousy bullpen, which leaves Farrell with a choice of picking his poison. All managers without exception have access to all kinds of useful stats and trends, have pretty good game experience themselves, have at least two good coaches (pitching and bench) immediately available for additional insights, and usually have plenty of time to make real time decisions. This doesn't mean every decision will prove to be successful because that is not the nature of baseball, but it does mean every decision is reasonable.

 

I can't agree. Managers do make blunders sometimes, because they're human, and their judgment can get clouded, especially in high pressure situations.

 

Red Sox fans saw it in 2003 with Grady.

 

Then in 2004 Sox fans benefited from a horrible error by Torre in Game 5 when, needing 6 outs to wrap up the series, he brought in Tom Gordon (who he had burned out from overuse) instead of Rivera-because he didn't want Rivera to throw a ton of pitches for the second game in a row. After Gordon gave up a home run and put 2 more runners on with no outs, Torre brings in Rivera after all and Rivera shows that he was quite capable of getting those 6 outs.

 

2 consecutive years, 2 blunders that may have cost their team the ALCS.

[a700hitter]

He is a terrible game tactician and has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory too often. He almost did it again today. If the only difference between a good manager and a bad manager is a good bullpen, then the manager's job is an unnecessary waste of money. Teams already have press secretaries, so we really don't need a manager to deal with the press. If the in game tactics don't make a difference then you really don't need a manager.

[Bellhorn04]

The comment by Herzog about bullpens making all the difference is one of those colorful statements that's got a lot of truth in it, but no, it's not the whole truth.

[Maxbialystock]

He is a terrible game tactician and has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory too often. He almost did it again today. If the only difference between a good manager and a bad manager is a good bullpen, then the manager's job is an unnecessary waste of money. Teams already have press secretaries, so we really don't need a manager to deal with the press. If the in game tactics don't make a difference then you really don't need a manager.

 

No, he is not a terrible tactician. If he were, DD would not hesitate to fire him and the Sox could never have overcome his terribleness in 2013.

 

Kimmi and others have pointed out that the manager definitely has to manage egos and keep the team focused. Yes, they are highly paid professionals and playing a game they presumably love to play, but a MLB season is unbelievably long and made more so by all the pitcher/batter idiosyncrasies that make games almost interminable. Plus someone actually has to make those tactical decisions during the game and not leave it to a statistician or a meeting of the coaches. I think Joe Maddon is a smart manager, but also think his best attribute is creating a positive environment for his players. He is naturally upbeat and seems not to be overly intense or obsessive.

 

While I agree relations with the press shouldn't matter much, it does seem important in Boston, and no way can press secretaries answer questions routinely handled by managers. Grilling a manager after every single ballgame is obligatory for every single team in MLB, and the Boston media in particular thrive on it.

[Maxbialystock]

The comment by Herzog about bullpens making all the difference is one of those colorful statements that's got a lot of truth in it, but no, it's not the whole truth.

 

That's a sensible statement, but I have to repeat: if bullpens aren't important, why did Epstein, whose team has the best record in MLB, a solid bullpen, and a very solid manager, go out and get Chapman of the Yankees? And why does every single MLB team have 12 out of 25 roster spots for pitchers alone and just 13 to cover the other 8 positions (or in the case of the AL, the other 9 positions)? Indeed, the five starters on average pitch over the half the innings, which leaves maybe 3 (no more than 4) innings on average for the 7 guys in the bullpen to cover.

 

I personally focus mostly on the rotation and the lineup, but smart GM's give due diligence to that bullpen. Did you know that the Sox ERA in the 2013 playoffs was 2.00 and the bullpen, which gave up 2 runs in 16 games, was even better than that?

[Bellhorn04]

I'm of the belief that being a major league manager is a very demanding job, even moreso in Boston. In fact being manager of the Red Sox might entail the most verbal and psychological abuse of any managing job in sports. All you have to do is look at what Francona (or Francoma) went through, despite winning 2 titles in 8 years.