Referendum on John Farrell

[Bellhorn04]

tito Francona. He managed the media well and his teams always seemed to be relaxed and confident. Also Joe Torre, for similar reasons.

 

I thought Francona was very good too. But the amount of grief he took on forums like this for some of his in-game moves was substantial. To a lot of people he was 'Coma'.

[User Name]

Here's a challenge - somebody name a manager they think is great, and then explain exactly why he's great.

 

Bruce Bochy. Great blend of old-school and analytics. Generally right with his in-game decisions. Can get the most out of his players, who tout him as a visionary and great motivator. Manages the media/clubhouse, and keeps his foot out of his mouth. He's all of the good things Maddon has, with better game management and less self-promotion.

[mvp 78]

I thought Francona was very good too. But the amount of grief he took on forums like this for some of his in-game moves was substantial. To a lot of people he was 'Coma'.

 

Ugh, don't remind us.

[a700hitter]

I liked Francona. His game decisions did make you scratch your head too often, but before 2011, he had the respect of his team and he was able to motivate them.

[a700hitter]

Two managers that I thought highly of were Whitey Herzog and Sparky Anderson. Sparky was ahead of his time with his use of the bullpen. Whitey, too was an innovator, although some of his most innovative ideas such as three 3 inning pitchers in each game never could be implemented because the players union would have gone crazy and no one would want to pitch for his team for financial reasons.

[Dojji]

I'd mention Tony LaRussa, but the stench of steroids hangs too thickly over nearly all of his teams.

[sk7326]

I thought Francona was very good too. But the amount of grief he took on forums like this for some of his in-game moves was substantial. To a lot of people he was 'Coma'.

 

One of the fun things about baseball is that fans are so familiar with all of the tactics and levers to pull. Things basically happen one at a time - it's not like the other sports where all the players are moving at once. It's easy to want to pull a bunch of moves - and think along with the manager.

 

Bobby Cox, Francona, Earl Weaver (all great managers in their time) - all got harangued I think for not bunting, not hit and running ... for more or less (usually) let the players play. Of course, that is (in general, if the players are good) the right thing to do. Also managers are like any other job - they can get better. Francona and Bochy have.

 

I'll use Francona as my soapbox - although Bochy and Maddon certainly could be advocated if you wanted.

 

1. Created a comfortable work environment. He resembled (to me) a good manager at a real job. Made great pains not to humiliate his players. Not every player thrived, but that happens with everybody. Managed one of the more ego-filled clubhouses you will every see, and got people to pull in the same direction - a lot of times just by being a remarkably decent man.

 

2. Managed coaches - The Red Sox staff turned over a lot over that time. Lot of coaches came through, but the overall quality on that end did not suffer.

 

3. Managed the media - He was effectively the Red Sox Press Secretary. He represented the Red Sox as a corporation wonderfully.

 

4. Integrated young players - Supervised one successful transition of players. When the GM wanted to usher out vets and play younger players, Francona could do that too. He gave the kids playing time, defended them in public, while developing and holding them accountable. Pedroia (example I always go to) was handed the 2B job without much big league evidence in his corner, but was given the time to breathe and grow into job while not compromising the big league mission. I think his background in both managing, and player personnel helped.

[sk7326]

I'd mention Tony LaRussa, but the stench of steroids hangs too thickly over nearly all of his teams.

 

Also, he did a lot of tinkering which made him look smarter. Lots of stuff with tiny samples.

[Bellhorn04]

There were only 2 big mistakes I remember by Tito, both involving leaving starters in too long, one he got lucky on, one he didn't.

 

1) 2004 ALCS Game 5. Let Pedro pitch to Matsui with us losing 4-2 and 2 men on base and Pedro up over 100 pitches. Got lucky.

2) 2008 ALCS Game 2. Let Beckett come out for the 5th inning. Didn't get lucky.

[Maxbialystock]

If you are talking about the clubhouse climate, I might agree. But then I would say the climate had to be fantastic in the clubhouse in 2013 because the Sox won it all after a losing season under Bobby V. Almost all of the same players came back in 2014 and finished in last place. Sox were lousy last year, then Lovullo took over, and many of use thought he was a change for the better. But right now, back under Farrell, they are playing better--I think because Sandoval is gone (for now) and Ramirez is happy if not hitting. Napoli is gone too. Right now six the of the Sox hitters have between 10 and 14 rbi's--the proverbial balanced lineup. I give the players credit for that and for the fact that the Sox lead the AL in doubles and runs scored. My point is that Farrell isn't hurting this team on the hitting side. As for the pitching side, he has little control over the fact that right now the Sox have the worst rotation in MLB. Could he manage the bullpen better? Maybe, but I have to note that three different times Kimbrel, the $9M closer, went into tough situations in late innings and screwed the pooch leading two losses and one blown save (that became a 12th inning win).

