Farrell

[mvp 78]

If this team continues to play better and gets into the playoffs, Farrell should stay even if it's one and done in the WC game.

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

Personally I don't think Kimbrel warming up with a 4 run lead is panicky. A 4 run lead in Fenway can vanish in about 5 minutes.

[mvp 78]

Personally I don't think Kimbrel warming up with a 4 run lead is panicky. A 4 run lead in Fenway can vanish in about 5 minutes.

 

If Kimbrel is up and warming with a 4 run lead he's panicky.

 

If Kimbrel is sitting on his butt while Kelly is letting runners on he's an idiot.

 

As long as Farrell doesn't manage the pen the way Bannister did with Dyson last night, I'm ok with it.

[S5Dewey]

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.

 

I have to wonder what we'd be saying this morning if those two PH's had been outs. Would Farrell still have been that "smart"? If you believe that hitting is random then the timing of those two PH's were nothing but shitass luck. But they certainly weren't genius moves. They could have gone either way and Farrell got lucky.

 

IMO you're being too harsh on Sam Travis. I see him as being exactly what a ML 1B should be. We would all like to have a GG and a triple crown winner at every position but baseball doesn't work that way. Travis has had an OPS of .800+ every year except last year when he was injured along with an ongoing fldg % of .990+.

 

If you believe as I do that the keys to winning are being solid up the middle defensively and getting power from the corner positions then Travis is the man for 1B.

[Slasher9]

Personally I don't think Kimbrel warming up with a 4 run lead is panicky. A 4 run lead in Fenway can vanish in about 5 minutes.

 

good point. i retract my statement.

[mvp 78]

Pinch hitting for Marrero is ALWAYS a good idea.

 

People complain that C's aren't pinch hit for enough. That too was a good idea. I'd rather Mitch hit than Sandy all the time.

[Slasher9]

If Kimbrel is up and warming with a 4 run lead he's panicky.

 

If Kimbrel is sitting on his butt while Kelly is letting runners on he's an idiot.

 

As long as Farrell doesn't manage the pen the way Bannister did with Dyson last night, I'm ok with it.

 

true true and true.

btw - is JF best friends with that slug dave obrien? jesus how many times did he call out bannister last night for his terrible managing?

i may have to start watching my Sox on mute.....

[mvp 78]

Bannister was comatose during that inning. Eck was getting on Bannister really bad too. He was right to be called out for it. OB is boring as s*** though.

 

My favorite part about last night was Eck's deadpan delivery for all the in game commercial nonsense. I've never noticed how hilarious he is about that stuff.

[mvp 78]

OB + Lyons = me changing the channel

 

The biggest mistake of the past few years was getting rid of Orsillo. That includes the garbage contract signings and terrible trades. At least Don and Jerry could make a boring game interesting at times.

[S5Dewey]

Bannister was comatose during that inning. Eck was getting on Bannister really bad too. He was right to be called out for it. OB is boring as s*** though.

 

My favorite part about last night was Eck's deadpan delivery for all the in game commercial nonsense. I've never noticed how hilarious he is about that stuff.

 

OMG. I've been noticing lately how much of the talk is either outright commercials or nothing but promos for NESN.

[S5Dewey]

OB + Lyons = me changing the channel

 

The biggest mistake of the past few years was getting rid of Orsillo. That includes the garbage contract signings and terrible trades. At least Don and Jerry could make a boring game interesting at times.

 

I liked Orsillo with Jerry, but I also like OB. I found the silliness between Orsillo and Jerry to be entertaining during the blowouts, kinda like two friends enjoying a game together.

 

At the same time, IMO Jerry has been more forthcoming with his baseball knowledge since OB came on board. He was a foil for Orsillo when they were together but Jerry is actually bringing baseball insight now.

[mvp 78]

OMG. I've been noticing lately how much of the talk is either outright commercials or nothing but promos for NESN.

 

NESN gets worse every year. At least they aren't doing some Wally Wave bs right now. I understand they have to make money, but the broadcast is just terrible sometimes.

[mvp 78]

I liked Orsillo with Jerry, but I also like OB. I found the silliness between Orsillo and Jerry to be entertaining during the blowouts, kinda like two friends enjoying a game together.

 

At the same time, IMO Jerry has been more forthcoming with his baseball knowledge since OB came on board. He was a foil for Orsillo when they were together but Jerry is actually bringing baseball insight now.

