Farrell

[SoxnCycles]

I really think it depends on how the rest of the season unfolds.

 

After all, Francona was fired after a 90 win season and a fantastic overall record.

 

I don't think this team is going to collapse in the next three weeks.

Blown out in the playoffs, probably, but no collapse.

[mvp 78]

Is Farrell any better or worse than he was 2 weeks to 2 months ago?

 

The mood on this board sure has changed in just 2 weeks.

 

 

No. He sucked then too.

[Maxbialystock]

well, after being one of the few that defended JF with you for the past few years....i was finally done with him a month or two ago. sometimes a shakeup like firing a manager can motivate the players. if we are going to get rid of him anyways, why not do it now and see if it something something.....

Fire Farrell

 

You got fed up sooner than I, but I am now on that bandwagon. To me won-lost record is a big deal when evaluating managers. Plus last night I truly thought Farrell mismanaged the game and an important one at that. If he had pulled Porcello sooner, the Sox would have tied it and used their good bullpen arms in the 8th and 9th innings.

 

I defend managers in general because I think most of them do a decent job. That is, great managers can't have the same effect as great coaches in the NFL, NBA, etc.

[moonslav59]

No. He sucked then too.

 

I agree.

 

I was commenting on the mood swing of this board.

 

It doesn't surprise me. Every board I've ever been on has people that are easily influenced by short streaks- good or bad.

 

My point is that JF has always been this way. It shouldn't take a mere 5 games stretch to see him for what he has always been: an excellent pitching coach but a poor manager.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I really want JF gone, but I was hoping it wouldn't take an implosion to make it happen.

 

This sucks!

 

And you're no different - 'implosion' is a pretty strong word considering we're still in first.

[oldtimer]

Farrell is not going to get fired in September. Finding a suitable replacement for next season should not be difficult at all. There are plenty of qualified candidates waiting for an opportunity. And sometimes change for change sake isn't a bad idea when the manager being replaced adds no value.

 

I agree. The Sox will not and should not fire JF during this season. However the season turns out, the Sox should then rationalize the strengths and weaknesses of our manager and decide if we should start a search for someone who can lead us more effectively. I suspect not only JF is in question, but also a number of players and coaches (hitting coach(es)). I would do the whole thing together in the off season and also decide how much money will be made available with our reset of the luxury tax limit. In other words, take a holistic approach to the team for 2018 and go after improvement, especially in key areas of weakness we have shown this season.

[moonslav59]

And you're no different - 'implosion' is a pretty strong word considering we're still in first.

 

I didn't say we were in the midst of an implosion. I guess we could be in the beginning stages of one, but I don't think we are.

 

I'm hoping we don't have an implosion.

 

I'm thinking it might take an implosion to get DD to fire JF.

 

I'm not hoping we have an implosion just so JF gets axed. That's something I could never even dream of wanting to happen.

[mvp 78]

And you're no different - 'implosion' is a pretty strong word considering we're still in first.

 

I'm hoping it's just a rough patch. Hard to really call it an implosion until a lot of behind the scenes stuff gets leaked.

 

They have a lead in the division and an ok schedule. They should be able to win the division.

[Bellhorn04]

I didn't say we were in the midst of an implosion. I guess we could be in the beginning stages of one, but I don't think we are.

 

I'm hoping we don't have an implosion.

 

I'm thinking it might take an implosion to get DD to fire JF.

 

I'm not hoping we have an implosion just so JF gets axed. That's something I could never even dream of wanting to happen.

 

No Sox fans on this board want the implosion. But there are a few good reasons to worry about one.

[notin]

Farrell is not going to get fired in September. Finding a suitable replacement for next season should not be difficult at all. There are plenty of qualified candidates waiting for an opportunity. And sometimes change for change sake isn't a bad idea when the manager being replaced adds no value.

 

I thought you believed all managers were essentially fungible. If so, what would be the point in firing Farrell and replacing him with another guy who "adds no value"?

[a700hitter]

I thought you believed all managers were essentially fungible. If so, what would be the point in firing Farrell and replacing him with another guy who "adds no value"?

