Referendum on John Farrell

[User Name]

Me too.

 

I still like Eric Wedge. Especially with a cast of young players.

 

You've always been a big fan of Wedge. Too bad his Mariners tenure ended the way it did. f*** Jack Zdurienick,

[a700hitter]

Me too.

 

I still like Eric Wedge. Especially with a cast of young players.

I have never understood your fondness of Eric Wedge. Was he a drinking buddy? Does he come from your neighborhood? What is the back story, because I see no reason not to lump him in with the rest of the knuckleheads?

[Kimmi]

As always, I highly respect your opinion on these matters even when it doesn't quite coincide with mine. It's not about who's right or wrong. This particular topic of the impact of decisions just interests me a lot.

 

As I said earlier, the crux of the whole Grady thing for me was the data about how the 2003 Pedro's effectiveness fell off dramatically at about 105 pitches and that was why Theo gave specific instructions.

 

Can we really blame Pedro for doing exactly what the data said he would do?

 

I understand what you're saying and I agree that there was very strong data that supported pulling Pedro. As I've said, I think Grady made the wrong decision. I agree that we can't blame Pedro for that game either. Parenthetically, there is strong evidence for pulling most starters facing the opposing line up the third time through the order.

 

My point is that the difference in win expectancy between choice A and choice B in most cases is something like 2%, really bad decisions about 5%. I'm going off memory here, so don't quote me. In other words, if the team had an 85% chance of winning the game with Timlin coming in, it would still have an 80% chance of winning with Pedro. Either way, the team has a strong likelihood of winning.

[Kimmi]

If manager's have little or no impact on games, they should eliminate the position as unnecessary and just let the coaches handle the onfield stuff. The GM could make the lineup and the Press Secretary could deal with the press. Of course I am being sarcastic, because managers tactical decisions do impact a team's win/loss record. That is why they have jobs, and most of these dopes need bench coaches because of the mental strain of the strategy.

 

They do, but not it's not nearly as large an impact as we think it is. Also, like with clutch hitters, there is no evidence that a manager's success with a certain type of move is a repeatable skill. In other words, a manager may be very successful in employing the sac bunt or pulling pitchers at the exact right time one year, but that success is not repeatable or sustainable year after year.

[Kimmi]

He is a good manager who thinks he is much smarter than he is.

 

Maddon, Showalter, and Scioscia - the trifecta of self-important micro-managers who think they are smarter than they are.

[a700hitter]

They do, but not it's not nearly as large an impact as we think it is. Also, like with clutch hitters, there is no evidence that a manager's success with a certain type of move is a repeatable skill. In other words, a manager may be very successful in employing the sac bunt or pulling pitchers at the exact right time one year, but that success is not repeatable or sustainable year after year.

Or maybe it is.

[Dojji]

If manager's have little or no impact on games, they should eliminate the position as unnecessary

 

That's a bit of a leap of logic, to put it mildly, don't you think?

 

Kimmi's point is that there are very few managerial decisions that are cut and dried until after they succeed or fail. Criticizing a coach from hindsight, when no coach ever has the benefit of hindsight when making the decision in the first place, is ridiculous and stupid.

[Dojji]

Or maybe it is.

 

On pure field tactics? Never has been yet.

 

If a manager can't get his players to perform to spec, it doesn't matter how good a field tactician is. If he can get his players to do their jobs on the field, it doesn't matter how bad a field tactician he is. Field tactics is a tiny piece of a manager's job description.

[a700hitter]

That's a bit of a leap of logic, to put it mildly, don't you think?

 

Kimmi's point is that there are very few managerial decisions that are cut and dried until after they succeed or fail. Criticizing a coach from hindsight, when no coach ever has the benefit of hindsight when making the decision in the first place, is ridiculous and stupid.

I was being sarcastic. Couldn't you tell?

[a700hitter]

On pure field tactics? Never has been yet.

 

If a manager can't get his players to perform to spec, it doesn't matter how good a field tactician is. If he can get his players to do their jobs on the field, it doesn't matter how bad a field tactician he is. Field tactics is a tiny piece of a manager's job description.

Putting the players in the best circumstances to succeed helps them perform -- that takes into in game tactics. For instance, it was a very bad in game tactic to pinch run Wright. That had a very low percentage for success and was not worth the risk.

