Referendum on John Farrell

[Kimmi]

The team won the division. I'm told over and over again on here that the playoffs a crapshoot. I'll just write the sweep off to dumb luck.

 

I'm fine with Farrell coming back. He's a mediocre manager who rides tremendous highs and lows with this team (maybe that's due to the team's age more than anything).

 

Dombrowski knows that in game moves are not the most important aspect of a manager's job.

[Kimmi]

You can never blame a loss on a manager - since Ubaldo could have gotten him out. But this was a one game season - and instead of managing to get him a save, you need to take the best reliever in the league (if you believe he is) and deploy him to keep the game going. Nobody would have blamed him for burning Britton for the 9th and 10th and then seeing what happens. This was not an ordinary time. Showalter's decision uncontroversially lowered their probability of escaping that situation. In terms of doing his job, Showalter blew it.

 

I don't disagree that Showalter should have used Britton. I also understand that the impact of a decision looms larger in a one game playoff then it does it does in aggregate over the course of the season. Still, any one decision made by a manager has a small mathematical impact on the outcome of the game in terms of win probability.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't disagree that Showalter should have used Britton. I also understand that the impact of a decision looms larger in a one game playoff then it does it does in aggregate over the course of the season. Still, any one decision made by a manager has a small mathematical impact on the outcome of the game in terms of win probability.

 

That implies that in any one decision, it really doesn't matter much what the manager does. He could take out a pitcher tossing a no-hitter and bring in his worst reliever and it wouldn't matter that much.

[Kimmi]

That implies that in any one decision, it really doesn't matter much what the manager does. He could take out a pitcher tossing a no-hitter and bring in his worst reliever and it wouldn't matter that much.

 

I recall reading about the Nationals manager Williams using a reliever who was pretty bad (don't remember who that was) in a late and close game situation rather than his closer Storen. The difference in win expectancy in that decision was approximated at 0.1 runs.

 

Though not quite accurate, I think you can think of that as 9 times out of 10, there would be no difference in the impact of the game's outcome between using the bad reliever or the good reliever. Of course, if that 1 time out of 10 where there is a difference occurs in a one game playoff, it's HUGE.

[S5Dewey]

I recall reading about the Nationals manager Williams using a reliever who was pretty bad (don't remember who that was) in a late and close game situation rather than his closer Storen. The difference in win expectancy in that decision was approximated at 0.1 runs.

 

Though not quite accurate, I think you can think of that as 9 times out of 10, there would be no difference in the impact of the game's outcome between using the bad reliever or the good reliever. Of course, if that 1 time out of 10 where there is a difference occurs in a one game playoff, it's HUGE.

 

What I've learned thus far this season:

The batting order makes no difference.

Anyone can bat anywhere and the result will be the same. It makes little to no difference if Mookie bats first, fourth, or ninth. Same with everyone else in the order. Therefore L-R-L-R in the order is insignificant.

 

Home field advantage makes no difference.

If this is true, why do teams try to bring in players who will play to the ballpark? Is anyone who thinks EE would hit more home runs in Boston than at Petco wrong?

 

Nine times out of ten it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever.

If this is true then guys like Kimbrel are vastly overpaid when they can bring in some guy like Abad and nine times out of ten the result will be the same. Show of hands please - Who wants to give this a try?

 

::Giving my head a good hard shake::

 

If all of this is true we don't need an on-field manager. We can just let the players decide among themselves who's going to hit where and who's going to pitch when, and it won't make any difference. Just like the pickup games I used to play when I was a kid!

Edited October 12, 2016 by S5Dewey

[cp176]

why is it that so many teams win so many more games at home than on the road? If it was a 45/55% split, I might see some sense in this feeling. It isn't. Home cooking in the real world is important.

[jad]

Who's hating on Grady?

 

He f***ed up and got canned. He probably was not a good choice to manage this team in the first place.