[Maxbialystock]

Howdy Max,

 

I think there is a solid concern here that plays to the way professional athletes are coddled these days. Since that is true, the manager is as much a manager of personalities as anything. The financial investment in the players, more so in the NBA than any other, makes it necessary to have an understanding person in the seat. We have coaches to help with personalities, life coaches, all sorts of things ... in the old days the manager was the boss, now he's a facilitator. That was Tito's magic. We know there was all sorts of screaming about his on field calls, but there isn't one player who didn't stand to benefit from his people skills. Manny being Manny, Paps, et, al, ....

 

Joe Madden is a deep soul who puts his players first and they respond with playing with good fundamentals and team first-ness. His depth includes having fun, building odd quirks that the guys buy into, building team .... well, I begin to repeat.

 

Farrell has the same "player first" heart. We don't agree with some of his calls, but he led a near miraculous WS title in 2013. If we remember correctly, many of us were in love with our kids, even in 2013. The FO was not loath to hide our kids ... we had as many as 7 rookies starting at a time in 2014. What could Farrell do with that? Had the kids played up to the hype, Farrell would not have been the target of displeasure by so many. It's true that some would never be happy. (If we happen to win the WS THIS YEAR, there will still be those who will hold the 2 last place finishes against Farrell. ) Had the five aces held up last season .... and the FO is in charge of the acquisition of players, not the field manager. Other teams speak highly of Farrell's ability to build a team, other than angry Toronto fans, that is. I listen to the feeds from the other team and hear only good things about Farrell.

 

Had the players performed as expected ...

 

I know this is flash point, but apparently Farrell even tries to make pariah like Panda comfortable enough to be a team mate.

 

...

 

Not sure how to close this but if the players don't perform, the manager can be the best guy out there ... and be a loser. Buck Showalter was a genius in Baltimore the first 10 days of the season because the O's were unbeaten. Is he a bum now that they have a losing record and we are a half game out?

 

 

Good points on Maddon because I entirely agree he provides a terrific climate--in Chicago as he did in Tampa. But the complaints on this board ain't about climate, but about specific decisions--you know, the old 20-20 hindsight trick. And, as you say, Farrell is also a player-first manager.

[Maxbialystock]

Farrell is not a good in-game tactician. That is an undeniable fact. His teams run the bases like idiots and his BP management is head-scratching. That said, the ability to manage the big egos in the Boston pressure cooker is invaluable. Farrell has that ability.

 

The problem is that we may be running and inferior manager out every night with a better option staring up at him from the bench coach position. The fact that the Sox had to greatly overpay Lovullo to keep him from being stolen away by another team speaks volumes to his standing in the industry.

 

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

[Dojji]

A lot of people seem to have trouble with telling the difference between a good idea that didn't work, a meh idea that didn't work, and a bad idea. For many here, everything that didn't work was a terrible decision. I personally feel like the decision to, say, leave Josh Beckett in the game in the 5th inning is something you ought to be able to expect to do, even if he was struggling with an injury at the time. The fact that that decision didn't work out does not automatically mean the decision was a mistake. It may, but it's not a 1-1 correlation like some people seem to be suggesting.

[Spudboy]

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

 

I'm sure others can add many questionable in game decisions.

 

Off the top of my head, I question the whole Young for Shaw thing.

 

How can those moves be justified?

[User Name]

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

 

First off, you can take the personal BS and shove it. You don't know me, I don't know you, I haven't disrespected you, don't disrespect me. I can dish it out bro, don't mess with me. I'm no whiner. I am stating an opinion I have substantiated several times, while also acknowledging Farrell's good points. Not everyone can handle the Boston pressure cooker. However, you can make your point without coming off as a prick.

 

Second, it is an undeniable fact because it's not "just whiners" who are saying Farrell is not a very good in-game manager. People who have played baseball for a living and have forgotten more baseball than either of us will ever know, starting by Lou Merloni. Besides of the fact that there are several instances (leaving a dead-armed Koji to get destroyed by Toronto, one of the famous blown saves sprouted in his defense, where he set up Kimbrel to fail is one example). Another good example is Kelly's first start after he was stung by the ball in his leg. It was evident to the Spanish broadcasters he was done, but it was not evident to Farrell. Also, his teams, in general, run the bases like idiots, which has also been pointed out by fans of both Toronto and the Red Sox, as well as columnists and analysts.

 

Anyways, the point is that several people think Farrell has always been a bad in-game manager, and that includes his Toronto tenure. You may think differently and defend your point, just don't be an ass about it.

[Maxbialystock]

f*** Farrell. He sucks. Lovullo is better.

