Referendum on John Farrell

[Maxbialystock]

I agree that managing the players and the clubhouse are more important, but I disagree with downplaying the impact of the decisions. I think the Aug. 2 game is a good example of the array of decisions the manager can be faced with. Farrell could have removed Price after 7. He could have removed him after the home run, or one more batter after that, or one more batter after that. He could have stuck with Barnes instead of going to Abad. And whether he was right or wrong, those decisions absolutely have an impact on the outcome.

 

By your logic, almost any loss can be blamed on the manager because he wrote the lineup card, set the rotation, etc. Going back to Tuesday night, my reasoning is: 1) Price was our $217M ace, was going great guns through 7 innings, had only thrown 89 pitches, and Farrell should have been fired on the spot if he didn't stay with him in the 8th, especially with our flaky bullpen. 2) The solo dinger only made the score 4-1 and could have happened anytime and FArrell would have, should have kept his ace in the game. Besides, he correctly had no one warming up. Are you seriously advocating bringing in a cold pitcher to replace your ace with a 4-1 lead? 3) Next guy gets on with a "soft fly" which I didn't see but interpret as a fluke hit. Again, keep Price in. 3) Now a hard ground ball for a single. OK, warm someone up (which had probably already started), and send the pitching coach out. You still have a 4-1 lead and your ace on the mound. 4) Soft line drive, slightly flukish, but now the score is 4-2 with men on 1st and 2d. Probably time to bring in Barnes even though the bullpen is inconsistent. 5) Barnes does his job, strikes his man out. Great. Men still on 1st and 2d, but now one man out. But coming up is one of the best lefty hitters in the AL, sort of like David Ortiz. Abad is available, is a lefty, and has a good record against Cano. Barnes is also a good choice because of the K he got, but by no means the only choice. 6) Abad gets two strikes on Cano, which to me demonstrates Farrell made a good decision, but then he throws a fat pitch that Cano clobbers for 3 runs, the lead, and the game. That's baseball, Give Cano some credit, the same way we always give Ortiz credit (and never blame the opposing manager for having the wrong pitcher in the game). 7) Abad gets the next two guys out, including another good hitter, Cruz, again indicating Farrell made a good choice despite the outcome. 8) Shaw walks in the 9th, but Bradley, Leon, and Benintendi all strike out, which of course is Farrell's fault because the players are never at fault.

 

I apologize that some of the above is over the top, but I did it that way to emphasize that to me Farrell's choices were reasonable and that that's all we can expect. I might add that we/you are only assuming a better outcome if Farrell had not sent Price out for the 8th or removed him sooner or kept Barnes in or whatever. We don't in fact know what would have happened. We only know we don't like what did happen.

[Slasher9]

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.

 

awesome. so our 217MM man is interchangeable with 50 other starters in the league.

duly noted.

[Slasher9]

By your logic, almost any loss can be blamed on the manager because he wrote the lineup card, set the rotation, etc. Going back to Tuesday night, my reasoning is: 1) Price was our $217M ace, was going great guns through 7 innings, had only thrown 89 pitches, and Farrell should have been fired on the spot if he didn't stay with him in the 8th, especially with our flaky bullpen. 2) The solo dinger only made the score 4-1 and could have happened anytime and FArrell would have, should have kept his ace in the game. Besides, he correctly had no one warming up. Are you seriously advocating bringing in a cold pitcher to replace your ace with a 4-1 lead? 3) Next guy gets on with a "soft fly" which I didn't see but interpret as a fluke hit. Again, keep Price in. 3) Now a hard ground ball for a single. OK, warm someone up (which had probably already started), and send the pitching coach out. You still have a 4-1 lead and your ace on the mound. 4) Soft line drive, slightly flukish, but now the score is 4-2 with men on 1st and 2d. Probably time to bring in Barnes even though the bullpen is inconsistent. 5) Barnes does his job, strikes his man out. Great. Men still on 1st and 2d, but now one man out. But coming up is one of the best lefty hitters in the AL, sort of like David Ortiz. Abad is available, is a lefty, and has a good record against Cano. Barnes is also a good choice because of the K he got, but by no means the only choice. 6) Abad gets two strikes on Cano, which to me demonstrates Farrell made a good decision, but then he throws a fat pitch that Cano clobbers for 3 runs, the lead, and the game. That's baseball, Give Cano some credit, the same way we always give Ortiz credit (and never blame the opposing manager for having the wrong pitcher in the game). 7) Abad gets the next two guys out, including another good hitter, Cruz, again indicating Farrell made a good choice despite the outcome. 8) Shaw walks in the 9th, but Bradley, Leon, and Benintendi all strike out, which of course is Farrell's fault because the players are never at fault.

 

I apologize that some of the above is over the top, but I did it that way to emphasize that to me Farrell's choices were reasonable and that that's all we can expect. I might add that we/you are only assuming a better outcome if Farrell had not sent Price out for the 8th or removed him sooner or kept Barnes in or whatever. We don't in fact know what would have happened. We only know we don't like what did happen.

