Farrell

[devildavid]

Here's what Kimmi said yesterday: "As far as in game decisions go, managers do not have as big an effect as most people think they do."

 

I'll have to let her elaborate on the exact meaning of that, but it does leaves some 'wiggle room'.

 

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

 

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

[Maxbialystock]

Lead article on espn's mlb site reads "Don't count on Red Sox Firing John Farrell--at least not yet." I think that probably captures the consensus of talksox--plenty of people are not happy with him, but see no alternative and do see some of the issues as outside his control.

 

I continue to believe the won-loss record is the key stat for a manager, and that won-lost record seems to depend more on the hitting than the pitching. Thus can Sale go 7 while giving up 2 in Oakland and the Sox still lose the game in the 10th, 3-2. Thus can the Sox now win 2 in a row by scoring 12 and 11 runs respectively.

[Bellhorn04]

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

 

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

 

I largely agree, but some of the in-game moves are important to both small picture and big picture. For example if you have a one-run lead in the 8th inning, do you use Kimbrel for 6 outs. It might greatly enhance your chances for that game. It might also make him unavailable for the next game at least. And if you do this too often you might burn him out early in the season. That's where the whole balancing act thing comes in IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

Lead article on espn's mlb site reads "Don't count on Red Sox Firing John Farrell--at least not yet." I think that probably captures the consensus of talksox--plenty of people are not happy with him, but see no alternative and do see some of the issues as outside his control.

 

I continue to believe the won-loss record is the key stat for a manager, and that won-lost record seems to depend more on the hitting than the pitching. Thus can Sale go 7 while giving up 2 in Oakland and the Sox still lose the game in the 10th, 3-2. Thus can the Sox now win 2 in a row by scoring 12 and 11 runs respectively.

 

Yes, and I have to admit my opinion of Farrell can change depending on how the team's going. If they were to go on a hot streak now, the cries to fire him would dwindle to whispers.

[cp176]

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

 

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

 

I don't know exactly where this discussion is coming from but i would simply say that it is impossible for most of us who have not been in a managers shoes inside the dugout to imagine what it must be like. He obviously has to be concerned about the future the bigger picture so to speak. At the same time he is directly responsible for all of the little things that go into game to game preparation- including the daily lineup. Now we could debate what an ideal lineup looks like forever as we have but personally i am going to go with what the players and coaches on the field deem is the right way to go. Being successful everyday with respect to all the little things without any doubt at all leads to big picture success. Now it is possible that the manager's effect might not be as big as some think (I would not know) but it is a managers job to have as big an effect on each game as he can by putting the best team on the field daily.

[notin]

You really think our front office started making personnel decisions with help from Ken Rosenthal? That's kind of a scary thought.

 

I would say it open their eyes and they started taking it into consideration.I think they got more open-minded and started realizing they needed to be a little more racially diverse and get paid extra attention to African American athletes.

[devildavid]

I don't know exactly where this discussion is coming from but i would simply say that it is impossible for most of us who have not been in a managers shoes inside the dugout to imagine what it must be like. He obviously has to be concerned about the future the bigger picture so to speak. At the same time he is directly responsible for all of the little things that go into game to game preparation- including the daily lineup. Now we could debate what an ideal lineup looks like forever as we have but personally i am going to go with what the players and coaches on the field deem is the right way to go. Being successful everyday with respect to all the little things without any doubt at all leads to big picture success. Now it is possible that the manager's effect might not be as big as some think (I would not know) but it is a managers job to have as big an effect on each game as he can by putting the best team on the field daily.

 

I'm talking about in game strategies such as bunting, hit and run, base stealing, pickoffs, pinch hitting, relief pitching. These so-called strategic moves have a very large element of luck and randomness. A manager can't call for a home run to be hit or a strikeout to be thrown. But he can try to instill certain general philosophies such as: running approach on the basepaths, getting the sure out, proper positioning in the field, trying to minimize walks given up, how often to sacrifice, etc. These general approaches to the game contribute more to overall team success than individual in game moves.

[a700hitter]

Here's what Kimmi said yesterday: "As far as in game decisions go, managers do not have as big an effect as most people think they do."

 

I'll have to let her elaborate on the exact meaning of that, but it does leaves some 'wiggle room'.

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

[mvp 78]

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

 

You wouldn't pay a babysitter that much?

[Bellhorn04]

I'm talking about in game strategies such as bunting, hit and run, base stealing, pickoffs, pinch hitting, relief pitching. These so-called strategic moves have a very large element of luck and randomness.