[Maxbialystock]

Putting the players in the best circumstances to succeed helps them perform -- that takes into in game tactics. For instance, it was a very bad in game tactic to pinch run Wright. That had a very low percentage for success and was not worth the risk.

 

A very pretty point you make. Based on what we've seen, we might also include among Farrell's bad in game tactics--

 

Letting Benintendi get into a game situation where he would have to avoid a tag and do injury to himself. For that matter, he should have been told beforehand not to make that spectacular catch the game before because that too would risk injury. Good managers don't let those things happen, especially to rookies.

 

Forcing Moncada to play 3B and thereby putting him in position to misplay a routine grounder, to say nothing of allowing him to take to big a lead off 1B thereby getting him picked off by a mile. Very poor management there and certainly not in the spirit of putting his players in a position to excel.

 

Not just forcing poor Wright to pinch run, but also making him pitch in adverse conditions--too hot, too wet, etc. How was that putting Wright in the best position to succeed? A simple rule should suffice: Farrell should treat Wright the same way he would treat his own mother.

 

Last year expecting Sandoval to play 3B when he was clearly not in shape to play. I'm surprised the MLBPA didn't come down on him for that one. Terrible judgment.

 

Keeping players in the lineup when they are in slumps. Many's the time we've read on Talksox that Bogaerts or JBJ or whoever should be rested because they weren't hitting. If a manager can't nurture the delicate psyches of his players, what good is he?

 

Bringing any relief pitcher in when men are already on base. Every reliever deserves a clean inning, preferably against the bottom part of the order.

 

Speaking of which, a closer should close, period. None of this pitching in late and close games when the score is tied or the Sox are down one. In addition, on the off chance the closer has lost his control, the manager alone is responsible for stopping the bleeding by selecting precisely the right reliever to come in and save the day. In no way should a closer be expected to perform as a professional baseball player. He is to be coddled and nurtured so that he can give his best in the least trying of circumstances.

 

Making a starter keep pitching at the first sign of trouble. How can that be interpreted as bringing out the best in him? Mr. Wright could cite chapter and verse on this topic.

 

Not playing Shaw when he has a hot bat. For that matter, not playing Moncada when he is clearly the greatest Sox rookie ever.

 

Playing Young against a righty starter or reliever. Madness.

 

Making poor Buchholz bounce back and forth between starting and relieving. This is a highly paid professional who deserves every consideration and, clearly, a full-time position in the rotation. Or as the closer. Or as the setup man. Or something.

[a700hitter]

A very pretty point you make. Based on what we've seen, we might also include among Farrell's bad in game tactics--

 

Letting Benintendi get into a game situation where he would have to avoid a tag and do injury to himself. For that matter, he should have been told beforehand not to make that spectacular catch the game before because that too would risk injury. Good managers don't let those things happen, especially to rookies.

 

Forcing Moncada to play 3B and thereby putting him in position to misplay a routine grounder, to say nothing of allowing him to take to big a lead off 1B thereby getting him picked off by a mile. Very poor management there and certainly not in the spirit of putting his players in a position to excel.

 

Not just forcing poor Wright to pinch run, but also making him pitch in adverse conditions--too hot, too wet, etc. How was that putting Wright in the best position to succeed? A simple rule should suffice: Farrell should treat Wright the same way he would treat his own mother.

 

Last year expecting Sandoval to play 3B when he was clearly not in shape to play. I'm surprised the MLBPA didn't come down on him for that one. Terrible judgment.

 

Keeping players in the lineup when they are in slumps. Many's the time we've read on Talksox that Bogaerts or JBJ or whoever should be rested because they weren't hitting. If a manager can't nurture the delicate psyches of his players, what good is he?

 

Bringing any relief pitcher in when men are already on base. Every reliever deserves a clean inning, preferably against the bottom part of the order.

 

Speaking of which, a closer should close, period. None of this pitching in late and close games when the score is tied or the Sox are down one. In addition, on the off chance the closer has lost his control, the manager alone is responsible for stopping the bleeding by selecting precisely the right reliever to come in and save the day. In no way should a closer be expected to perform as a professional baseball player. He is to be coddled and nurtured so that he can give his best in the least trying of circumstances.

 

Making a starter keep pitching at the first sign of trouble. How can that be interpreted as bringing out the best in him? Mr. Wright could cite chapter and verse on this topic.