 

this sums it up pretty darn well.

[Maxbialystock]

I like Sparky Anderson's quotes and Kimmi's basic approach.

[a700hitter]

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.....

Seriously, they sleep through about 40% of the game.

[User Name]

awesome. so our 217MM man is interchangeable with 50 other starters in the league.

duly noted.

 

This is the dumbest argument I have ever read on this, or any other website/newspaper/periodical/book or general publication. Congratulations, you broke the system!

[a700hitter]

This is the dumbest argument I have ever read on this, or any other website/newspaper/periodical/book or general publication. Congratulations, you broke the system!

Did it break the needle on your ******** Meter?

[sk7326]

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.....

 

The vast majority of those decisions are obvious

[oldtimer]

The vast majority of those decisions are obvious

 

And many are delegated to the coaches.

[Redrojo]

We cannot understimate a manager's impact on a team. I think there is a symbiotic relationship between him and his team, they effect each other and their harmony or lack thereof can sink or elevate a team. Just remember Valantine who was a cancer in uniform or the great Ozzie Guillén.... We cannot quantify their total impact on a team, but it doesn't mean is insignificant, far from it.

[a700hitter]

I am confused. Is a manager very important or not important at all? They can't be indispensable if their game management means nothing and has little effect on games or the season.

[Bellhorn04]

I am confused. Is a manager very important or not important at all? They can't be indispensable if their game management means nothing and has little effect on games or the season.

 

Personally I don't like the idea that game management means little or nothing...it offends me a little in fact.

[a700hitter]

Personally I don't like the idea that game management means little or nothing...it offends me a little in fact.

It isn't easily quantifiable, and over a course of the season, it probably doesn't amount to much, but they either have an effect on the team performance or record and should be subject to criticism and accountability or they are just irrelevant. I think they have an effect on a team. I also don't think much of the overall quality of managers, but I also don't think much of the overall quality of the umpires either. But then again, they can be replaced by machines. LOL!

[Maxbialystock]

We cannot understimate a manager's impact on a team. I think there is a symbiotic relationship between him and his team, they effect each other and their harmony or lack thereof can sink or elevate a team. Just remember Valantine who was a cancer in uniform or the great Ozzie Guillén.... We cannot quantify their total impact on a team, but it doesn't mean is insignificant, far from it.

 

Do you mean underestimate or overestimate? As for Valentine, I like that example because Farrell was the guy who replaced him the very next year and took the team all the way to the WS and another championship. I don't begin to know how much effect Farrell had on the 2013, but, whatever it was,it could not have been that bad. In my view, the players, as always, get the lion's share of the credit.

[Maxbialystock]

I am confused. Is a manager very important or not important at all? They can't be indispensable if their game management means nothing and has little effect on games or the season.

 

Managers are normally, usually the fall guys when teams underperform. I think that's fair even though sometimes those firings are unjust. I personally think game management is overrated because in this day of age all managers have 1) lots of experience; 2) lots of detailed stats, trends, etc; 3) lots of immediately available expertise (pitching and bench coaches) to discuss things with; 4) plenty of time to make decisions; 5) not many important decisions to make. Unlike basketball coaches and especially football coaches, managers don't have much in the way of plays or defenses that would permit some creativity. No managers spend night after night reviewing game films to find other teams weaknesses. I do think some managers create a better playing environment than others--see Maddon of the Cubs. I think Girardi of the Yankees is a good manager, but his team loses anyway when he doesn't have talent.

[greenwell]

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.

 

I couldn't have said it better. A lot of people look at the price game and say, there's one decision that cost them the game, and don't realize that

A. They may have also lost the game if they pulled Price after 7 or left Barnes in to face Cano.

B. What happened was a fluke, if you replayed that inning 100 times leaving Price in and 100 times taking him out, they would probably lose as many without Price as they did with him.

 

Take Abad over Barnes. Abad has given up 2 HR in 51 ABs vs lefties. Barnes has given up 4 in 69, but for arguments sake lets say he gives up 1 in 51 ABs. That means out of 50 times Abad would give up the HR once more than Barnes, so once in 50 bad decisions. If you factor in all of the other ways the runners could have scored it could easily be 1 loss out of 100-200.

 

That's simplifying the point as it's not about repeating the same decision, but the many different "bad" decisions a manager can make in a year. But the bottom line is these decisions are based on very small percentage differences.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

To clarify, I don't think the in game managing is as important as the off field managing. The in game decisions have little impact. The managing of the players and the clubhouse, ie, the human element, , has a bigger impact.

 

I do not have any proof of this other than anecdotal evidence, but playing for a manager that is respected by and respects the players, and that they know has their backs, goes a long way in terms of on field production. Likewise, playing for a manager that will throw you under a bus has a strong adverse effect on the team's play. Case in point - Bobby Valentine.

 

I think Farrell does a good job with the off the field stuff.

 

All that said, I don't think managers should be making millions. Then again, I think players are way overpaid too.