 

I think that out of those things you mentioned there is one that is crucial, and that is bullpen management, especially in this modern game where relievers on average pitch the final third of every game.

[Bellhorn04]

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

 

According to FanGraphs one win is worth about $7.5 million now (based on free agent salaries.)

[mvp 78]

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/evan-drellich-boston-red-sox-players-need-accountability-instead-of-blaming-john-farrell

 

Media is trying to rally around Farrell and save his job. It's obvious where some people get their info.

 

Fun quote:

 

Where’s the guy in the clubhouse standing up to the media with any consistency? There’s no voice that regularly shields the younger, less experienced guys in the room from tough but expected questions after losses. Dustin Pedroia gets dressed and leaves the clubhouse faster than Chris Sale will get the ball back and throw it Wednesday.

 

I agree that the players are at fault too, but isn't it Farrell's job to make sure that veterans are being the leaders they need to be? If it isn't, then what are they paying Farrell for? Pitching changes and setting the lineup? I thought the Sox always said there is more to managing than just on field stuff?

[mvp 78]

According to FanGraphs one win is worth about $7.5 million now (based on free agent salaries.)

 

That's based on player salaries, not manager salaries who are generally paid far less than the players.

[Bellhorn04]

That's based on player salaries, not manager salaries who are generally paid far less than the players.

 

Agreed, but I think you could make a case that a manager who is one win above average is worth a lot of money too.

[mvp 78]

Agreed, but I think you could make a case that a manager who is one win above average is worth a lot of money too.

 

I think there are managers deserving of a lot of money (Madden, Bochy, Francona, Showalter). Farrell is not one of them. I'm sure his pay is adequate enough.

[Bellhorn04]

I think there are managers deserving of a lot of money (Madden, Bochy, Francona, Showalter). Farrell is not one of them. I'm sure his pay is adequate enough.

 

I would agree.

[devildavid]

I think there are managers deserving of a lot of money (Madden, Bochy, Francona, Showalter). Farrell is not one of them. I'm sure his pay is adequate enough.

 

The main reason I would think those managers deserve more money is because they have been managing for much longer than Farrell and have had some good success at times in their careers. Farrell has a WS championship and two Division titles under his belt in 6 full seasons. Not only is it too soon to judge Farrell but he has had enough success to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[mvp 78]

The main reason I would think those managers deserve more money is because they have been managing for much longer than Farrell and have had some good success at times in their careers. Farrell has a WS championship and two Division titles under his belt in 6 full seasons. Not only is it too soon to judge Farrell but he has had enough success to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

He's also had enough last place finishes to raise my eyebrows.

[notin]

He's also had enough last place finishes to raise my eyebrows.

 

One of those last place teams won 78 games. How often does a last place team win that many? I've seen World Series champions that only won 83.

 

And if you look at Sox managers in the past 50 years - which is a more fair way to judge him since managers like Maddon and Shelter are measured using different criteria - where does Farrell rank in your eyes? To me, Francona is the clear top and Hobson is the obvious bottom (or Kerrigan, if you count his brief reign). But you might find Farrell is closer to the top than you realize...

[Bellhorn04]

One of those last place teams won 78 games. How often does a last place team win that many? I've seen World Series champions that only won 83.

 

And if you look at Sox managers in the past 50 years - which is a more fair way to judge him since managers like Maddon and Shelter are measured using different criteria - where does Farrell rank in your eyes? To me, Francona is the clear top and Hobson is the obvious bottom (or Kerrigan, if you count his brief reign). But you might find Farrell is closer to the top than you realize...

 

We've had some beauties, that's for sure.

[mvp 78]

One of those last place teams won 78 games. How often does a last place team win that many? I've seen World Series champions that only won 83.

 

And if you look at Sox managers in the past 50 years - which is a more fair way to judge him since managers like Maddon and Shelter are measured using different criteria - where does Farrell rank in your eyes? To me, Francona is the clear top and Hobson is the obvious bottom (or Kerrigan, if you count his brief reign). But you might find Farrell is closer to the top than you realize...

 

Francona

Williams

Little

Morgan

McNamara

Farrell

Kennedy

Kerrigan

Hobson

Valentine

 

Basically right in the middle, which is what I think of him as a manager.

[a700hitter]

One of those last place teams won 78 games. How often does a last place team win that many? I've seen World Series champions that only won 83.

 

And if you look at Sox managers in the past 50 years - which is a more fair way to judge him since managers like Maddon and Shelter are measured using different criteria - where does Farrell rank in your eyes? To me, Francona is the clear top and Hobson is the obvious bottom (or Kerrigan, if you count his brief reign). But you might find Farrell is closer to the top than you realize...