 

As I recall, Pedro made an ok pitch which that dumb-ass Posada barely got the handle of the bat on. Looper to center, which barely dropped in. If Pedro had made a worse pitch, Posada would have gotten more of the bat on it. It would have been a routine, lazy fly ball to center and Grady would have been hailed a genius. (Am I mis-remembering this?)

[sk7326]

I don't disagree that Showalter should have used Britton. I also understand that the impact of a decision looms larger in a one game playoff then it does it does in aggregate over the course of the season. Still, any one decision made by a manager has a small mathematical impact on the outcome of the game in terms of win probability.

 

I agree with the numbers - in a one game season you have to take every percentage point available - this was a pretty easy decision compared to other ones.

[sk7326]

As I recall, Pedro made an ok pitch which that dumb-ass Posada barely got the handle of the bat on. Looper to center, which barely dropped in. If Pedro had made a worse pitch, Posada would have gotten more of the bat on it. It would have been a routine, lazy fly ball to center and Grady would have been hailed a genius. (Am I mis-remembering this?)

 

There were some lucky balls - but he was also missing locations badly and leaving the ball high. The command was leaving him. The exact same thing happened in Game 5 of the Oakland series - the Sox wiggled out of that ... Grady also had history to look at it and forgot

[sk7326]

One interesting footnote was that Francona went ahead and did the same thing in 2004 ALCS Game 5, but got away with it.

 

Given how much the Red Sox were beaten up between the 19-8 game, and the Ortiz game before that (and the washout which got rid of any day off) ... they were seriously running out of better ideas.

[sk7326]

Farrell had a pretty good read on his guys most of the season - they played hard for him. He ran the bullpen reasonably effectively - sometimes the pitchers sucked, but it was rare where I thought Farrell had the wrong guy out there for the specific job.

[Spudboy]

What I've learned thus far this season:

The batting order makes no difference.

Anyone can bat anywhere and the result will be the same. It makes little to no difference if Mookie bats first, fourth, or ninth. Same with everyone else in the order. Therefore L-R-L-R in the order is insignificant.

 

Home field advantage makes no difference.

If this is true, why do teams try to bring in players who will play to the ballpark? Is anyone who thinks EE would hit more home runs in Boston than at Petco wrong?

 

Nine times out of ten it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever.

If this is true then guys like Kimbrel are vastly overpaid when they can bring in some guy like Abad and nine times out of ten the result will be the same. Show of hands please - Who wants to give this a try?

 

::Giving my head a good hard shake::

 

If all of this is true we don't need an on-field manager. We can just let the players decide among themselves who's going to hit where and who's going to pitch when, and it won't make any difference. Just like the pickup games I used to play when I was a kid!

 

I nominate this as Post Of The Year!!!!

[Spudboy]

why is it that so many teams win so many more games at home than on the road? If it was a 45/55% split, I might see some sense in this feeling. It isn't. Home cooking in the real world is important.

 

You must be wrong because the Math says so!!!!!

 

Go take your Geritol!!!!!

[Spudboy]

Farrell had a pretty good read on his guys most of the season - they played hard for him. He ran the bullpen reasonably effectively - sometimes the pitchers sucked, but it was rare where I thought Farrell had the wrong guy out there for the specific job.

 

Plus relievers are just not as good as rotation pitchers. So they tend to be more of a box of chocolates by nature.

[cp176]

You must be wrong because the Math says so!!!!!

 

Go take your Geritol!!!!!

 

If that s*** works, I'll take an extra bottle! Me and the rest of the old guys just keep hanging on. I'm a proud supporter of the society that still believes that wins and losses, eras, home runs, and rbis still matter. And while I am ranting, yes clutch does exist. I see you down there! You know that you are with me. And here's to home field advantage too. I'm willing to bet that every ml player had rather play at home as opposed to being a road warrior most of the time as well.

[Bellhorn04]

What I've learned thus far this season:

The batting order makes no difference.

