Postseason Happenings 2016

[Bellhorn04]

We never seem to win games with management, and I think that was true with Tito as well. I'm sure I'll catch flack for saying that, but when if comes to naming the best managers over the past 46 years (when I became a Sox fan), I doubt you'll see one Sox name in a top 40 or 50 list.

 

Where's our earl Weaver? Sparky Anderson? Jim Leyland?

 

 

Francona ranks pretty high if you ask me. 2 rings with the Sox and a MOY with Cleveland. His record in Cleveland is validating his record in Boston.

[User Name]

Francona ranks pretty high if you ask me. 2 rings with the Sox and a MOY with Cleveland. His record in Cleveland is validating his record in Boston.

 

Excellent point Bell.

[Spudboy]

Excellent point Bell.

 

Bell always makes sense.

[S5Dewey]

Agreed. I'm not one to knit-pick every decision a manager makes. I was about the last guy to call for Valantine's neck and other before him, so I'm not a head-hunter, but in more of a general sense, I feel Farrell has been a failure.

 

The old saying, "You can't fire the team" has some merit, although we did just that in 2014, but I do think a change of manager often provides a spark needed to wake up some players and create a more serious mood. Who knows? Maybe this team needs less seriousness. maybe they are wound up too tightly.

 

I think it's obvious JF is not a master in-game strategist, so you expect him to be a top motivator of player preparation type guy then, right? I don't see that either. I have trouble pointing to just one big strength he has, and it's not the accumulation of many tiny strengths either.

 

We never seem to win games with management, and I think that was true with Tito as well. I'm sure I'll catch flack for saying that, but when if comes to naming the best managers over the past 46 years (when I became a Sox fan), I doubt you'll see one Sox name in a top 40 or 50 list.

 

Where's our earl Weaver? Sparky Anderson? Jim Leyland?

 

 

Leyland? Really? Sometimes a person's legacy is based on what they did last. I distinctly remember a Sox/Tigers playoff game when Leyland mysteriously went to reliever after reliever - all of whom were doing the job - until he finally found someone who couldn't and the Sox came back for the win.

 

I remember thinking at the time, "Man, the forums would crucify Tito for this!"

 

In a more general sense, IMO the requirements for a manager have changed in the past 10-20 years. There was a time when the manager ruled with an iron hand, and if the players didn't like it they were free to play someplace else. Now managers are required to be more touchy-feely with the players and more media-friendly. IMO Dick Williams is one of the best in my (fairly) recent memory but I can't imagine him being able to manage in today's environment.

[devildavid]

 

Maybe this team needs less seriousness. maybe they are wound up too tightly.

 

Where's our earl Weaver? Sparky Anderson? Jim Leyland?

 

 

I think this team is relaxed and has fun playing the game. The problem isn't attitude, it's performance.

 

In the post season, Farrell beat Leyland and Tito beat La Russa, two highly regarded managers.

[a700hitter]

I'm not only in, I'm also driving the party bus to the playoffs.

 

I am unable to think any other way.

 

Let's go!

Do you have the appropriate operator's license?

[Spudboy]

Do you have the appropriate operator's license?

 

No she does not.

 

But she subcontracted the job out to Rob Gronkowski.

[Spudboy]

Leyland? Really? Sometimes a person's legacy is based on what they did last. I distinctly remember a Sox/Tigers playoff game when Leyland mysteriously went to reliever after reliever - all of whom were doing the job - until he finally found someone who couldn't and the Sox came back for the win.

 

I remember thinking at the time, "Man, the forums would crucify Tito for this!"

In a more general sense, IMO the requirements for a manager have changed in the past 10-20 years. There was a time when the manager ruled with an iron hand, and if the players didn't like it they were free to play someplace else. Now managers are required to be more touchy-feely with the players and more media-friendly. IMO Dick Williams is one of the best in my (fairly) recent memory but I can't imagine him being able to manage in today's environment.