My recollection is that they were losing games at a far worse rate than 78 wins when Farrell went down with cancer, and that the team performed much better under Lovullo. Farrell's record in 2014 and 2015 was dismal.

[Jasonbay44]

Many people misinterpreted that article as condemnation that the Sox were a racist organization, but his point was that their lack of diversity would hurt them signing free agents, especially African American ones. He was pretty explicit about this in the article.

 

And it obviously struck home. The next few off-seasons, the Sox added Mike Cameron and Bill Hall and eventually Carl Crawford.

 

I would bet anything that Ken Rosenthal's stupid article about the Red Sox "looking very white" had no impact at all on their decisions to sign or draft any player. I still can't believe he got away with writing that ********, and then later tried to imply it was what the fans liked to see.

[jacksonianmarch]

Farrell doesn't know what he is. He wants to be a player's manager, but a player's manager defends his players. The knock on Farrell has been his lack of protection of his players against media scrutiny. For Tito, Manny could have been found in a coke den passed out after dry humping a mule and Francona would play it off like something normal. Farrell would tell the truth and then leave Manny to face his own comeuppance which is fine, but it is not what a player's manager is. He tries to play himself off as a man of conviction, but what man of conviction cheats on his wife with a reporter? He tries to be a strategist, but eventually he falls back into the line of Francona which is to let the players play. I dont understand him

[Bellhorn04]

He's kind of a mystery man, I've said that myself. Nonetheless it's the team's play and the W-L record that will determine his fate.

[cp176]

I'm talking about in game strategies such as bunting, hit and run, base stealing, pickoffs, pinch hitting, relief pitching. These so-called strategic moves have a very large element of luck and randomness. A manager can't call for a home run to be hit or a strikeout to be thrown. But he can try to instill certain general philosophies such as: running approach on the basepaths, getting the sure out, proper positioning in the field, trying to minimize walks given up, how often to sacrifice, etc. These general approaches to the game contribute more to overall team success than individual in game moves.

 

I hope that no one thinks that calling for a sacrifice, a pickoff, or a hit and run is comparable to someone thinking that they can call for a homer or a strikeout. i do appreciate what you are trying to say but I don't see the manager of a baseball team in the same light as i do the CEO of a large corporation. You have separated two approaches that I don't think can be separated. The manager of a team obviously gets a lot of help but he is ultimately responsible for all things that happen on the field.

[Nick]

JF needs to do what he did last night.

 

I realize it's a long season but JF bringing in Moreland and then Rutledge were the right moves. I don't think managers manage with sense of urgency.

 

Yeah it's early, but every win is a win. I thought JF seized the moment and did what he had to do. He made a comment about having more positional depth for last night's game, but that begs the question why wasn't Travis brought up sooner?

 

Only thing Travis is is a professional hitter. That's all he does. Not a great glove, not a great athlete but he can hit. Red Sox need help with their offense right now.

 

That's why I'm not oppose to bringing up Devers. Let's see what we got. Hell, he may surprise us all. HE CAN'T DO MUCH WORSE THAN DEVIN MARRERO. If my $5M job depended on it, I'd turn every rock and see what we got.

[Slasher9]

appears he's managing like his job depends on it....Kimbrell warming up with a 4 run lead is panicky....

[sk7326]

Farrell doesn't know what he is. He wants to be a player's manager, but a player's manager defends his players. The knock on Farrell has been his lack of protection of his players against media scrutiny. For Tito, Manny could have been found in a coke den passed out after dry humping a mule and Francona would play it off like something normal. Farrell would tell the truth and then leave Manny to face his own comeuppance which is fine, but it is not what a player's manager is. He tries to play himself off as a man of conviction, but what man of conviction cheats on his wife with a reporter? He tries to be a strategist, but eventually he falls back into the line of Francona which is to let the players play. I dont understand him

 

The strategy thing is a weird claim. Strategy on the offensive end is mostly bunk anyway. Indeed - the only reason the 2009 Yankees lost games at all in the postseason was because Girardi managed the team like a cellar dwelling NL club.

[sk7326]

There are managers who do help their team (Bochy, Francona, Maddon, a couple others) ... and a few who actively hurt their team (those Matt Williams seasons in Washington, Dusty Baker). The rest are in the middle.

 

Farrell was crucial in 2013 when the Red Sox just needed a normal human being to occupy that position after the Bobby Valentine season. The most direct impact he can have is managing the staff - and while how he has managed relievers has not had amazing results, I am not sure the raw material has been great either. At least this year he seems to have a reliable back of the pen.