 

The last refuge of small minds--gutter talk.

[Dojji]

The whole young for shaw thing happened while Shaw was still an unknown quantity, especially defensively. He's matured into a solid 3B and I haven't seen Farrell sub Shaw out in awhile. Farrell was hedging his bets and easing Shaw in defensively, like a lot of managers might with an untried defender.

[User Name]

The whole young for shaw thing happened while Shaw was still an unknown quantity, especially defensively. He's matured into a solid 3B and I haven't seen Farrell sub Shaw out in awhile. Farrell was hedging his bets and easing Shaw in defensively, like a lot of managers might with an untried defender.

 

You are offering an entirely different explanation than the one Farrell himself offered. Farrell said Young needed the at bats, full stop.

[sk7326]

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

 

I don't think he has always matched the right hitter with the situation. Young has hit a bit too much against righties given his dossier. But I do agree with you that he has not - for the most part - actively and significantly hurt the team with the chess moves. He hasn't optimized them either.

[Dojji]

You are offering an entirely different explanation than the one Farrell himself offered. Farrell said Young needed the at bats, full stop.

 

of course he said that, is he really going to stand out there and say "I have no faith in Travis Shaw defensively?"

 

but has he taken Shaw out of the lineup in favor of Young anytime in the last 2 weeks?

[User Name]

of course he said that, is he really going to stand out there and say "I have no faith in Travis Shaw defensively?"

 

but has he taken Shaw out of the lineup in favor of Young anytime in the last 2 weeks?

 

You are literally making up the reasons, as opposed to what he actually said. And why would he keep subbing him for Young, if he can't hit a righty to save his mother's life?

 

I can understand trying to defend the guy, but let's stick to what we actually know.

[Dojji]

He hasn't kept subbing him for Young. When was the last time Shaw came out of the lineup in favor of Young, the Baltimore series? He doesnt'y so it anymore, and he only ever did it at all in like Week One when no one was really sure what Shaw would do defensively..

[Spudboy]

'Last night Young batted against a righty when the Sox had Ortiz and Hannigan available.

 

If Farrell is so concerned about Young getting at bats, why does he bat him against his Kryptonite?

[Spudboy]

The last refuge of small minds--gutter talk.

 

I don't get you. Are you just joking and being sarcastic? If so, you would do well to explain.

 

Insulting two long time members who have a s*** ton of baseball knowledge and generalizing about all of the rest of us being whiners is not a good way to make friends around here.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't get you. Are you just joking and being sarcastic? If so, you would do well to explain.

 

Insulting two long time members who have a s*** ton of baseball knowledge and generalizing about all of the rest of us being whiners is not a good way to make friends around here.

 

The OP speaks for itself. While I have no objection to firing a losing manager for whatever reason--heck the Sox FO fired Francona (didn't renew his contract) after a winning season--I simply disagree that firing Farrell right now is cut and dried. I think I made a decent case for not firing him when the Sox are .5 games out of first despite the worst rotation in MLB.

 

There have been several on this thread who agreed with me and plenty who do not, which is fine. Disagreement is the stuff of threads and websites. I certainly made no generalizations about those who disagree. I simply object to the language from that one poster and the venom it implies. I treated it as a personal attack and responded in kind, but without the same language.

[User Name]

I'm sure you're a lot of fun at parties.

[Youk Of The Nation]

The OP speaks for itself. While I have no objection to firing a losing manager for whatever reason--heck the Sox FO fired Francona (didn't renew his contract) after a winning season--I simply disagree that firing Farrell right now is cut and dried. I think I made a decent case for not firing him when the Sox are .5 games out of first despite the worst rotation in MLB.

 

There have been several on this thread who agreed with me and plenty who do not, which is fine. Disagreement is the stuff of threads and websites. I certainly made no generalizations about those who disagree. I simply object to the language from that one poster and the venom it implies. I treated it as a personal attack and responded in kind, but without the same language.

 

It was a personal attack. On Farrell, not on you. Within certain limits, everyone here is free to express their opinions, whether they are well-researched and impeccably argued, or just a long string of incomprehensible mouth-frothing curses about some imagined problem. (We get a lot of that in gamethreads when the Sox are losing. I once threatened to cuckold Keith Foulke rather vociferously). You'll find this out as you settle in. To everyone else, we've all called each other whiners enough to blunt the impact of that particular word, so let's not let this spiral into anything and make us look bad in front of company, okay?

[User Name]

Quit your whining, whiner.

[a700hitter]

If a player stinks, it is going to be stated here -- often by me. It is not a personal attack, it is an opinion like a review. A personal attack would be an attack on their character like calling them criminals or cheats.

[User Name]

Or Sandovals.