As I said in the post that you quoted, sometimes change for change sake is good. It shakes things up in the organization and gets people on their toes. But I guess that you just had a wise-crack that you wanted to get out there and didn't bother to read what I wrote.

[notin]

As I said in the post that you quoted, sometimes change for change sake is good. It shakes things up in the organization and gets people on their toes. But I guess that you just had a wise-crack that you wanted to get out there and didn't bother to read what I wrote.

 

I read what you wrote.

 

I do disagree about change for the sake of change. I'd say it rarely works out, if ever.

 

I so think Farrell is more secure than many realize. If he wins two straight pennants, the second one coming in a season where a major piece (David Price) is a complete non-factor, it's not likely even a quick playoff exit gets him fired....

[moonslav59]

While the age old statement that you "can't fire 25 players" is historically true, there have been times when the Sox came pretty close to totally overhauling the 25 man roster after falling short of expectations.

 

Look at 2012 to 2013

Leaders in PAs

623 Pedroia 724

546 Aviles ---Gone (Drew 501)

528 C Ross---Gone (Vic 532)

527 AGon--- Gone (Napoli 578)

448 Salty 470

383 Ortiz 600

323 Ellsbury 636

317 NAva 536

286 Middy 374 ---but Bogey took his place in Sept

272 Ciriaco 58--- replaced by Iggy

219 Sweeney---Gone (Gomes 366)

216 Podsednik---Gone (Gomes)

166 Lava---Gone (D Ross 116)

165 Youk--- Gone (Carp 243)

158 Shoppach---Gone

148 Punto ---Gone

125 Crawford ---Gone

 

IP

205 Lester 213(Gone in 2014)

189 Buch 108

161 Doubront 162 (Gone in 2014)

127 Beckett ---Gone

94 Cook --- Gone

84 Aceves 37

76 Morales ---Gone

59 Bard --- Gone

51 Atchison ---Gone

50 Padilla ---Gone

46 Dice-K ---Gone

45 Melancon ---Gone

44 Tazawa 68

42 Mortenson 30

40 Miller 31

 

It can and has happened.

 

Granted, it does not happen when a team is in first place.

 

[moonslav59]

I'm hoping it's just a rough patch. Hard to really call it an implosion until a lot of behind the scenes stuff gets leaked.

 

They have a lead in the division and an ok schedule. They should be able to win the division.

 

Just to be clear, I used the word "implosion" in the context of what it might take to get JF fired.

 

I did not mean to even imply we were in the midst of one.

 

We've had rough patches several times this year and bounced back. There's no reason to think this is anything more than just a rough patch.

 

We do need to treat this as a wake-up call. We are nearing the playoffs and need to reach our stride before it's too late.

[a700hitter]

I read what you wrote.

 

I do disagree about change for the sake of change. I'd say it rarely works out, if ever.

 

I so think Farrell is more secure than many realize. If he wins two straight pennants, the second one coming in a season where a major piece (David Price) is a complete non-factor, it's not likely even a quick playoff exit gets him fired....

But that is not what you addressed in your post. You just had a snarky comment to make. I said "sometimes change for change sake is good". I disagree that it "rarely if ever" works. It works if an attitude of complacency has set in. It can also energize an organization, but you are free to disagree.

[Maxbialystock]

I agree.

 

I was commenting on the mood swing of this board.

 

It doesn't surprise me. Every board I've ever been on has people that are easily influenced by short streaks- good or bad.

 

My point is that JF has always been this way. It shouldn't take a mere 5 games stretch to see him for what he has always been: an excellent pitching coach but a poor manager.

 

 

That's me--influenced by short streaks. But let's not forget that you regularly refer to the 16-4 streak in August as evidence this team is basically sound. Me, I look at 4 of our 5 starters--in a row--pitching poorly and am ready to call Houston to say we have a problem. Worse, the hitting has been sour--at least against opposing starters--for the last 10 games with the notable exception of the 3 dingers in the one game we did take in NYC. That lousy hitting has been with us all season. It is not a short streak. You yourself have noted noted how bad our hitters are compared to last year and even how bad post all star game vs. before. Plus it's September, for crying out loud. Patience is a virtue with limited value this month.

 

Even though all wins are equal, to me wins and losses in September are more important simply because the team and the manager have lost the element of time to put bad streaks behind them.

