Farrell

[devildavid]

In 33 years of baseball studied, only 6 teams have improved their win expectancy in any one season by employing sacrifices, stolen base attempts, and intentional walks. In other words, a manager should mostly just let the players play.

 

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game. The most important strategizing takes place before the game begins. You don't run plays or schemes in baseball games to the same extent you do in football, basketball, or hockey. Sure, there are more things done today with shifting infields and such, but that tends to be widely followed rather than exclusive to certain managers.

 

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

[devildavid]

My response would be I guess to say that I have never really said that the analytics whoever they might be get things wrong. Regardless though of the copious studies that they do (I guess) I probably will continue to believe that old school worn out refrain that the quality of the people in charge still can (didn't say always) play quite a role in the performance of a team whether that team is talented or not. Now - one last thing - If Chris Sale was on the mound, and my team was not hitting, my thinking in that situation might be that we needed to score a run anyway we could. If I had a runner on first, with a good handler of the bat at the plate, i very well might try to move that runner up and take my chances that that next hitter might be able to hit a ball over the second baseman's head and score that runner who quite possibly moved up on the bunt. Strategy doesn't always work. but it would be tragic not to try and do something.

 

The problem with this is that you can't predict outcomes. If your team is not hitting it doesn't follow that they will continue not to hit. Giving up outs in an attempt to score can also decrease your chances of scoring. Trying to make something happen in that way has a price that may be too high and actually hurt our chances of scoring more runs in general. The strategy cuts both ways. The appearance of "trying" to score may satisfy an emotional desire, but does it really work out statistically in the long run?

[S5Dewey]

The problem with this is that you can't predict outcomes. If your team is not hitting it doesn't follow that they will continue not to hit. Giving up outs in an attempt to score can also decrease your chances of scoring. Trying to make something happen in that way has a price that may be too high and actually hurt our chances of scoring more runs in general. The strategy cuts both ways. The appearance of "trying" to score may satisfy an emotional desire, but does it really work out statistically in the long run?

 

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

[devildavid]

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

 

Yes, there are productive outs. I'm just questioning getting them intentionally. If you make an out, you always prefer one that advances runners. But you should prefer not to make an out at all.

[Bellhorn04]

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game.

 

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

 

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

 

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

[S5Dewey]

Yes, there are productive outs. I'm just questioning getting them intentionally. If you make an out, you always prefer one that advances runners. But you should prefer not to make an out at all.

 

Obviously not making an out is always preferable to making an out.

 

However, baseball is a game of chances where nothing is a sure thing. IMO there's a lot to be said for putting pressure on a defense to 'make the play' even though it may not be the high-percentage move.

[S5Dewey]

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

 

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

 

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

 

But...but.. but... what about all the research?? What about the "fact" that a poor manager will only cost a team about 5 wins a year?? - with no mention of how many games a good manager will win?

[devildavid]

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

 

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

 

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

 

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

[devildavid]

Obviously not making an out is always preferable to making an out.

 

However, baseball is a game of chances where nothing is a sure thing. IMO there's a lot to be said for putting pressure on a defense to 'make the play' even though it may not be the high-percentage move.

 

Simply swinging away puts pressure on the defense to make the play.

[Slasher9]

He never made it to the World Series without Zimmer. So yes, Torre achieved very little without Zimmer on the bench. I am asserting that. In 2001, they got to the 9th inning of the 7th game of the World Series. In 2003, they ran into a hot Josh Beckett.

or...Torre never got to the WS without a $200MM+ payroll......

[Slasher9]

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

 

s5. you know better than that. outs are random. productive is not a real thing. it's not a repeatable skill. something something...

[a700hitter]

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game. The most important strategizing takes place before the game begins. You don't run plays or schemes in baseball games to the same extent you do in football, basketball, or hockey. Sure, there are more things done today with shifting infields and such, but that tends to be widely followed rather than exclusive to certain managers.

 

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

Doesn't the proper utilization of players include in game decisions? Doesn't it also involve decisions regarding who plays on a given day and the construction of the lineup?

[Slasher9]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

 

hard to argue with this.

[a700hitter]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

It is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to quantify, because we can never know the the outcome of alternative moves or non-moves.

[Bellhorn04]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

 

The fact that these are judgment calls doesn't mean there's no right or wrong.

[Slasher9]

btw...i blame farrell for this 4 game winning streak.....