 

Not playing Shaw when he has a hot bat. For that matter, not playing Moncada when he is clearly the greatest Sox rookie ever.

 

Playing Young against a righty starter or reliever. Madness.

 

Making poor Buchholz bounce back and forth between starting and relieving. This is a highly paid professional who deserves every consideration and, clearly, a full-time position in the rotation. Or as the closer. Or as the setup man. Or something.

Are you done venting on me?

 

LOL!! What a bunch of ridiculous ********. You couldn't even fathom my thought process, so don't even try. You just look like you have an ax to grind.

Edited September 5, 2016 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

Are you done venting on me?

 

LOL!! What a bunch of ridiculous ********. You couldn't even fathom my thought process, so don't even try. You just look like you have an ax to grind.

 

I don't read walls of text. I tried but got only as far as Benintendi being put in harms way and decided to clip my toe nails instead.

 

Did I miss anything?

[a700hitter]

I don't read walls of text. I tried but got only as far as Benintendi being put in harms way and decided to clip my toe nails instead.

 

Did I miss anything?

I don't know. I got only as far as you did reading that blather. He is howling in the wilderness.

[Maxbialystock]

Are you done venting on me?

 

LOL!! What a bunch of ridiculous ********. You couldn't even fathom my thought process, so don't even try. You just look like you have an ax to grind.

 

What venting? I just took your position--that it's the manager's job (and, by inference, not the player's job) to ensure a player excels--to an extreme.

 

I think I've already agreed that pinch-running with Wright was ill-advised, but had to throw in the fact that Wright also doesn't want to pitch in damp weather or in very hot weather even though other pitchers are expected to because it's part of the game. I kind of liked that new rule for Farrell: to treat Wright they same way he would treat his own mother. Right out of A League of Their Own, and I chose it because to me Wright looks a tad girly even though women actually play pretty good fast pitch softball. As I said when he was injured, he's 32 years old and acts like he's 50. If he were in the NL, his complaint that he couldn't possibly score from 2B on a single would be laughable. If he were to start in the WS, he might be the only pitcher ever to be walked intentionally--just so the other team could laugh at his timidity in refusing to take any lead at all off 1B.

 

The real issue between us is your inclination to blame the manager first and the player second, and mine is the exact opposite. As I have said countless times, all managers make relatively rational decisions because they are reinforced by stats, experience, close-at-hand advisers (bench coach, pitching coach), and ample time to make key decisions. So to me the deciding factor in virtually all games is some combination of the players in the game. Thus Whitey Herzog makes sense when he says the difference between good managers and bad managers is a good bullpen.

 

Yesterday we saw ERod pitch his heart out, and then saw the Sox bullpen and the lineup which couldn't score a run piss it away. The entire lineup was put in a position, in your words, to excel, but could not. Our high-priced closer Kimbrel was too, and he walked a guy and then gave up a game-winning double off the wall which Holt didn't field all that cleanly. To be honest, Kimbrel's ineptitude may have been merciful because that game was going to continue until the Athletics--and certainly not the moribund Sox--scored the winning run.

[a700hitter]

What venting? I just took your position--that it's the manager's job (and, by inference, not the player's job) to ensure a player excels--to an extreme.

 

I think I've already agreed that pinch-running with Wright was ill-advised, but had to throw in the fact that Wright also doesn't want to pitch in damp weather or in very hot weather even though other pitchers are expected to because it's part of the game. I kind of liked that new rule for Farrell: to treat Wright they same way he would treat his own mother. Right out of A League of Their Own, and I chose it because to me Wright looks a tad girly even though women actually play pretty good fast pitch softball. As I said when he was injured, he's 32 years old and acts like he's 50. If he were in the NL, his complaint that he couldn't possibly score from 2B on a single would be laughable. If he were to start in the WS, he might be the only pitcher ever to be walked intentionally--just so the other team could laugh at his timidity in refusing to take any lead at all off 1B.

 

The real issue between us is your inclination to blame the manager first and the player second, and mine is the exact opposite. As I have said countless times, all managers make relatively rational decisions because they are reinforced by stats, experience, close-at-hand advisers (bench coach, pitching coach), and ample time to make key decisions. So to me the deciding factor in virtually all games is some combination of the players in the game. Thus Whitey Herzog makes sense when he says the difference between good managers and bad managers is a good bullpen.