 

Yup. Good post.

[cp176]

Leyland? Really? Sometimes a person's legacy is based on what they did last. I distinctly remember a Sox/Tigers playoff game when Leyland mysteriously went to reliever after reliever - all of whom were doing the job - until he finally found someone who couldn't and the Sox came back for the win.

 

I remember thinking at the time, "Man, the forums would crucify Tito for this!"

 

In a more general sense, IMO the requirements for a manager have changed in the past 10-20 years. There was a time when the manager ruled with an iron hand, and if the players didn't like it they were free to play someplace else. Now managers are required to be more touchy-feely with the players and more media-friendly. IMO Dick Williams is one of the best in my (fairly) recent memory but I can't imagine him being able to manage in today's environment.

 

 

I tend to agree with much of what you say here. i also agree with you about Williams. Although I do think that he would have been able to adjust to much of the ******** that goes along with the job today. People have different ideas about what an "iron fist" means. Most athletes truly want to win. The good ones know that being disciplined with respect to what you do is very important. A manager who truly knows what they are doing who is also fair and can backup his ideas and feelings can still be very tough. Intensity, grittiness, motivation, work ethic, and not being afraid to call a fool a fool no matter how good they might be just what this team needs. i'm not sure what John Farrell is.

[Kimmi]

Agreed. I'm not one to knit-pick every decision a manager makes. I was about the last guy to call for Valantine's neck and other before him, so I'm not a head-hunter, but in more of a general sense, I feel Farrell has been a failure.

 

The old saying, "You can't fire the team" has some merit, although we did just that in 2014, but I do think a change of manager often provides a spark needed to wake up some players and create a more serious mood. Who knows? Maybe this team needs less seriousness. maybe they are wound up too tightly.

 

I think it's obvious JF is not a master in-game strategist, so you expect him to be a top motivator of player preparation type guy then, right? I don't see that either. I have trouble pointing to just one big strength he has, and it's not the accumulation of many tiny strengths either.

 

We never seem to win games with management, and I think that was true with Tito as well. I'm sure I'll catch flack for saying that, but when if comes to naming the best managers over the past 46 years (when I became a Sox fan), I doubt you'll see one Sox name in a top 40 or 50 list.

 

Where's our earl Weaver? Sparky Anderson? Jim Leyland?

 

 

I was on the fence about Farrell coming into the season, and this season hasn't really helped me in deciding which way to lean with him. With all of the underperformances we saw the last two years, I would agree with you in terms of a general sense that something is amiss with his managerial skills. OTOH, the players seem to really like hiim.

 

As far as his in game strategy goes, I haven't seen anything that glaringly bad. I know many disagree with that.

 

As far as having success with past managers, IMO, Tito is the man. It was a sad, sad time when both Tito and Theo were let go after the 2011 season.

[Kimmi]

Bell always makes sense.

 

Yes he does. As I've told him before, it's kind of annoying, actually.

[Kimmi]

No she does not.

 

But she subcontracted the job out to Rob Gronkowski.

 

Gronk could drive the bus. That would be cool.

[moonslav59]

OK, maybe Leyland wasn't good choice. Maybe he's more of a personal favorite, I'm not into judging any manager based on one big game or series,

 

I'm sure Tito would be on many baseball experts top 40 lists, but I was going back to 1970, when I fist started following the Sox, There's been a lot of really good managers over that time,

 

I can see putting Tito and Dick Williams at the top of Sox managers over the past 50 years, I'm still not sure how high I would put them an MLB's top managers over the last 50 years list,

 

I think we can all agree, it's one area we have not been all that great,

 

 

[bobpick68]

This team has been a .500 team since the beginning of June. A lot of folks want to point at just the bullpen but there have been many times they have faced starting pitchers with an ERA north of 4 that either shut them out or held them to a run or two. My point is it has been a joint effort. Also I agree with Lou Merloni's takes on Farrell that he's just not good at in-game stuff. I think they can and will get into the playoffs but I don't see them getting far as constituted.