[a700hitter]

He should be held accountable.

[devildavid]

The fact that these are judgment calls doesn't mean there's no right or wrong.

 

But the judgement has a lot of leeway so there really is no right or wrong. They are very subjective. How often can you say what the right or wrong move is at the time it is made and be correct? Try to critique moves when they are made and see how often you are right about what you think are bad moves. Do this for a lot of games and see what % of the times a bad result occurred. And not only that, see how many times you were correct and the wrong move can be said to have most likely caused the team to lose the game. But do this in real game time, not in hindsight. Keep an honest chart of this and I think you will be surprised at the results.

[devildavid]

s5. you know better than that. outs are random. productive is not a real thing. it's not a repeatable skill. something something...

 

You are correct, despite the sarcasm. Productive outs are random unless you are told to lay down a sacrifice bunt. Making a productive out is not a skill, making good contact is a skill. That good contact can result in both good and bad results, one of which is a productive out that advances runners and may drive one in. Sounds random to me. Good contact can produce a hard ground ball right at a fielder and lead to an easy double play. Either way, the hitter is showing their skill in making good contact. The results are random and depend on the game situation at the time.

[S5Dewey]

But the judgement has a lot of leeway so there really is no right or wrong. They are very subjective. How often can you say what the right or wrong move is at the time it is made and be correct? Try to critique moves when they are made and see how often you are right about what you think are bad moves. Do this for a lot of games and see what % of the times a bad result occurred. And not only that, see how many times you were correct and the wrong move can be said to have most likely caused the team to lose the game. But do this in real game time, not in hindsight. Keep an honest chart of this and I think you will be surprised at the results.

 

Of course we can't do this because we don't know what would have happened in those times we disagreed with Farrell. If, for example, he brings in Hembree when I think the smarter move would have been to bring in Abad, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if Abad had been brought in. Even if Hembree gets out of the inning there's no guarantee that Abad wouldn't have gotten out of the inning too, and if Hembree fails there's no way of knowing if Abad would have failed also.

[S5Dewey]

You are correct, despite the sarcasm. Productive outs are random unless you are told to lay down a sacrifice bunt. Making a productive out is not a skill, making good contact is a skill. That good contact can result in both good and bad results, one of which is a productive out that advances runners and may drive one in. Sounds random to me. Good contact can produce a hard ground ball right at a fielder and lead to an easy double play. Either way, the hitter is showing their skill in making good contact. The results are random and depend on the game situation at the time.

 

I think most baseball people would disagree with you when you say that most productive outs are random. Is it random when Pedey hits behind a runner to advance him or when a player hits a long fly ball that results in a sac fly? Often times these guys know what they're doing.

[Bellhorn04]

But the judgement has a lot of leeway so there really is no right or wrong. They are very subjective. How often can you say what the right or wrong move is at the time it is made and be correct? Try to critique moves when they are made and see how often you are right about what you think are bad moves. Do this for a lot of games and see what % of the times a bad result occurred. And not only that, see how many times you were correct and the wrong move can be said to have most likely caused the team to lose the game. But do this in real game time, not in hindsight. Keep an honest chart of this and I think you will be surprised at the results.

 

Ha, that's way too much work.

 

My point is that the manager does have a lot of these calls to make. In the old days they called it playing the percentages, and I believe that's still largely the case. In some cases the percentages may only be 55/45 in favor of a particular move. Nonetheless the manager has to have a rationale for each decision. He doesn't just change pitchers or use pinch hitters and pinch runners arbitrarily, does he.

[S5Dewey]

Simply swinging away puts pressure on the defense to make the play.

 

Now you're just being obtuse.

[cp176]

Ha, that's way too much work.

 

My point is that the manager does have a lot of these calls to make. In the old days they called it playing the percentages, and I believe that's still largely the case. In some cases the percentages may only be 55/45 in favor of a particular move. Nonetheless the manager has to have a rationale for each decision. He doesn't just change pitchers or use pinch hitters and pinch runners arbitrarily, does he.

 

If I didn't believe in these things that you are pointing out, the game would hold no interest for me. Reducing it to a simple statistical study with the assumption that most things that happen over the course of a season just occur randomly is a hard concept for me to ever begin to consider. I wonder if I am alone? Wonder what the actual players in general feel about some of the same things that I have been reading about here? Everything has value and everything has a place.