 

Yesterday we saw ERod pitch his heart out, and then saw the Sox bullpen and the lineup which couldn't score a run piss it away. The entire lineup was put in a position, in your words, to excel, but could not. Our high-priced closer Kimbrel was too, and he walked a guy and then gave up a game-winning double off the wall which Holt didn't field all that cleanly. To be honest, Kimbrel's ineptitude may have been merciful because that game was going to continue until the Athletics--and certainly not the moribund Sox--scored the winning run.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Just stop. Because you suck at it like Farrell sucks when it comes to knowing when to make a pitching change.

 

Stop with this nonsense about me blaming the manager first and not the players. That is ********. Did you see me make any remarks about Farrell yesterday? I only point out when he makes low percentage stupid moves, so knock it off with your generalizations about me.

 

As for your snarky remarks about Wright not being able to pitch in the rain and damp weather, take those complaints up with your beloved manager. He is the one who stated that they would have to consider skipping Wright when it rains or the weather is bad.

 

Edit: You keep using that Whitey Herzog quote like it is gospel. I will guarantee you that he didn't use that line when he was negotiating his contract.

Edited September 5, 2016 by a700hitter

[Emp9]

Does Farrell ever put in his lineup on time or is it just my perception that he waits until the last second ?

[Maxbialystock]

Stop putting words in my mouth. Just stop. Because you suck at it like Farrell sucks when it comes to knowing when to make a pitching change.

 

Stop with this nonsense about me blaming the manager first and not the players. That is ********. Did you see me make any remarks about Farrell yesterday? I only point out when he makes low percentage stupid moves, so knock it off with your generalizations about me.

 

As for your snarky remarks about Wright not being able to pitch in the rain and damp weather, take those complaints up with your beloved manager. He is the one who stated that they would have to consider skipping Wright when it rains or the weather is bad.

 

Edit: You keep using that Whitey Herzog quote like it is gospel. I will guarantee you that he didn't use that line when he was negotiating his contract.

 

If you reread the above, you can see you already believe Farrell is clueless: "like Farrell sucks when it comes to making a pitching change." If anyone is putting words in your mouth, it's you.

 

As for yesterday, you're right. You said nothing about Farrell, which is the biggest clue he did everything right. I notice however you were sparing in your criticism of the lineup, Kimbrel, and Holt.

 

I'm pretty sure Farrell said publicly that Wright must learn how to pitch in hot and/or wet weather.

 

Whitey not using that line when negotiating his contract doesn't make it irrelevant. Joe Torre was a loser before managing the Yankees and Mariano Rivera. As I said previously, Joe Maddon is highly regarded and has the best W-L record and best ERA in MLB with the Cubs this year, but Epstein still wanted to shore up the bullpen with the Yankees ace closer. Bullpens do make a difference.

 

And ours is unreliable. That said, I too hope that now and then Farrell can pull a rabbit from a hat and bring in someone, anyone, who is actually effective when it counts. You are right to defend Kimbrel, but Kimmi is also right that this ain't the Kimbrel of yesteryear. Nor is Uehara. As for Ziegler, the report is he ain't great against lefty bats. And so on.

 

I had hoped to find an article saying we have the worst or among the worst five bullpens in MLB, but could not. So our bullpen is merely "unreliable." This gives me room to complain about the pitchers and you room to complain about the manager's decisions.

 

In 2013 with the same manager but a very different team, neither of us had much to complain about.

[a700hitter]

If you reread the above, you can see you already believe Farrell is clueless: "like Farrell sucks when it comes to making a pitching change." If anyone is putting words in your mouth, it's you.

 

As for yesterday, you're right. You said nothing about Farrell, which is the biggest clue he did everything right. I notice however you were sparing in your criticism of the lineup, Kimbrel, and Holt.

 

I'm pretty sure Farrell said publicly that Wright must learn how to pitch in hot and/or wet weather.

 

Whitey not using that line when negotiating his contract doesn't make it irrelevant. Joe Torre was a loser before managing the Yankees and Mariano Rivera. As I said previously, Joe Maddon is highly regarded and has the best W-L record and best ERA in MLB with the Cubs this year, but Epstein still wanted to shore up the bullpen with the Yankees ace closer. Bullpens do make a difference.

