Farrell

[moonslav59]

What issues do you have with his managing so far this year?

 

Lack of fundamentals.

 

No fire.

 

I'm usually the last to call for a manager's or GM's removal.

 

Nothing about any particular moves. I stay away from game-to-game criticisms, but I wanted Farrell gone for a long time.

 

Recent winning doesn't change anything.

[Kimmi]

Two straight extra inning wins in which the bullpen was superb, going 11 innings with 0 runs. It's remotely possible Farrell knows what he is doing.

 

Of course Farrell knows what he's doing. Much more so than all of the arm chair managers on this board, myself included.

 

That said, Farrell looks good because the bullpen and the team executed and we won the game. If any of the relievers had lost the game, then every move that Farrell made would be under a microscope.

[moonslav59]

Of course Farrell knows what he's doing. Much more so than all of the arm chair managers on this board, myself included.

 

That said, Farrell looks good because the bullpen and the team executed and we won the game. If any of the relievers had lost the game, then every move that Farrell made would be under a microscope.

 

Exactly.

[Kimmi]

A team with a runner on second and no outs will average 1.0762 runs in that inning.

 

A team with a runner on third and no outs will average 1.3045 runs in that inning.

 

A team with no runners on and one out will average 0.2572 runs in that inning.

 

Under those circumstances, the break-even point for stealing third base is an 81 percent success rate because the runner was already in scoring position. Rickey Henderson, baseball's all-time steals leader, had a career success rate of 80.8 percent. Fellow Hall of Famers Lou Brock and Tim Raines came in at 75.3 percent and 84.7 percent, respectively.

 

The stats come from the chapter "Stolen Bases: Crime Only Pays If You Never Get Caught" in the 2017 book Smart Baseball: The Story Behind the Old Stats That Are Ruining the Game, the New Ones That Are Running It, and the Right Way to Think About Baseball by ESPN senior baseball writer Keith Law.

 

In other words, stolen bases are overrated.

 

In Henderson's 1982 season, in which he stole 130 bases but was also caught 42 times, his base running was worth a whopping 1.6 runs over the entire season.

 

FTR, I'm a fan of what I've read from Law's book, which is what you've posted.

[Bellhorn04]

A team with a runner on second and no outs will average 1.0762 runs in that inning.

 

A team with a runner on third and no outs will average 1.3045 runs in that inning.

 

A team with no runners on and one out will average 0.2572 runs in that inning.

 

Under those circumstances, the break-even point for stealing third base is an 81 percent success rate because the runner was already in scoring position. Rickey Henderson, baseball's all-time steals leader, had a career success rate of 80.8 percent. Fellow Hall of Famers Lou Brock and Tim Raines came in at 75.3 percent and 84.7 percent, respectively.

 

The stats come from the chapter "Stolen Bases: Crime Only Pays If You Never Get Caught" in the 2017 book Smart Baseball: The Story Behind the Old Stats That Are Ruining the Game, the New Ones That Are Running It, and the Right Way to Think About Baseball by ESPN senior baseball writer Keith Law.

 

Good info, thanks harmony.

[Bellhorn04]

Lack of fundamentals.

 

No fire.

 

I'm usually the last to call for a manager's or GM's removal.

 

Nothing about any particular moves. I stay away from game-to-game criticisms, but I wanted Farrell gone for a long time.

 

Recent winning doesn't change anything.

 

I get the lack of fundamentals part but not the no fire part.

[moonslav59]

I get the lack of fundamentals part but not the no fire part.

 

I just don't see much fire.

 

It's just a gut feeling.

[OH FOY]

Keith Law should be a Manager. Every game different. Teams different. Ballparks different. Edited June 15, 2017 by OH FOY!

[Dojji]

I just don't see much fire.

 

I should hope not, seeing fire on the field would force them to suspend the game and get the players off the field for their own safety.

 

It's just a gut feeling.

 

Depending on the feeling I recommend either Rolaids or X-LAX

[mvp 78]

Keith Law should be a Manager. Every game different. Teams different. Ballparks different.

 

"Why Baseball's Random Nature is the Reason that I Didn't Make the Postseason for 20 Years as the A's Manager - by Keith Law"

[mvp 78]

Depending on the feeling I recommend either Rolaids or X-LAX

 

Pepto master race

[devildavid]

Lack of fundamentals.

 

No fire.

 

I'm usually the last to call for a manager's or GM's removal.

 

Nothing about any particular moves. I stay away from game-to-game criticisms, but I wanted Farrell gone for a long time.

 

Recent winning doesn't change anything.