[Maxbialystock]

I love what cp176 just wrote about reducing baseball to stats, but I also have to say the following about managing.

 

To me the central reality of baseball, which makes it vastly different from all other sports, is the confrontation between pitcher and batter. Last night, for example, the two teams combined for 70 at bats (including the 6 walks) and 310 pitches. Ted Williams claimed the most difficult skill in all of sports is to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely, and I would argue that throwing almost as hard as you can with the accuracy of a knife thrower, but at 66 ft, not 15', is probably at least as hard.

 

I would further argue that managers can effect that central reality only at the margins. Last night we won because Pomeranz had a great night for 6 innings, our bullpen was again terrific, and Bogie hit that 2 run dinger--and that neither manager had anything to do with that outcome. Indeed, Eckersley pointed out that Pomeranz was darn lucky when he threw a perfect home run ball to Napoli but he swung a micro micro second too soon and pulled it foul.

 

The Sox have now won 4 straight games and are back in the race .5 games behind the Orioles and 3 behind the Yankees. And the only dicey game was probably Wednesday's game with Sale on the mound when we needed that huge 7th inning rally to come from behind. In that game--afterwards, actually--I made a big deal about how Farrell pinch hit twice during that rally to keep it going. Big deal, really? Yes, good moves, the right moves, but hardly unexpected. Plus they don't work if Moreland and Rutledge K or GIDP instead of getting singles.

 

Or take the three games before that--all losses at Oakland--that took the Sox down to .500 and regenerated talk that Farrell was climbing the steps of the guillotine with DD playing the part of Madame DeFarge. We lost two of those games 8-3. And in the middle game, another one Sale started, we lost 3-2 in 10 innings because Hembree threw two balls and then the ever popular fastball down the middle so that Canha could hit the game winning dinger. I mean, seriously, what the hell was Farrell doing so badly to cause those three losses? Not much, I would argue.

 

A small sample size, granted, but those 7 games to me underscore that Whitey Herzog or somebody was absolutely right when he said that the difference between a so-so manager and a good one is a great bullpen because the bullpen is the only weapon a manager almost controls because he decides who stays in, who goes in, and when. Last year when the bullpen was lousy the critics on talksox had a field day regaling one and all with comments on just how much of a nitwit Farrell was. Then September rolled around, the bullpen got way better, and the Sox had a great month, good enough to win the tough AL East.

 

Yes, the lineup card can have an effect, so managers need to be willing to change things when it makes sense to do so. But the most effective lineups tend to be consistent ones, including platooning. I like arguing about lineups, but don't kid myself that there is a miracle cure if just the right guy/guys is/are in the right spots. Right now I kind of like that Betts leads off with the most dingers and rbi's and Bogie bats 3d with just 1 dinger and half as many rbi's. Why? Because it seems to be working.

 

Baserunning, I would argue, is partly on the coaches, but mostly on the ability of the players to assess--in split seconds, mind you--what is happening and what is possible and then to act on it just as quickly. You can't coach that or teach that. See Daniel Nava as exhibit 1 for the prosecution. He's smart, he's experienced, he's reasonably speedy, and he is a disaster on the base paths (or was with the Sox).

 

Bunting. Definitely an acquirable skill that is almost nonexistent on this team. Why? Because the statisticians have made a convincing case that bunting is counterproductive because it gives away outs. The bunt is a managerial tool which most teams simply take out of his tool bag, simple as that.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[Spudboy]

I think most baseball people would disagree with you when you say that most productive outs are random. Is it random when Pedey hits behind a runner to advance him or when a player hits a long fly ball that results in a sac fly? Often times these guys know what they're doing.

 

There is at least one other form of productive AB that are outs.

 

How about a long AB where a pitcher is forced to throw 8-11 pitches. This can mean a shorter outing for a starter or reliever that we would prefer not face the Sox.

 

Even Merrero has shown that he can do this.

[Bellhorn04]

There is at least one other form of productive AB that are outs.

 

How about a long AB where a pitcher is forced to throw 8-11 pitches. This can mean a shorter outing for a starter or reliever that we would prefer not face the Sox.

 

Even Merrero has shown that he can do this.

 

Those long AB's have really become a big deal in this day of strict pitch counts.

[cp176]

I love what cp176 just wrote about reducing baseball to stats, but I also have to say the following about managing.