Anyone can bat anywhere and the result will be the same. It makes little to no difference if Mookie bats first, fourth, or ninth. Same with everyone else in the order. Therefore L-R-L-R in the order is insignificant.

 

Home field advantage makes no difference.

If this is true, why do teams try to bring in players who will play to the ballpark? Is anyone who thinks EE would hit more home runs in Boston than at Petco wrong?

 

Nine times out of ten it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever.

If this is true then guys like Kimbrel are vastly overpaid when they can bring in some guy like Abad and nine times out of ten the result will be the same. Show of hands please - Who wants to give this a try?

 

::Giving my head a good hard shake::

 

If all of this is true we don't need an on-field manager. We can just let the players decide among themselves who's going to hit where and who's going to pitch when, and it won't make any difference. Just like the pickup games I used to play when I was a kid!

 

Good one.

[oldtimer]

If that s*** works, I'll take an extra bottle! Me and the rest of the old guys just keep hanging on. I'm a proud supporter of the society that still believes that wins and losses, eras, home runs, and rbis still matter. And while I am ranting, yes clutch does exist. I see you down there! You know that you are with me. And here's to home field advantage too. I'm willing to bet that every ml player had rather play at home as opposed to being a road warrior most of the time as well.

 

Add one other. It was just a fluke we lost all but one of our last many games. Managing and coaching didn't matter either.

[mvp 78]

Add one other. It was just a fluke we lost all but one of our last many games. Managing and coaching didn't matter either.

 

This team was streaky all year long. They just ended it on a downward slope.

[a700hitter]

This team was streaky all year long. They just ended it on a downward slope.

Our hot streak was white hot and it locked down the Division, but when it ended it ended with a thud and the manager was not good enough to nurse them along until they got hot again. He could have helped manage them to HFA, but he had no sense of urgency about that. We lost the first 3 games on the road and game one was a nail biter. Also, in game 3, he had no urgency in the elimination game. He left Pom Pom who has be So-So on the mound in the 6th inning after the leadoff walk. That is the time to empty the pen. Ziegler, one of our best relievers went unused in game 3.

[illinoisredsox]

Our hot streak was white hot and it locked down the Division, but when it ended it ended with a thud and the manager was not good enough to nurse them along until they got hot again. He could have helped manage them to HFA, but he had no sense of urgency about that. We lost the first 3 games on the road and game one was a nail biter. Also, in game 3, he had no urgency in the elimination game. He left Pom Pom who has be So-So on the mound in the 6th inning after the leadoff walk. That is the time to empty the pen. Ziegler, one of our best relievers went unused in game 3.

 

You mean like Bochy did last night?

 

I didn't have a real problem with Pomeranz facing Crisp. Coco was 0-5 in the series at that point. He was batting from his weaker side (a .214 average with 3 HRs). And Pomeranz was coming off an easy 1-2-3 inning. Crisp got him, it happens.

 

The way things were going for the Sox in this series, had Ziegler been brought in, he would have given up a couple of infield hits followed by a 27 hopper that hits second base just as Bogaerts or Pedroia was about to field it for a DP. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the wind died just prior to the pitch to Crisp and then roared back up again right afterwards.

 

While the Tribe had many hard hit balls, Cleveland also had several hits during the series that found holes and set up multi-run innings. The Sox had several hard hit balls that found gloves, or in a couple cases, bounced off gloves right to other gloves. I think if Betts' ball gets passed 3rd in the 8th, a ball he hit for a double many times this season, the Sox win the game and then who knows how the series goes from there. Did anyone not think the ball he hit in the 8th was gone; I sure did, off the bat, it looked like many homers he had hit during the year. The wind had other ideas.

Edited October 12, 2016 by illinoisredsox

[Kimmi]

What I've learned thus far this season:

The batting order makes no difference.

Anyone can bat anywhere and the result will be the same. It makes little to no difference if Mookie bats first, fourth, or ninth. Same with everyone else in the order. Therefore L-R-L-R in the order is insignificant.