 

And ours is unreliable. That said, I too hope that now and then Farrell can pull a rabbit from a hat and bring in someone, anyone, who is actually effective when it counts. You are right to defend Kimbrel, but Kimmi is also right that this ain't the Kimbrel of yesteryear. Nor is Uehara. As for Ziegler, the report is he ain't great against lefty bats. And so on.

 

I had hoped to find an article saying we have the worst or among the worst five bullpens in MLB, but could not. So our bullpen is merely "unreliable." This gives me room to complain about the pitchers and you room to complain about the manager's decisions.

 

In 2013 with the same manager but a very different team, neither of us had much to complain about.

I never denied that Farrell is clueless. Can you ever get anything right? That is different than saying that I blame him for everything, or can't you grasp the difference?

[S5Dewey]

IMHO John Farrell is getting entirely too much blame for the losses sustained by the bullpen. He doesn't have much to work with there. As the old saying goes, "It's pretty hard to make leather out of pig s***."

[a700hitter]

Whitey not using that line when negotiating his contract doesn't make it irrelevant. Joe Torre was a loser before managing the Yankees and Mariano Rivera. As I said previously, Joe Maddon is highly regarded and has the best W-L record and best ERA in MLB with the Cubs this year, but Epstein still wanted to shore up the bullpen with the Yankees ace closer. Bullpens do make a difference.

 

And ours is unreliable. That said, I too hope that now and then Farrell can pull a rabbit from a hat and bring in someone, anyone, who is actually effective when it counts. You are right to defend Kimbrel, but Kimmi is also right that this ain't the Kimbrel of yesteryear. Nor is Uehara. As for Ziegler, the report is he ain't great against lefty bats. And so on.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. Did I say that this was the Kimbrell of yesteryear? No, but he is the best that we have in the pen this year. I didn't defend him for yesterday's game. He s*** the bed.

 

So in your world managers don't matter in the dugout. This is your argument. I wish you were right. Maybe we could get that Pedro mannequin from a few years ago to manage the team. I'll bet that he works cheap. If the in game moves mean nothing, Farrell should go back to the clubhouse after handing in the lineup card and work on his prepared post game remarks. He has no role in the dugout.

Edited September 5, 2016 by a700hitter

[Maxbialystock]

I never denied that Farrell is clueless. Can you ever get anything right? That is different than saying that I blame him for everything, or can't you grasp the difference?

 

Yes, I do see the difference, but I think you have to agree that "clueless" is a fairly definitive statement about this manager. It's also indefensible.

[a700hitter]

Yes, I do see the difference, but I think you have to agree that "clueless" is a fairly definitive statement about this manager. It's also indefensible.

It is my opinion. I think he is a fairy terrible game tactician whose teams are generally very bad at fundamentals and atrocious at base stealing.

 

Edit: I have been very clear about this for a long time. For some reason, this really bothers you. That's too bad for you.

[Maxbialystock]

Again you are putting words in my mouth. Did I say that this was the Kimbrell of yesteryear? No, but he is the best that we have in the pen this year. I didn't defend him for yesterday's game. He s*** the bed.

 

So in your world managers don't matter in the dugout. This is your argument. I wish you were right. Maybe we could get that Pedro mannequin from a few years ago to manage the team. I'll bet that he works cheap. If the in game moves mean nothing, Farrell should go back to the clubhouse after handing in the lineup card and work on his prepared post game remarks. He has no role in the dugout.

 

Of course managers count in the dugout. Someone has to be in charge, make the decisions, listen to the coaches, encourage players, etc. But it's only 25 players, and in most games only about half of them get to play, and in fact the lineup and the rotation work best when they are steady--the same 9 and the same 5--especially in the American League. For most of this year, however, Farrell has tended to platoon in LF and, lately, at 3B, but even those decisions are pretty straightforward. He used Ortiz less at 1B in NL parks than usual, but that made sense. He has varied the rotation only when injuries occurred to ERod and Wright, plus he used Pomeranz when he arrived. Now it's pretty steady except for #5, which goes back and forth between Buchholz and Wright. Indeed, as the season has gone on, the rotation has only improved with or without Wright.