 

To me the central reality of baseball, which makes it vastly different from all other sports, is the confrontation between pitcher and batter. Last night, for example, the two teams combined for 70 at bats (including the 6 walks) and 310 pitches. Ted Williams claimed the most difficult skill in all of sports is to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely, and I would argue that throwing almost as hard as you can with the accuracy of a knife thrower, but at 66 ft, not 15', is probably at least as hard.

 

I would further argue that managers can effect that central reality only at the margins. Last night we won because Pomeranz had a great night for 6 innings, our bullpen was again terrific, and Bogie hit that 2 run dinger--and that neither manager had anything to do with that outcome. Indeed, Eckersley pointed out that Pomeranz was darn lucky when he threw a perfect home run ball to Napoli but he swung a micro micro second too soon and pulled it foul.

 

The Sox have now won 4 straight games and are back in the race .5 games behind the Orioles and 3 behind the Yankees. And the only dicey game was probably Wednesday's game with Sale on the mound when we needed that huge 7th inning rally to come from behind. In that game--afterwards, actually--I made a big deal about how Farrell pinch hit twice during that rally to keep it going. Big deal, really? Yes, good moves, the right moves, but hardly unexpected. Plus they don't work if Moreland and Rutledge K or GIDP instead of getting singles.

 

Or take the three games before that--all losses at Oakland--that took the Sox down to .500 and regenerated talk that Farrell was climbing the steps of the guillotine with DD playing the part of Madame DeFarge. We lost two of those games 8-3. And in the middle game, another one Sale started, we lost 3-2 in 10 innings because Hembree threw two balls and then the ever popular fastball down the middle so that Canha could hit the game winning dinger. I mean, seriously, what the hell was Farrell doing so badly to cause those three losses? Not much, I would argue.

 

A small sample size, granted, but those 7 games to me underscore that Whitey Herzog or somebody was absolutely right when he said that the difference between a so-so manager and a good one is a great bullpen because the bullpen is the only weapon a manager almost controls because he decides who stays in, who goes in, and when. Last year when the bullpen was lousy the critics on talksox had a field day regaling one and all with comments on just how much of a nitwit Farrell was. Then September rolled around, the bullpen got way better, and the Sox had a great month, good enough to win the tough AL East.

 

Yes, the lineup card can have an effect, so managers need to be willing to change things when it makes sense to do so. But the most effective lineups tend to be consistent ones, including platooning. I like arguing about lineups, but don't kid myself that there is a miracle cure if just the right guy/guys is/are in the right spots. Right now I kind of like that Betts leads off with the most dingers and rbi's and Bogie bats 3d with just 1 dinger and half as many rbi's. Why? Because it seems to be working.

 

Baserunning, I would argue, is partly on the coaches, but mostly on the ability of the players to assess--in split seconds, mind you--what is happening and what is possible and then to act on it just as quickly. You can't coach that or teach that. See Daniel Nava as exhibit 1 for the prosecution. He's smart, he's experienced, he's reasonably speedy, and he is a disaster on the base paths (or was with the Sox).

 

Bunting. Definitely an acquirable skill that is almost nonexistent on this team. Why? Because the statisticians have made a convincing case that bunting is counterproductive because it gives away outs. The bunt is a managerial tool which most teams simply take out of his tool bag, simple as that.

 

I really like this post Max. What I would add is that good managers will make the moves that look like the obvious ones. They don't always work out but the good ones don't just sit around and assume that if their talent appears on paper to be better than their opponents that they will win just because. I read the whole post too. nice

[Bellhorn04]

I think that in games managers don't have to be geniuses, but like I said earlier their real job is not to screw up. And in close games there will usually be an opportunity or two to screw up. And if they do screw up they will take a beating for it. So there's some pressure involved there.

[cp176]

I think that in games managers don't have to be geniuses, but like I said earlier their real job is not to screw up. And in close games there will usually be an opportunity or two to screw up. And if they do screw up they will take a beating for it. So there's some pressure involved there.

 

And I am just guessing that without seeing an actual IQ, we could debate forever what a genius might be. The people that sound like the geniuses might really not be all the bright when you come right down to it. Also, in New England I think that it is safe to say that that they will take a beating regardless of the moves they do or don't make. Farrell has dealt with all of the s*** slung his way pretty well i think.