 

It should be fun and informative.

 

I agree the Orsillo would get off the rails sometimes, but I'd rather it get off the rails than be like watching paint dry.

 

I'm just not a fan of the product they are going with right now. I think they should try a 3 man booth with DO, Eck and Jerry. That could be a good watch.

[devildavid]

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.

 

Being responsible is not the same as having control of player performances that take place in each game. Farrell can prepare his players to succeed, but he can't make them succeed. Managers are more often fired as scapegoats than they are actually directly responsible for team performance. Only obvious buffoons like Bobby Valentine get themselves fired by drawing negative attention to themselves. The rest are mostly at the mercy of the talent they are given to work with. Most of the so-called good and great managers have had their share of losing records.

 

GM's are most responsible for the talent of the team that is on the field, but not as often fired as a result of poor performance.

[Bellhorn04]

Bannister was comatose during that inning. Eck was getting on Bannister really bad too. He was right to be called out for it.

 

Eck was crucifying him. It was great.

[Bellhorn04]

I have to wonder what we'd be saying this morning if those two PH's had been outs. Would Farrell still have been that "smart"? If you believe that hitting is random then the timing of those two PH's were nothing but shitass luck. But they certainly weren't genius moves. They could have gone either way and Farrell got lucky.

 

110% the right moves, trailing by 2 in the 7th with a chance for a big inning.

[mvp 78]

Eck was crucifying him. It was great.

 

Eck is also quick to point out when the Sox get a break by a poor k zone. I like his consistency and that he's not a super homer.

[Bellhorn04]

Eck is also quick to point out when the Sox get a break by a poor k zone. I like his consistency and that he's not a super homer.

 

He tells it as it is, no question.

[cp176]

Being responsible is not the same as having control of player performances that take place in each game. Farrell can prepare his players to succeed, but he can't make them succeed. Managers are more often fired as scapegoats than they are actually directly responsible for team performance. Only obvious buffoons like Bobby Valentine get themselves fired by drawing negative attention to themselves. The rest are mostly at the mercy of the talent they are given to work with. Most of the so-called good and great managers have had their share of losing records.

 

GM's are most responsible for the talent of the team that is on the field, but not as often fired as a result of poor performance.

 

I agree with you here for the most part. Where I probably disagree with you and I'm sure others, is that I think in game strategy of things that you can control are more important than the vast majority of analytics think they are. Truthfully i do not think that a managers win loss record is a tell all situation. You still can't make chicken salad out of chicken s*** so to speak. In Farrell's case, critics seem to be latching on to his actual in game management. For the record, some of the best coaches I have ever known, never won titles and conversely, some pretty bad ones actually have.

[devildavid]

I agree with you here for the most part. Where I probably disagree with you and I'm sure others, is that I think in game strategy of things that you can control are more important than the vast majority of analytics think they are. Truthfully i do not think that a managers win loss record is a tell all situation. You still can't make chicken salad out of chicken s*** so to speak. In Farrell's case, critics seem to be latching on to his actual in game management. For the record, some of the best coaches I have ever known, never won titles and conversely, some pretty bad ones actually have.

 

What specifically do you think the analytics get wrong?

 

I think there is little that the manager can "control" that directly effects actual game outcomes even though it can have an indirect influence on the outcomes. For example, bringing in a reliever. The time to bring one in is not always clear cut. Then, even if you make what is considered the "right" move, the reliever still has to execute. And the opposing manager can counter with a pinch hitter. The final result is somewhat removed from the initial managerial decision.

 

And you also have to consider that some managerial moves have no impact on the final outcome. You can call a bunt to get a runner to second, but you can't call for the following hitters to knock him in. And you have most likely sacrificed an out to accomplish this. so now you only have two outs to work with to drive in the run. Many of these in game micro moves are just an illusion of managerial control.

 

Here is an interesting article addressing managerial influence on performance:

 

most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity

[a700hitter]

I agree with you here for the most part. Where I probably disagree with you and I'm sure others, is that I think in game strategy of things that you can control are more important than the vast majority of analytics think they are. Truthfully i do not think that a managers win loss record is a tell all situation. You still can't make chicken salad out of chicken s*** so to speak. In Farrell's case, critics seem to be latching on to his actual in game management. For the record, some of the best coaches I have ever known, never won titles and conversely, some pretty bad ones actually have.