 

The only hope for them to do any damage in the post season is if they get white hot going in. I am just being realistic. As always since 1972 or so I am rooting for them to win it all.

[Bellhorn04]

OK, maybe Leyland wasn't good choice. Maybe he's more of a personal favorite, I'm not into judging any manager based on one big game or series,

 

I'm sure Tito would be on many baseball experts top 40 lists, but I was going back to 1970, when I fist started following the Sox, There's been a lot of really good managers over that time,

 

I can see putting Tito and Dick Williams at the top of Sox managers over the past 50 years, I'm still not sure how high I would put them an MLB's top managers over the last 50 years list,

 

I think we can all agree, it's one area we have not been all that great,

 

 

Tito and Williams should both be very high. Not many managers have won more than 2 titles in the last 50 years.

[mvp 78]

Much of this playoff report is based off of run differential. The O's and the Sox records should be flip flopped.

 

Run differential is weird way to suggest the Sox are better than they are. Just look at the game yesterday. The record is skewed by blowouts. Yes, this team blows out bad pitching sometimes. Great. Woot. That in and of itself doesn't mean they should be in 1st place.

[moonslav59]

Run differential is weird way to suggest the Sox are better than they are. Just look at the game yesterday. The record is skewed by blowouts. Yes, this team blows out bad pitching sometimes. Great. Woot. That in and of itself doesn't mean they should be in 1st place.

 

I haven't seen many other teams blow out bad pitching by Greinke in a long time.

[SoxnCycles]

I haven't seen many other teams blow out bad pitching by Greinke in a long time.

 

Judging by the look on his face, Greinke hasn't ether.

[mvp 78]

I haven't seen many other teams blow out bad pitching by Greinke in a long time.

 

April?

 

Maybe he's still hurt?

[mvp 78]

He was just out for a month and a half.

[mvp 78]

@tonymassaroti FWIW, Red Sox now 8-1 against Atl, Oak and Ariz. Have outscored them 95-37. That's +58. Total run diff is +103.

[SoxnCycles]

He was just out for a month and a half.

 

Guess he should've stayed out.

[Bellhorn04]

Run differential is weird way to suggest the Sox are better than they are. Just look at the game yesterday. The record is skewed by blowouts. Yes, this team blows out bad pitching sometimes. Great. Woot. That in and of itself doesn't mean they should be in 1st place.

 

I agree. Let's see how we do this week.

[Wade Boggs]

True. Very true. However Charlie Manuel beat Joe Maddon Rays in the WS. I would never call him a better manager than Maddon. Would you?

 

Jim Leyland gained my respect when he stood up to Barry Bonds in spring training and let him have it. Trust me Bonds doesn't back down from anyone. He earned everyone's respect. I also know he gained BB respect. I'm not sure, you can help me out on this. But i thought BB resigned there, knowing that JL was going to be the manager. Not a 100% sure though. I thought he did.

[Wade Boggs]

I was replying to 8/13 , 11:37 Dewey. On the Jim Leyland post.

[Maxbialystock]

The O's and the Sox records should be flip flopped.

 

If the managers were flopped, maybe the records would be too.

 

Maybe. But then maybe Whitey Herzog was right: the difference between a winning manager and a losing manager is a good bullpen.

 

I think managerial decisions in-game are generally overrated in their importance because they all have access to all kinds of data, to say nothing of real-time input from both bench coaches and pitching coaches. Plus they have time, that precious commodity in decision-making, to consult both the data and the coaches.

 

Back to Whitey. I believe we all agree that it's the close games we need to win and would therefore argue that bullpens play an out-sized role in the outcomes of close games.