 

I have defended Farrell because I think all managers deserve that, but also because I just haven't seen any of his decisions hurting the team--until last night. I have also said, however, that the best yardstick for all managers is wins vs. losses and whether FO believes the manager got the most out of his players. Since I don't think I'm qualified to say whether a manager got the most of his players, I go pretty much by wins and losses. You win, you stay. Not, you go. Thus I don't want to fire Farrell now because the season isn't over. But I absolutely want to vent a little bit right now because I watched last night's game very intently and I honestly am not sure Farrell did.

[mvp 78]

Farrell:

13 - WS

14 - last damn place

15 - last damn place

16 - 0 for ALDS

17 - ?

 

If they can't even show up to the ALDS this year, why would he stay around? Francona was fired after not making the WS for 4 straight years. Is it Farrell's turn now?

[moonslav59]

That's me--influenced by short streaks. But let's not forget that you regularly refer to the 16-4 streak in August as evidence this team is basically sound. Me, I look at 4 of our 5 starters--in a row--pitching poorly and am ready to call Houston to say we have a problem. Worse, the hitting has been sour--at least against opposing starters--for the last 10 games with the notable exception of the 3 dingers in the one game we did take in NYC. That lousy hitting has been with us all season. It is not a short streak. You yourself have noted noted how bad our hitters are compared to last year and even how bad post all star game vs. before. Plus it's September, for crying out loud. Patience is a virtue with limited value this month.

 

Even though all wins are equal, to me wins and losses in September are more important simply because the team and the manager have lost the element of time to put bad streaks behind them.

 

I have defended Farrell because I think all managers deserve that, but also because I just haven't seen any of his decisions hurting the team--until last night. I have also said, however, that the best yardstick for all managers is wins vs. losses and whether FO believes the manager got the most out of his players. Since I don't think I'm qualified to say whether a manager got the most of his players, I go pretty much by wins and losses. You win, you stay. Not, you go. Thus I don't want to fire Farrell now because the season isn't over. But I absolutely want to vent a little bit right now because I watched last night's game very intently and I honestly am not sure Farrell did.

 

I don't want JF fired right now either. I have said that a number of times.

 

I was never high on JF as a manager. I feel he is very good with pitchers. I have disliked JF for over a year, but I only recently became vocal about it.

[mvp 78]

I don't want JF fired right now either. I have said that a number of times.

 

I was never high on JF as a manager. I feel he is very good with pitchers. I have disliked JF for over a year, but I only recently became vocal about it.

 

Better late than never.

[notin]

But that is not what you addressed in your post. You just had a snarky comment to make. I said "sometimes change for change sake is good". I disagree that it "rarely if ever" works. It works if an attitude of complacency has set in. It can also energize an organization, but you are free to disagree.

 

Sure I addressed it. You had a position that managers really don't matter. I don't agree, but it wasn't intended to be snarky so much as clarifying potential inconsistencies.

 

And I don't believe change for the sake of change ever works. But that's not the same as saying change never works.

 

Now if Dombrowski's goal is to change culture or something like that, I would agree that isn't change for the sake of change, rather change with a specific goal in mind. He might do that.

[a700hitter]

Sure I addressed it. You had a position that managers really don't matter. I don't agree, but it wasn't intended to be snarky so much as clarifying potential inconsistencies.

 

And I don't believe change for the sake of change ever works. But that's not the same as saying change never works.

 

Now if Dombrowski's goal is to change culture or something like that, I would agree that isn't change for the sake of change, rather change with a specific goal in mind. He might do that.

i said nothing about managers being fungible in that post so don't go trying to justify your attempt to be snarky and to troll an old argument. If you want to discuss something in a serious manner, fine, but f***off with your lame attempt at snark. At least own up to being snarky instead of lame explanations.

[Spudboy]

I read what you wrote.

 

I do disagree about change for the sake of change. I'd say it rarely works out, if ever.

 

I so think Farrell is more secure than many realize. If he wins two straight pennants, the second one coming in a season where a major piece (David Price) is a complete non-factor, it's not likely even a quick playoff exit gets him fired....

 

Farrell has won ONE pennant. 2013.