Joe Torre was not a good manager and he won 4 titles, but none after he lost Zimmer as bench coach. He was a terrible in game manager.

[Spudboy]

Joe Torre was not a good manager and he won 4 titles, but none after he lost Zimmer as bench coach. He was a terrible in game manager.

 

It's an interesting idea to consider. That the mighty Yankee machine was powered by a Gerbil.

[devildavid]

Joe Torre was not a good manager and he won 4 titles, but none after he lost Zimmer as bench coach. He was a terrible in game manager.

 

Torre won no more titles after the 2000 season. Zimmer was bench coach until 2003. And Zimmer was manager of the Red Sox in 1978.

 

Torre's Yankees finished in first place in the AL East from 1998 to 2006. in addition they won the AL Pennant in 2001 and 2003. I guess in game management is not a very significant factor when it comes to winning games.

[Bellhorn04]

What specifically do you think the analytics get wrong?

 

I think there is little that the manager can "control" that directly effects actual game outcomes even though it can have an indirect influence on the outcomes. For example, bringing in a reliever. The time to bring one in is not always clear cut. Then, even if you make what is considered the "right" move, the reliever still has to execute. And the opposing manager can counter with a pinch hitter. The final result is somewhat removed from the initial managerial decision.

 

And you also have to consider that some managerial moves have no impact on the final outcome. You can call a bunt to get a runner to second, but you can't call for the following hitters to knock him in. And you have most likely sacrificed an out to accomplish this. so now you only have two outs to work with to drive in the run. Many of these in game micro moves are just an illusion of managerial control.

 

Here is an interesting article addressing managerial influence on performance:

 

most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity

 

I agree about the bunting, but I think last night's 7th inning actually gave a good illustration of moves and non-moves that can make a difference. The Texas manager left Dyson in far too long. Farrell used 2 pinch hitters and they both got hits. The combined effect was several runs.

[Jasonbay44]

I think putting Sam Dyson in for any amount of time is leaving him in too long, that guy has been horrendous. My friend drafted him in fantasy at the start of the season to be his closer, and his ERA/WHIP still haven't recovered. I don't get why the Rangers keep giving him high leverage situations to pitch in.

[a700hitter]

Torre won no more titles after the 2000 season. Zimmer was bench coach until 2003. And Zimmer was manager of the Red Sox in 1978.

 

Torre's Yankees finished in first place in the AL East from 1998 to 2006. in addition they won the AL Pennant in 2001 and 2003. I guess in game management is not a very significant factor when it comes to winning games.

To be completely accurate, Torre went to 2 World Series with Zimmer after 2000 (2001 and 2003), but none without Zimmer. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with you post.

[devildavid]

To be completely accurate, Torre went to 2 World Series with Zimmer after 2000 (2001 and 2003), but none without Zimmer. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with you post.

 

You tried to make it look like Zimmer had something significant to do with Torre winning championships. But you failed to mention that Torre did not win another championship after 2000 with Zimmer still on the bench until 2003. So he stopped winning championships for 3 years before Zimmer left.

[illinoisredsox]

Torre was the definition of a mediocre manager outside of his time with the Yankees. With the Evil Empire, he went 1173-767 over 12 seasons for a .605 winning percentage (with 6 pennants and 4 WS titles). His average record was 98-64

 

In his other 17 years as a manager with 4 different teams (Mets, Braves, Cardinals and Dodgers), he went 1253-1230 (.505) which means an average record of 82-80; you can't get much more pedestrian than that. No pennants, although he did have 3 division champs.

[Bellhorn04]

And we all know what the worst move/non-move of Torre's career was.

[sk7326]

I agree with you here for the most part. Where I probably disagree with you and I'm sure others, is that I think in game strategy of things that you can control are more important than the vast majority of analytics think they are. Truthfully i do not think that a managers win loss record is a tell all situation. You still can't make chicken salad out of chicken s*** so to speak. In Farrell's case, critics seem to be latching on to his actual in game management. For the record, some of the best coaches I have ever known, never won titles and conversely, some pretty bad ones actually have.

 

John McNamara was an awful manager. Hell, Ned Yost made back to back WS doing a lot of suboptimal things.