[Maxbialystock]

Gotta love the optimism of many posters. As moonslav says, we see our weaknesses, but tend to ignore the weaknesses of other teams. On top of that, this is definitely a team worth rooting for. The hitting seems to be coming back, and the rotation is probably the best it's been all year. The question is the bullpen, and even there I seem a glimmer of hope. Kimbrel does in fact have that deadly combo of blazing fastball and nasty curve. Ziegler with the unusual delivery has a good track record. Barnes can be very good in spots. Buchholz has been steady-eddy in the bullpen. Abad is now a known quantity--use only when nothing is on the line. Lefty Ross is also good in spots. Who's left?

[sk7326]

@tonymassaroti FWIW, Red Sox now 8-1 against Atl, Oak and Ariz. Have outscored them 95-37. That's +58. Total run diff is +103.

 

And the +45 would be 3rd in the American League ... so it is not like those blowouts are wallpapering over a bad team.

 

Bullpen needs more consistency - right now that has been the issue.

[sk7326]

OK, maybe Leyland wasn't good choice. Maybe he's more of a personal favorite, I'm not into judging any manager based on one big game or series,

 

I'm sure Tito would be on many baseball experts top 40 lists, but I was going back to 1970, when I fist started following the Sox, There's been a lot of really good managers over that time,

 

I can see putting Tito and Dick Williams at the top of Sox managers over the past 50 years, I'm still not sure how high I would put them an MLB's top managers over the last 50 years list,

 

I think we can all agree, it's one area we have not been all that great,

 

 

 

We can't

 

I am 38 - in the fandom I remember?

 

McNamara - bad

Morgan - good with the media, obviously would need help in hyper-information age ... but overall I liked him

Hobson - let's move on

Kennedy - could have been the best guy of them all, but really believed he was a great manager, which was the downfall

Williams - really good in his way

Kerrigan - Kennedy without the experience or ability to manage

Little - in some ways the right manager at the right time after the Kerrigan disaster. But ultimately the Pedro decision was unforgiveable, and he never was able to fully grasp the notion of the committee bullpen. On one level a bit underrated by Sox fans, but his biggest sin was a mortal one.

Francona - One of only two legitimate choices for the best Sox manager since 1967. Time will put him very much in the Anderson, Alston, Weaver, Herzog, Bochy level of the discussion. (I guess LaRussa - but he makes me angry). If he were your boss in your actual job (assuming he was qualified and trained) - he would be one of the best bosses you ever had.

Valentine - probably a bit underrated by his time here. But he put very little effort into this, while retaining all the ego.

Farrell - A solidly above average manager by the sorts of things you need a manager to do now. But there are definite holes, and tactically he could be better - but there are distinctly worse guys out there. I'd put him in the middle third of managers today.

Edited August 15, 2016 by sk7326

[User Name]

We can't

 

I am 38 - in the fandom I remember?

 

McNamara - bad

Morgan - good with the media, obviously would need help in hyper-information age ... but overall I liked him

Hobson - let's move on

Kennedy - could have been the best guy of them all, but really believed he was a great manager, which was the downfall

Williams - really good in his way

Kerrigan - Kennedy without the experience or ability to manage

Little - in some ways the right manager at the right time after the Kerrigan disaster. But ultimately the Pedro decision was unforgiveable, and he never was able to fully grasp the notion of the committee bullpen. On one level a bit underrated by Sox fans, but his biggest sin was a mortal one.

Francona - One of only two legitimate choices for the best Sox manager since 1967. Time will put him very much in the Anderson, Alston, Weaver, Herzog, Bochy level of the discussion. (I guess LaRussa - but he makes me angry). If he were your boss in your actual job (assuming he was qualified and trained) - he would be one of the best bosses you ever had.

Valentine - probably a bit underrated by his time here. But he put very little effort into this, while retaining all the ego.

Farrell - A solidly above average manager by the sorts of things you need a manager to do now. But there are definite holes, and tactically he could be better - but there are distinctly worse guys out there. I'd put him in the middle third of managers today.

 

Excellent post, except on the topic of LaRussa. I love that man.