 

The tricky part, as always, is with the bullpen--when and who to bring in. This is a lot easier with a good hitting ball club that gets good leads and less so in close games when the bullpen is unreliable. That's where you and I enter the fray. I think most reliever decisions by any manager are rational and defensible because they are a matter of stats, trends, experience, advice from two coaches, and time to make them in. But, when the relievers are consistently unreliable, every rational, defensible decision (my words) becomes, in your words, a clear indication of "clueless." You believe the bullpen fails because they were used too soon or too late or the wrong guy was used. I think they fail mostly because they are what they are.

[a700hitter]

Of course managers count in the dugout. Someone has to be in charge, make the decisions, listen to the coaches, encourage players, etc. But it's only 25 players, and in most games only about half of them get to play, and in fact the lineup and the rotation work best when they are steady--the same 9 and the same 5--especially in the American League. For most of this year, however, Farrell has tended to platoon in LF and, lately, at 3B, but even those decisions are pretty straightforward. He used Ortiz less at 1B in NL parks than usual, but that made sense. He has varied the rotation only when injuries occurred to ERod and Wright, plus he used Pomeranz when he arrived. Now it's pretty steady except for #5, which goes back and forth between Buchholz and Wright. Indeed, as the season has gone on, the rotation has only improved with or without Wright.

 

The tricky part, as always, is with the bullpen--when and who to bring in. This is a lot easier with a good hitting ball club that gets good leads and less so in close games when the bullpen is unreliable. That's where you and I enter the fray. I think most reliever decisions by any manager are rational and defensible because they are a matter of stats, trends, experience, advice from two coaches, and time to make them in. But, when the relievers are consistently unreliable, every rational, defensible decision (my words) becomes, in your words, a clear indication of "clueless." You believe the bullpen fails because they were used too soon or too late or the wrong guy was used. I think they fail mostly because they are what they are.

First of all, my criticisms are not limited to the manager's use of the bullpen.

 

Second, whether a bullpen is good, bad or in between, a good manager will get more out of his group than a bad manager would get. A good manager maximizes the outcome of the squad he is given. No one is arguing that a good manager could take the 1962 Mets to the World Series, but you just can't grasp the fact that there are good managers and bad managers regardless of the quality of their squads.

 

Farrell is not a top manager. He falls between average and below average.

Edited September 5, 2016 by a700hitter

[Maxbialystock]

It is my opinion. I think he is a fairy terrible game tactician whose teams are generally very bad at fundamentals and atrocious at base stealing.

 

Edit: I have been very clear about this for a long time. For some reason, this really bothers you. That's too bad for you.

 

Atrocious base-stealing? The Sox steal % is 79%, 4th best in MLB. Best is 81%.

 

Bad fundamentals? Fielding percentage is 8th best in MLB with a pretty young ball club and a first baseman playing there for the first time and a first baseman by trade playing 3B. Also a somewhat inexperienced catching crew who have real problems catching Wright's knuckler, but, then, Varitek never even bothered to try to catch Wakefield's knuckler. However, this crew is pretty good at throwing out baserunners. Especially Leon.

 

I will however grant you the other baserunning errors which don't show up in the stats, especially going for the extra base which isn't there. Too many guys have been nailed at home with no hope--probably Butterfield's fault, but he works for Farrell. Ditto getting picked off between bases when the throw doesn't go home or even sometimes when it does--not good. My guess is that Farrell likes aggressive baserunning. To be honest, I like it when Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, and even Ramirez are aggressive. Holt and Bradley tend not to be aggressive,which is fine. Shaw and Leon should not be aggressive but sometimes are. Young is smart on the basepaths. Ortiz has slowed down a lot, but still finds enough, sometimes, when it means getting home.

[a700hitter]

Atrocious base-stealing? The Sox steal % is 79%, 4th best in MLB. Best is 81%.

 

Bad fundamentals? Fielding percentage is 8th best in MLB with a pretty young ball club and a first baseman playing there for the first time and a first baseman by trade playing 3B. Also a somewhat inexperienced catching crew who have real problems catching Wright's knuckler, but, then, Varitek never even bothered to try to catch Wakefield's knuckler. However, this crew is pretty good at throwing out baserunners. Especially Leon.