 

What have I missed? Maybe I drank too much cough syrup.

[Spudboy]

i said nothing about managers being fungible in that post so don't go trying to justify your attempt to be snarky and to troll an old argument. If you want to discuss something in a serious manner, fine, but f***off with your lame attempt at snark. At least own up to being snarky instead of lame explanations.

 

Don't lower yourself to interact with these guys.

 

They have an uncontrollable urge to prove how big their hands are.

[MADSTORK]

Who is Lovullo's bench Coach?

[mvp 78]

Disarcina

[Maxbialystock]

This morning a new thought--actually, a new character--for this Farrell discussion.

 

Consider Joe Girardi, now in his 10th season at the helm of the Yankees, who have never shown any hesitation in dumping a manager in part because they have the biggest salaries in MLB and theoretically have provided top players every year. Girardi has already outlasted Francona of the Sox who won two WS titles to Girardi's one, and now seems likely to outlast Farrell (just that one, very lucky and undeserved WS title) as well. He is the personification of the alert, decisive manager. He even enforces those Yankees image rules about long hair (top of head and facial). He is aggressive with his bullpen. He's even great with those younger players who seem to be blossoming under his tutelage--see especially Sanchez and Judge. Farrell, on the other hand has obstructed Devers development despite his obvious potential. For starters, overruled DD and insisted Devers semi-prove himself at AAA before being allowed on his team. Then he mindlessly pulled Devers out of the lineup three separate times! He understands nothing about encouraging great, raw talent that needs to play every day to improve.

 

Farrell seems to have mastered the worried look or at least the not sure what to do look. He doesn't even know the rule book and has been castigated for trying to change a pitcher when the rule book (and the HP ump) said, "Blaaaat. Not allowed." He's borderline clueless on pitching decisions. Even I have dumped on him for not taking Porcello out soon enough in his last start and others have raged against his pitching decisions throughout the season.

 

Then there's the whole "weak fundamentals" thing. You know, boneheadedness run amuck. moonslav, who both watches and studies (with replays) all Sox games, assures us this season is a new low for all the Sox teams he has watched--but especially all those teams who won the AL East--in mindless baseball, running into outs, making the wrong throw or a terrible throw, you name it. Stuff good Little League teams don't do.

 

So there they are: great manager vs. dipstick.

 

And yet. Mr. dipstick has his team 4.5 games ahead of those same Yankees under the decisive, even masterful leadership of the Great Girardi. Even worse (for Girardi) is that the evidence is pretty strong that Girardi has the better team.

 

Like fundamentals. Given the complete agreement by literally everyone on talksox that ours are terrible, it is a fair assumption that the Yankees fundamentals are better, maybe much better. And goodness knows the consensus on here is those fundamentals, that avoidance of sheer boneheadedness, is important. That's why they're called fundamentals.

 

Now we all know I'm almost alone on talksox in thinking pitching and hitting are the dominant fundamentals in MLB, and for that my snivelling excuse is I wasn't raised properly and since then have been oblivious to what MLB is really all about.

 

Funny thing, though. The Yankees overall are also better at those fundamentals too.

 

The Yankees right now have pitching--season to date--about as good as ours (they've given up 4 more runs total in roughly 140 games), and ours is pretty good, right near the top of the AL: 2d best to the Guardians in ERA and runs scored against.

 

And their hitting is much better, in fact, season long, 2d best behind the Astros in runs scored (we are comfortably 9th), 4th in dingers (we are dead last--the Yankees have hit 56 more), etc. We're ahead in doubles, however, despite crazy Farrell encouraging his guys to be mindlessly aggressive on the basepaths with license to run into all the outs they want.

 

If you think I have overrated Girardi and that he is really just a putz, fine. I think I can do the same thing with Francona, who was pretty good in Boston and so far fantastic in Cleveland who went to the WS last year and finally lost in the 7th game to the Cubs.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[a700hitter]

This morning a new thought--actually, a new character--for this Farrell discussion.