 

I think a good manager's impact shows up in overall athletic performance and execution by players on the field. To me, a great manager instills a certain philosophy in the team. It is like a general guideline that emphasizes execution, effort, and consistency. I don't know if I would describe this as fire, but more as maximizing potential of athletic performance. Each player's strengths should be brought out as best they can and weaknesses should be minimized.

 

For example, the Hanley outfield experiment was an example of poor management. Once his deficiencies there were observed, the plan should have been immediately scrapped. Now it can be argued this was not all the fault of just Farrell, as his hand was forced somewhat. But it is still a management issue in the broadest sense.

 

Management is always a team effort with key players being the GM and the field manager. The more closely they work in sync, the better job they can do. A GM should work with the field manger to address needs on the field and try to find players to address those needs. Much of the field manager's success hinges on the talent he has to work with. It is then up to him to maximize the potential of that talent. So winning is not really the true measure of a successful manager. It is rather a subjective evaluation of whether or not he has brought out the best in his team and they are performing near enough to their best potential. That is really all a manger can do. He can't win games by being smarter but he can get the best out of the players he has. How to judge that is subjective because it depends on your view of the talent he has and how good you think they should be performing.

[Bellhorn04]

For example, the Hanley outfield experiment was an example of poor management. Once his deficiencies there were observed, the plan should have been immediately scrapped. Now it can be argued this was not all the fault of just Farrell, as his hand was forced somewhat. But it is still a management issue in the broadest sense.

 

I place the Hanley outfield experiment at the feet of Benny Boy. I sometimes wonder if that had a lot to do with him being replaced.

[moonslav59]

I place the Hanley outfield experiment at the feet of Benny Boy. I sometimes wonder if that had a lot to do with him being replaced.

 

Fair enough.

 

When we signed HRam, I thought he'd play 3B, but then they announced the Pablo signing, I believe minutes later, and I thought to myself, "WTF!???"

[Maxbialystock]

What the heck is meant by "no fundamentals." To me the most critical fundamentals are pitching and hitting, over which the manager has only a slight effect--except, of course for how he manages the bullpen.

 

As for fielding, I think the only real sore spot has been 3B, over which Farrell has only so much control--for now, he is forced to use Sandoval. Besides, he's used, what 4 thirdbasemen so far? Bogaerts ain't great at SS, but no question he works really hard at it and out hits most other SS's. Moreland and Pedroia are fine if not gold glovers any more. The outfield is definitely above average. Leon has a positive DWAR at catcher, and Vazquez has a negative DWAR.

 

Baserunning, I agree, is suboptimal, but I blame some of that on Bill James and the overall Sox philosphy that bunting, stealing bases, etc are just not productive. Getting walks, however, is, so I have to ask you whether that's why you don't like the lack of fire?

[devildavid]

What the heck is meant by "no fundamentals." To me the most critical fundamentals are pitching and hitting, over which the manager has only a slight effect--except, of course for how he manages the bullpen.

 

As for fielding, I think the only real sore spot has been 3B, over which Farrell has only so much control--for now, he is forced to use Sandoval. Besides, he's used, what 4 thirdbasemen so far? Bogaerts ain't great at SS, but no question he works really hard at it and out hits most other SS's. Moreland and Pedroia are fine if not gold glovers any more. The outfield is definitely above average. Leon has a positive DWAR at catcher, and Vazquez has a negative DWAR.

 

Baserunning, I agree, is suboptimal, but I blame some of that on Bill James and the overall Sox philosphy that bunting, stealing bases, etc are just not productive. Getting walks, however, is, so I have to ask you whether that's why you don't like the lack of fire?

 

Any real problem with the baserunning has been trying to steal when it is not needed and baserunning blunders which may be caused by being over aggressive on the bases. Too many baserunners have been doubled up lately by getting too far off the bag before they are certain whether a ball will be caught or not. Base stealing can be useful at times, but the negative impact of being caught stealing should be considered as well. Sacrifice bunting is even less "productive" because it trades an out for advancing a baserunner. You have to consider the negative impact of making that out.

[Maxbialystock]

I've said it before and will say it again. To me the only sensible criterion for evaluating MLB managers is the won-lost record and whether that corresponds to what the team is reasonably capable of. I'm pretty sure that criterion was in play last year and again this year with respect to Farrell.

 

To me "no fire" is meaningless, especially when applied to baseball. I think you can make an excellent case that fire on the field of play is a two-edged sword because baseball is such a precise game. HanRam is exhibit 1 for the prosecution. He has plenty of fire on the basepaths but runs as though he is brain dead. Repeatedly. What makes JBJ so great in CF--to me, anyway--is how he runs precise routes to where the ball is going because he really isn't that fast. Great double plays are the result of endless practice and precision in execution, not fire. Fire to me causes errors, and precision and focus prevent them. Fire to me is worthless at bat--see again exhibit 1 for the prosecution and how HanRam seems to be swinging as hard as he can instead of trying to hit with precision. Fire to me is similarly worthless when pitching because that too requires incredible precision and focus. Rearing back and throwing heater after heater is a recipe for getting hit hard.