 

I will however grant you the other baserunning errors which don't show up in the stats, especially going for the extra base which isn't there. Too many guys have been nailed at home with no hope--probably Butterfield's fault, but he works for Farrell. Ditto getting picked off between bases when the throw doesn't go home or even sometimes when it does--not good. My guess is that Farrell likes aggressive baserunning. To be honest, I like it when Betts, Bogaerts, Pedroia, and even Ramirez are aggressive. Holt and Bradley tend not to be aggressive,which is fine. Shaw and Leon should not be aggressive but sometimes are. Young is smart on the basepaths. Ortiz has slowed down a lot, but still finds enough, sometimes, when it means getting home.

My mistake. I meant to say that his teams are generally atrocious base runners, not base stealers. Bad base running is a hallmark of all Farrell teams going back to his Toronto days.

[Maxbialystock]

First of all, my criticisms are not limited to the manager's use of the bullpen.

 

Second, whether a bullpen is good, bad or in between, a good manager will get more out of his group than a bad manager would get. A good manager maximizes the outcome of the squad he is given. No one is arguing that a good manager could take the 1962 Mets to the World Series, but you just can't grasp the fact that there are good managers and bad managers regardless of the quality of their squads.

 

Farrell is not a top manager. He falls between average and below average.

 

Meh. I put him average. I think most managers are held accountable for the success or failure of the bullpen because that's where most of the hairy decisions are made. Maddon right now looks like a genius because he has great pitching and good hitting. Farrell has great hitting and so-so pitching.

 

Strangely, I agree that managers should be evaluated by what they get out of their clubs, and by that I specifically mean wins and losses. They should keep or lose their jobs based on the front office's determination of whether or not the team performed to its potential. Based on the hitting overall, Farrell is underperforming. Based on the pitching, especially the bullpen, he is doing OK. I hope you remember I would have have been fine with firing him a couple of times this year. I vehemently disagree he is "clueless," but I do expect this team, no matter how bad the bullpen, to make it to the playoffs.

 

To me this team has very good hitting, an above average rotation, decent fielding and baserunning, and an inconsistent bullpen that can be better. You think the X factor is Farrell, but I think it's the youth of the lineup. This is crunch time, and only Pedroia and Ortiz have really been here before. Interestingly, Francona lost his job precisely because the 2011 team was historically terrible in crunch time.

[a700hitter]

Meh. I put him average. I think most managers are held accountable for the success or failure of the bullpen because that's where most of the hairy decisions are made. Maddon right now looks like a genius because he has great pitching and good hitting. Farrell has great hitting and so-so pitching.

 

Strangely, I agree that managers should be evaluated by what they get out of their clubs, and by that I specifically mean wins and losses. They should keep or lose their jobs based on the front office's determination of whether or not the team performed to its potential. Based on the hitting overall, Farrell is underperforming. Based on the pitching, especially the bullpen, he is doing OK. I hope you remember I would have have been fine with firing him a couple of times this year. I vehemently disagree he is "clueless," but I do expect this team, no matter how bad the bullpen, to make it to the playoffs.

 

To me this team has very good hitting, an above average rotation, decent fielding and baserunning, and an inconsistent bullpen that can be better. You think the X factor is Farrell, but I think it's the youth of the lineup. This is crunch time, and only Pedroia and Ortiz have really been here before. Interestingly, Francona lost his job precisely because the 2011 team was historically terrible in crunch time.

I think most managers with rare exceptions are clueless. There aren't a lot of high IQ's managing baseball teams. They are easily confused and tend to blindly copy the successes of other managers.

[mrguit]

The best manager in baseball is Joe Maddon. Second is the Giants manager. I think these 2 would do better than Farrell. I'm not sure about anyone else. I also really like the young Dave Roberts ( ex sock), who helped get us in the World Series in '04. One characteristic of a great manager is knowing how to use your players and how to motivate them. I see this with Joe but not so much with John this year. John has so much talent on the team this year that its hard to know who to use when. Having a player like Hanley can be a challenge for any manager (so much raw talent but he is a bit of an under-achiever). He has single handedly won some games for us but also single-handedly lost us a few. It's Papi's last year, he's still a great fielder and should be playing in the NL games vs. RH pitchers. This is the kind of problem I have with Farrell. We still might get to the big show but right now I'm a little worried about John.

Maybe Dombrowski's putting too much pressure on him. It's gotta be fun too. Magic=fun and The most magic I have seen this year has come from Peedie's glove, not from walk-offs, and not from brilliant managerial moves.