 

Consider Joe Girardi, now in his 10th season at the helm of the Yankees, who have never shown any hesitation in dumping a manager in part because they have the biggest salaries in MLB and theoretically have provided top players every year. Girardi has already outlasted Francona of the Sox who won two WS titles to Girardi's one, and now seems likely to outlast Farrell (just that one, very lucky and undeserved WS title) as well. He is the personification of the alert, decisive manager. He even enforces those Yankees image rules about long hair (top of head and facial). He is aggressive with his bullpen. He's even great with those younger players who seem to be blossoming under his tutelage--see especially Sanchez and Judge. Farrell, on the other hand has obstructed Devers development despite his obvious potential. For starters, overruled DD and insisted Devers semi-prove himself at AAA before being allowed on his team. Then he mindlessly pulled Devers out of the lineup three separate times! He understands nothing about encouraging great, raw talent that needs to play every day to improve.

 

Farrell seems to have mastered the worried look or at least the not sure what to do look. He doesn't even know the rule book and has been castigated for trying to change a pitcher when the rule book (and the HP ump) said, "Blaaaat. Not allowed." He's borderline clueless on pitching decisions. Even I have dumped on him for not taking Porcello out soon enough in his last start and others have raged against his pitching decisions throughout the season.

 

Then there's the whole "weak fundamentals" thing. You know, boneheadedness run amuck. moonslav, who both watches and studies (with replays) all Sox games, assures us this season is a new low for all the Sox teams he has watched--but especially all those teams who won the AL East--in mindless baseball, running into outs, making the wrong throw or a terrible throw, you name it. Stuff good Little League teams don't do.

 

So there they are: great manager vs. dipstick.

 

And yet. Mr. dipstick has his team 4.5 games ahead of those same Yankees under the decisive, even masterful leadership of the Great Girardi. Even worse (for Girardi) is that the evidence is pretty strong that Girardi has the better team.

 

Like fundamentals. Given the complete agreement by literally everyone on talksox that ours are terrible, it is a fair assumption that the Yankees fundamentals are better, maybe much better. And goodness knows the consensus on here is those fundamentals, that avoidance of sheer boneheadedness, is important. That's why they're called fundamentals.

 

Now we all know I'm almost alone on talksox in thinking pitching and hitting are the dominant fundamentals in MLB, and for that my snivelling excuse is I wasn't raised properly and since then have been oblivious to what MLB is really all about.

 

Funny thing, though. The Yankees overall are also better at those fundamentals too.

 

The Yankees right now have pitching--season to date--about as good as ours (they've given up 4 more runs total in roughly 140 games), and ours is pretty good, right near the top of the AL: 2d best to the Guardians in ERA and runs scored against.

 

And their hitting is much better, in fact, season long, 2d best behind the Astros in runs scored (we are comfortably 9th), 4th in dingers (we are dead last--the Yankees have hit 56 more), etc. We're ahead in doubles, however, despite crazy Farrell encouraging his guys to be mindlessly aggressive on the basepaths with license to run into all the outs they want.

 

If you think I have overrated Girardi and that he is really just a putz, fine. I think I can do the same thing with Francona, who was pretty good in Boston and so far fantastic in Cleveland who went to the WS last year and finally lost in the 7th game to the Cubs.

The reason why Girardi has lasted so long is because the Boss is gone. The Boss would have fired him years ago. The Yankee fans on this board are not very representative of Yankee fans in NY who regularly call talk radio to rip Girardi.

[Maxbialystock]

The reason why Girardi has lasted so long is because the Boss is gone. The Boss would have fired him years ago. The Yankee fans on this board are not very representative of Yankee fans in NY who regularly call talk radio to rip Girardi.

 

Meh. I quote: "Steinbrenner quickly became famous for his rapid turnover of management personnel. In his first 23 seasons, he changed managers 20 times; Billy Martin alone was fired and rehired five times." We're talking about the same guy, right?

 

And do I really need to compare Mr. Dipstick to other winning AL managers--specifically the Guardians and Astros (I've already done the Yankees this year? I can, you know, and in every case I will use the same basic point: the manager whose team is presumed to have lousy "fundamentals" and who does have good pitching and lousy hitting, has the 3d best record in the AL to date. It is the only AL team with those rotten fundamentals and pretty lousy hitting which is a good bet to get 90 or more wins. I am not saying Farrell is a great manager, but am saying he probably isn't as bad as we (I'm guilty too) keep saying he is. He can't be doing everything wrong.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[a700hitter]

Meh. I quote: "Steinbrenner quickly became famous for his rapid turnover of management personnel. In his first 23 seasons, he changed managers 20 times; Billy Martin alone was fired and rehired five times." We're talking about the same guy, right?