[Kimmi]

I apologize that some of the above is over the top, but I did it that way to emphasize that to me Farrell's choices were reasonable and that that's all we can expect. I might add that we/you are only assuming a better outcome if Farrell had not sent Price out for the 8th or removed him sooner or kept Barnes in or whatever. We don't in fact know what would have happened. We only know we don't like what did happen.

 

^^This.

[Kimmi]

The vast majority of those decisions are obvious

 

That's what I've always thought.

 

I always laugh when people say that Francona or Farrell can't handle the 'double switch' in an NL game.

 

Come on people, give these guys some credit.

[Kimmi]

Personally I don't like the idea that game management means little or nothing...it offends me a little in fact.

 

Don't mean to offend.

 

The outcome of a game can be largely affected by a decision that a manager makes. However, that is really more on whether the player executes then on the what the manager decided, if the makes any sense.

 

That said, it is a manager's job to know his players well enough to aid him in making the right decisions. Managing the game and managing the players are not mutually exclusive.

[Kimmi]

I couldn't have said it better. A lot of people look at the price game and say, there's one decision that cost them the game, and don't realize that

A. They may have also lost the game if they pulled Price after 7 or left Barnes in to face Cano.

B. What happened was a fluke, if you replayed that inning 100 times leaving Price in and 100 times taking him out, they would probably lose as many without Price as they did with him.

 

Take Abad over Barnes. Abad has given up 2 HR in 51 ABs vs lefties. Barnes has given up 4 in 69, but for arguments sake lets say he gives up 1 in 51 ABs. That means out of 50 times Abad would give up the HR once more than Barnes, so once in 50 bad decisions. If you factor in all of the other ways the runners could have scored it could easily be 1 loss out of 100-200.

 

That's simplifying the point as it's not about repeating the same decision, but the many different "bad" decisions a manager can make in a year. But the bottom line is these decisions are based on very small percentage differences.

 

Thank you for this post. Well stated.

[Spudboy]

Well one thing is certain.

 

Farrell is not clutch!

[sk7326]

I am confused. Is a manager very important or not important at all? They can't be indispensable if their game management means nothing and has little effect on games or the season.

 

Extremely important - but in the way that an actual manager sort is in RealJobLand. Lot of delegation, and the guys on the line (or in the cubes) are the ones who have to deliver. Manager's job is to put the workers in the right roles, and create a work environment where guys can do their best. And then there is being the public face of the team, and making sure management's vision and priorities make it onto the field. (so while nobody wants to lose, wins and losses are a very reductive way of looking at it).

 

Francona is a favorite of mine - but it is because, of all the great coaches/managers I know in sport, he most closely resembles what a really good boss looks like in the sort of world where most of us live and work.

[sk7326]

Personally I don't like the idea that game management means little or nothing...it offends me a little in fact.

 

On a night to night basis, I think the game management matters - but the ones that matter the most are long-run sort of things which the staff has broken down before the game starts. The lineup card, bullpen usage and stuff. Certainly decisions have repercussions and whatnot.

 

At the same time - for instance - Ned Yost and Mike Matheny are bad tactical managers - any cursory check of baseball social media during their games would get there - and it has often been more than offset by good players being good. It is also interesting that a couple of the most obvious examples of "active" game management - sacrifices and steals (often) often reduce run expectancy. And some of the high and mighty talk that NL fans have about strategy due to the pitcher hitting is bunk - most of those decisions are obvious.

[a700hitter]

To clarify, I don't think the in game managing is as important as the off field managing. The in game decisions have little impact. The managing of the players and the clubhouse, ie, the human element, , has a bigger impact.

 

I do not have any proof of this other than anecdotal evidence, but playing for a manager that is respected by and respects the players, and that they know has their backs, goes a long way in terms of on field production. Likewise, playing for a manager that will throw you under a bus has a strong adverse effect on the team's play. Case in point - Bobby Valentine.

 

I think Farrell does a good job with the off the field stuff.

 

All that said, I don't think managers should be making millions. Then again, I think players are way overpaid too.

What off the field stuff are you referring to that is an important role(s) of a manager that adds value or affects team performance?

[Bellhorn04]

I do agree that most decisions managers make during games are relatively straightforward and according to a plan that's already been established. It's when things suddenly go sideways that managers can be put under a lot of pressure, and the potential to really screw up can enter the picture.

[Slasher9]

This is the dumbest argument I have ever read on this, or any other website/newspaper/periodical/book or general publication. Congratulations, you broke the system!

 

You do realize that your puppy dog said it and I was just repeating it. Right? I mean, you did realize that. Right?

[Slasher9]

The vast majority of those decisions are obvious

 

I don't disagree. I am just pointing out how the author of the article could come up with the high quantity of manager "decisions"

[cp176]

Well one thing is certain.

 

Farrell is not clutch!

 

Is that quantifiable? The thought of this is making me choke.

[User Name]

I don't disagree. I am just pointing out how the author of the article could come up with the high quantity of manager "decisions"

 

I'm looking online for a free course on reading comprehension so I can help you out there buddy.