Farrell

[moonslav59]

My gut tells me that Holt is not a poor fielder.

 

Gut check time.

[Kimmi]

Holt is not a dolt. He went through a very tough physical ailment this season. He was a very good bench player prior to that. Your disdain for him is misplaced.

 

You have not really given any solid evidence of any lethargy or lack of fire or spirit. This team seems to have fun playing ball. That's good enough for me. They celebrate plenty during games. I'm not sure what you are seeing because I don't see it. Fundamentally sound baseball has nothing to do with fire or spirit. They are not related. Poor fundamentals may be hurting this team and maybe there are examples of it. Some may be due to youth and inexperience and maybe, just maybe, getting too excited and trying to do too much.

 

I fully endorse this post. Well said.

[Kimmi]

Fire/desire/ 'piss and vinegar' -- all nice myths, beloved of fans and amateur athletes. And if desire keeps you on the practice field for 8-10 hours a day, that will make you better. But once you get on the field, it's not going to help. You do not hit a golf ball harder, a tennis ball more accurately, or a baseball farther because you were 'fired up'. Even in intensely physical sports (like football), getting fired up will not help if you forget basic technique. Anyone who played or plays sports knows that the most overtly enthusiastic players tend to be those cheering wildly from the bench.

 

!!!

[Kimmi]

Certainly one could argue that every single pitch in a baseball game contributes to the outcome. I understand that reasoning but I don't fully accept it. Historical facts show that in a major league baseball game the 2 teams will score about 9 runs on average. That's the way the way the game is set up. So nothing that leads to runs will happen on most of the 300 pitches or so thrown in the game. That means that there are only a limited number of pitches that actually impact the outcome of the game.

 

The statements you referenced - 'Farrell cost us the game by leaving a pitcher in too long' or 'Beni's boneheaded running cost us that game' - I agree that statements like these are usually wrong.

 

I do believe there are some games where the decision of when to pull the pitcher can be crucial to the outcome. I also realize that you can never really prove whether that was the case or not.

 

Didn't mean to hijack the subject matter of this thread.

 

I moved this to the Farrell thread, so as not to hijack the other thread.

 

I disagree with your thinking in your first paragraph. Just because a run did not score or a play did not lead to runs, that does not mean that a play was not as significant to the outcome of the game as a run scoring play was. Price's pitching in the 7th inning last night to keep the Astros from scoring was a pretty big moment.

 

Now, I absolutely agree that some plays have more leverage than others. That's obvious. That means that some managerial decisions have more impact than others. That said, because there is no way of knowing what might have happened in the alternate scenario, you have to go by run or win expectancy before the play happens. And the difference between leaving pitcher A in the game versus bringing in pitcher B just isn't as large as people think. There's a difference, and there is a 'right' call statistically. But that right call might be so insignificant that Farrell's judgment based on intangibles might trump the statistics.

 

In the above mentioned case, the difference between leaving Price in to face the batter versus bring Reed in was probably very, very small. However, if Price had given up a grand slam, the decision not to bring in Reed looks huge, after the fact.

[Bellhorn04]

I disagree with your thinking in your first paragraph. Just because a run did not score or a play did not lead to runs, that does not mean that a play was not as significant to the outcome of the game as a run scoring play was.

 

You may be right.

 

Some of my thinking is based on the principle that the pitching and defense have a large advantage over the offense which dictates that only about 9 runs are going to be scored in a game. Therefore we essentially know in advance that the heavy majority of pitches are not going to lead to any runs.

[oldtimer]

I moved this to the Farrell thread, so as not to hijack the other thread.

 

I disagree with your thinking in your first paragraph. Just because a run did not score or a play did not lead to runs, that does not mean that a play was not as significant to the outcome of the game as a run scoring play was. Price's pitching in the 7th inning last night to keep the Astros from scoring was a pretty big moment.

 

Now, I absolutely agree that some plays have more leverage than others. That's obvious. That means that some managerial decisions have more impact than others. That said, because there is no way of knowing what might have happened in the alternate scenario, you have to go by run or win expectancy before the play happens. And the difference between leaving pitcher A in the game versus bringing in pitcher B just isn't as large as people think. There's a difference, and there is a 'right' call statistically. But that right call might be so insignificant that Farrell's judgment based on intangibles might trump the statistics.

 

In the above mentioned case, the difference between leaving Price in to face the batter versus bring Reed in was probably very, very small. However, if Price had given up a grand slam, the decision not to bring in Reed looks huge, after the fact.

 

Most people who post here a long term fans who have either played themselves or seen enough ball to know the game. That leads to us having opinions when the manager makes a move (or doesn't). We really are not a party to the managers reasoning and can only impute motives and reasoning based on what we see. Results are important, and the Sox have won the pennant. I personally was perplexed by some of jf's moves during the season and at times saw him as sort of a sitting Buddha (kind of inert and emotionless). Onthe other hand winning the pennant goes a long way toward indicating he has done some things correctly. He was given Nunez, Reed and Davis, whereas the Yankees were in a situation to bring in 5, some as impact players. So we had the further Handicap of the Luxury Tax Limit being a factor in how we could strengthen the team.