 

On the other hand, MLB teams habitually congratulate each on every home run, rbi, you name it. When a starter leaves the game he is usually congratulated at some point. If he was lousy, he is commiserated with. MLB players, for all they are paid, work hard at being good teammates. And they routinely go completely ape after a game-winning hit. I mean there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between on-the-field celebrations after any game-winning rbi and one that wins the World Series.

 

The most fired-up manager I can remember was Billy Martin, and he was a raging alcoholic whom Steinbrenner fired at least 4 times.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[Bellhorn04]

As far as 'fire' goes, the team's overall attitude seems good. They've had some adversity and some stretches where they've looked awful but they've been resilient.

 

The only issue I can see so far is the sloppiness on the basepaths that's been mentioned. It would be very nice if they could stop giving away so many outs there.

[mvp 78]

As far as 'fire' goes, the team's overall attitude seems good. They've had some adversity and some stretches where they've looked awful but they've been resilient.

 

The only issue I can see so far is the sloppiness on the basepaths that's been mentioned. It would be very nice if they could stop giving away so many outs there.

 

Fire Butterfield.

[Maxbialystock]

Meh. I think he's actually pretty conservative. Besides the mistakes are mostly made before they get to 3B.

[Maxbialystock]

As far as 'fire' goes, the team's overall attitude seems good. They've had some adversity and some stretches where they've looked awful but they've been resilient.

 

The only issue I can see so far is the sloppiness on the basepaths that's been mentioned. It would be very nice if they could stop giving away so many outs there.

 

Haven't we just seen two doubleplays caused by our guys not tagging up or getting back to the base in time? Horrible.

[mvp 78]

Meh. I think he's actually pretty conservative. Besides the mistakes are mostly made before they get to 3B.

 

I believe he's in charge of training the team with respect to fielding and base running.

 

It's more about pregame prep than what he's doing while a play is happening.

[Kimmi]

Keith Law should be a Manager. Every game different. Teams different. Ballparks different.

 

Personally, I'm now a Keith Law fan.

[Kimmi]

I place the Hanley outfield experiment at the feet of Benny Boy. I sometimes wonder if that had a lot to do with him being replaced.

 

In fairness to "Benny Boy", there really wasn't any reason to expect Hanley to not be adequate in left field.

[Kimmi]

Here are some stats on outs made on the basepaths. This does not include caught stealing.

 

The Sox lead the pack with 32, which I think we all figured. Of note, however, is that the Yankees and the Astros, the current 2 best run scoring teams in the AL, are right behind us with 31 and 30, respectively.

 

Does having more baserunners lead to more OOB? Does a higher OOB mean that the team is more aggressive? Does this aggressiveness lead to more run scoring? Or maybe there's no connection whatsoever?

 

In terms of the outs made on the basepaths by individual Sox players, here's the breakdown:

 

Beni - 6

Pedroia - 6

Moreland - 4

Hanley - 4

Bogaerts - 3

Vaz - 3

Leon - 2

Betts - 1

JBJ - 1

Marco - 1

Young - 1

Pablo - 0 !!!

[a700hitter]

Here are some stats on outs made on the basepaths. This does not include caught stealing.

 

The Sox lead the pack with 32, which I think we all figured. Of note, however, is that the Yankees and the Astros, the current 2 best run scoring teams in the AL, are right behind us with 31 and 30, respectively.

 

Does having more baserunners lead to more OOB? Does a higher OOB mean that the team is more aggressive? Does this aggressiveness lead to more run scoring? Or maybe there's no connection whatsoever?

 

In terms of the outs made on the basepaths by individual Sox players, here's the breakdown:

 

Beni - 6

Pedroia - 6

Moreland - 4

Hanley - 4

Bogaerts - 3

Vaz - 3

Leon - 2

Betts - 1

JBJ - 1

Marco - 1

Young - 1

Pablo - 0 !!!

Pablo would have to get on base to make an out on the bases.

[S5Dewey]

Pablo would have to get on base to make an out on the bases.

 

Please don't cloud statistics with logic.

[Spudboy]

Lol.

 

It's funny when Kimmi trolls.

[a700hitter]

In fairness to "Benny Boy", there really wasn't any reason to expect Hanley to not be adequate in left field.

One reason was that he had never played the OF. You might want to be sure that he could handle it before committing $100 million.

[OH FOY]

Good for you.