 

No one has ever said that batting order makes no difference. It doesn't make nearly as much difference as people think it does. All this micro-tweaking of the line up is not necessary. Unless a manager is going to completely buck tradition and go with a very unconventional optimal line up, he is much better off going with a L-R-L-R order and/or leaving players where they feel the most comfortable.

[Kimmi]

Home field advantage makes no difference.

If this is true, why do teams try to bring in players who will play to the ballpark? Is anyone who thinks EE would hit more home runs in Boston than at Petco wrong?

 

No one has ever said that home field advantage makes no difference. It just does not make as much of a difference in the playoffs as people think it does. My statements have stemmed from other people's criticism of Farrell not going all out to win HFA against Cleveland. Having his players healthy and rested and having his pitching lined up the way he wanted was more important than playing for HFA.

[Kimmi]

What I've learned thus far this season:Nine times out of ten it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever.

If this is true then guys like Kimbrel are vastly overpaid when they can bring in some guy like Abad and nine times out of ten the result will be the same. Show of hands please - Who wants to give this a try?

 

No one has ever said that it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever. The difference in win expectancy of a manager's decision before the events unfold is very small. It is on the actual relievers to get the job done.

 

If all of this is true we don't need an on-field manager. We can just let the players decide among themselves who's going to hit where and who's going to pitch when, and it won't make any difference. Just like the pickup games I used to play when I was a kid!

 

This statement is actually not as nearly far-fetched as you think it is. The important part of a manager's job takes place off the field.

[Kimmi]

why is it that so many teams win so many more games at home than on the road? If it was a 45/55% split, I might see some sense in this feeling. It isn't. Home cooking in the real world is important.

 

Home teams win approximately 54% of the games.

[a700hitter]

I didn't have a real problem with Pomeranz facing Crisp. Coco was 0-5 in the series at that point. He was batting from his weaker side (a .214 average with 3 HRs). And Pomeranz was coming off an easy 1-2-3 inning. Crisp got him, it happens.

 

And had just walked the leadoff hitter, and he has had a lot of trouble pitching with runners on base. He was not the best option and it was the 6th inning of an elimination game. Bad move and it turned out to be fatal.

[Kimmi]

One interesting footnote was that Francona went ahead and did the same thing in 2004 ALCS Game 5, but got away with it.

 

[Kimmi]

You must be wrong because the Math says so!!!!!

 

Go take your Geritol!!!!!

 

I will stop with my 'silly' ideas now, because in the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, You can't handle the truth!!! ('You' being the collective you.)

[a700hitter]

One interesting footnote was that Francona went ahead and did the same thing in 2004 ALCS Game 5, but got away with it.

Pedro did not pitch into the 8th inning of that game.

[S5Dewey]

No one has ever said that batting order makes no difference. It doesn't make nearly as much difference as people think it does. All this micro-tweaking of the line up is not necessary. Unless a manager is going to completely buck tradition and go with a very unconventional optimal line up, he is much better off going with a L-R-L-R order and/or leaving players where they feel the most comfortable.

 

Didn't we have this discussion already and the outcome was that Farrell could "draw the lineup out of a hat" and things wouldn't change much?

[S5Dewey]

No one has ever said that it makes no difference who a manager brings in as a reliever. The difference in win expectancy of a manager's decision before the events unfold is very small. It is on the actual relievers to get the job done.

 

If all of this is true we don't need an on-field manager. We can just let the players decide among themselves who's going to hit where and who's going to pitch when, and it won't make any difference. Just like the pickup games I used to play when I was a kid!

This statement is actually not as nearly far-fetched as you think it is. The important part of a manager's job takes place off the field.

 

I agree with you that one important part of the managers job is maintaining the clubhouse, etc., but I would never minimize his game decisions impact on a game. He's they guy who gets paid to make in-game decisions based on something other than emotion, something that's pretty hard for players to do.