What is your point? The Boss died in 2010 and suffered from dementia for his last few years. Girardi was hired in 2008. If the Boss was still alive and in his right mind, Girardi would have been gone years ago. The sons don't have the same intolerance for losing.

[Spudboy]

This morning a new thought--actually, a new character--for this Farrell discussion.

 

Consider Joe Girardi, now in his 10th season at the helm of the Yankees, who have never shown any hesitation in dumping a manager in part because they have the biggest salaries in MLB and theoretically have provided top players every year. Girardi has already outlasted Francona of the Sox who won two WS titles to Girardi's one, and now seems likely to outlast Farrell (just that one, very lucky and undeserved WS title) as well. He is the personification of the alert, decisive manager. He even enforces those Yankees image rules about long hair (top of head and facial). He is aggressive with his bullpen. He's even great with those younger players who seem to be blossoming under his tutelage--see especially Sanchez and Judge. Farrell, on the other hand has obstructed Devers development despite his obvious potential. For starters, overruled DD and insisted Devers semi-prove himself at AAA before being allowed on his team. Then he mindlessly pulled Devers out of the lineup three separate times! He understands nothing about encouraging great, raw talent that needs to play every day to improve.

 

Farrell seems to have mastered the worried look or at least the not sure what to do look. He doesn't even know the rule book and has been castigated for trying to change a pitcher when the rule book (and the HP ump) said, "Blaaaat. Not allowed." He's borderline clueless on pitching decisions. Even I have dumped on him for not taking Porcello out soon enough in his last start and others have raged against his pitching decisions throughout the season.

 

Then there's the whole "weak fundamentals" thing. You know, boneheadedness run amuck. moonslav, who both watches and studies (with replays) all Sox games, assures us this season is a new low for all the Sox teams he has watched--but especially all those teams who won the AL East--in mindless baseball, running into outs, making the wrong throw or a terrible throw, you name it. Stuff good Little League teams don't do.

 

So there they are: great manager vs. dipstick.

 

And yet. Mr. dipstick has his team 4.5 games ahead of those same Yankees under the decisive, even masterful leadership of the Great Girardi. Even worse (for Girardi) is that the evidence is pretty strong that Girardi has the better team.

 

Like fundamentals. Given the complete agreement by literally everyone on talksox that ours are terrible, it is a fair assumption that the Yankees fundamentals are better, maybe much better. And goodness knows the consensus on here is those fundamentals, that avoidance of sheer boneheadedness, is important. That's why they're called fundamentals.

 

Now we all know I'm almost alone on talksox in thinking pitching and hitting are the dominant fundamentals in MLB, and for that my snivelling excuse is I wasn't raised properly and since then have been oblivious to what MLB is really all about.

 

Funny thing, though. The Yankees overall are also better at those fundamentals too.

 

The Yankees right now have pitching--season to date--about as good as ours (they've given up 4 more runs total in roughly 140 games), and ours is pretty good, right near the top of the AL: 2d best to the Guardians in ERA and runs scored against.

 

And their hitting is much better, in fact, season long, 2d best behind the Astros in runs scored (we are comfortably 9th), 4th in dingers (we are dead last--the Yankees have hit 56 more), etc. We're ahead in doubles, however, despite crazy Farrell encouraging his guys to be mindlessly aggressive on the basepaths with license to run into all the outs they want.

 

If you think I have overrated Girardi and that he is really just a putz, fine. I think I can do the same thing with Francona, who was pretty good in Boston and so far fantastic in Cleveland who went to the WS last year and finally lost in the 7th game to the Cubs.

 

Where did you get this idea? I live here and have never heard the idea that Farrell delayed Dever's promotion to the bigs. And how do you know that one is so good at developing young talent and the other sucks? Again, I have never heard that before. Just seems to be your opinion ( which is fine ) as opposed to verifiable fact.