 

Good time now to kick back and watch the playoffs unfold. Time enough later to discuss off season moves,

[Northern Star]

I don't like Farrell, but it's pretty embarrassing when his team wins back to back division titles and some people are STILL criticizing him.

[Kimmi]

Most people who post here a long term fans who have either played themselves or seen enough ball to know the game. That leads to us having opinions when the manager makes a move (or doesn't). We really are not a party to the managers reasoning and can only impute motives and reasoning based on what we see. Results are important, and the Sox have won the pennant. I personally was perplexed by some of jf's moves during the season and at times saw him as sort of a sitting Buddha (kind of inert and emotionless). Onthe other hand winning the pennant goes a long way toward indicating he has done some things correctly. He was given Nunez, Reed and Davis, whereas the Yankees were in a situation to bring in 5, some as impact players. So we had the further Handicap of the Luxury Tax Limit being a factor in how we could strengthen the team.

 

Good time now to kick back and watch the playoffs unfold. Time enough later to discuss off season moves,

 

I'm with you oldtimer. It will be interesting to see how Farrell manages the pitching in the postseason. Also, I'm sure that he will continue his aggressive baserunning strategy, especially since the Astros are not one of the better teams at controlling the running game. It will be interesting to see how that impacts the games. The Astros like to run too, though they are not as successful at it as the Red Sox are.

 

I'm looking forward to it. There's nothing as fun (and nerve wracking) as playoff baseball.

[cp176]

Most people who post here a long term fans who have either played themselves or seen enough ball to know the game. That leads to us having opinions when the manager makes a move (or doesn't). We really are not a party to the managers reasoning and can only impute motives and reasoning based on what we see. Results are important, and the Sox have won the pennant. I personally was perplexed by some of jf's moves during the season and at times saw him as sort of a sitting Buddha (kind of inert and emotionless). Onthe other hand winning the pennant goes a long way toward indicating he has done some things correctly. He was given Nunez, Reed and Davis, whereas the Yankees were in a situation to bring in 5, some as impact players. So we had the further Handicap of the Luxury Tax Limit being a factor in how we could strengthen the team.

 

Good time now to kick back and watch the playoffs unfold. Time enough later to discuss off season moves,

 

from one old-timer to another - nice post!

[oldtimer]

from one old-timer to another - nice post!

 

Don't know which of us is older but both have probably been following things since the 1940's. We had some great teams along the way, including my favorite (1949) but under Yawkeys ownership we couldn't quite win the world series. I go in to this one not expecting too much and will be happily surprised if the Sox can make some noise.

[Nick]

I think I'm just excited that Chris Sale is pitching game one and we certainly have a chance to pull ahead 1-0. Early run or two would help. I like him pitching with a 2 run lead.

[moonslav59]

I don't like Farrell, but it's pretty embarrassing when his team wins back to back division titles and some people are STILL criticizing him.

 

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this team could have won 95 or 100+ games and only won 93 because of JF?

 

Does winning 93 games and back to back division titles negate any reasonable criticism?

 

Had the Yanks won what the phythagoream formula said they should have, we'd have finished up as a wild card team, and the tone would probably be a lot different right now.

 

One has to at least accept that there is a possibility we won despite JF and not because of him. It's not an absurd position to hold.

 

We have a very talented team. We should have won the division. We won despite massive declines by our top 8 hitters and Cy Young winner. We won despite untold amounts of bonehead plays. None of this can be attributed to JF, apparently-- just the 93 wins and division title.

 

To me, it's embarrassing to believe all discussion and criticism should end, because we won the division 2 times in a row. Isn't it possible another manager could have gotten 2 or 3 out of our 8 returning players to not decline by 100 points in OPS, or maybe help Porcello figure out what he's been doing wrong, or maybe to not pinch run Wright, or maybe to teach the fundamentals of baseball more thoroughly? Maybe just one of these done better?

 

Nope. We won. End of discussion. No way anyone could have done better.

[moonslav59]

I think I'm just excited that Chris Sale is pitching game one and we certainly have a chance to pull ahead 1-0. Early run or two would help. I like him pitching with a 2 run lead.

 

Thank DD for getting us...

 

 

Chris Freakin' Sale!

[cp176]

We were up against it for sure this year. Even Pythagorus could not keep this team from winning the east. lol

[Emp9]

I don't like Farrell, but it's pretty embarrassing when his team wins back to back division titles and some people are STILL criticizing him.

 

I'ma hold off too much criticism of JF until our post season is over. We had some big time injuries this year (Price, Thorn, HanRam, Wright) that I didn't predict and some I did or counted on to some extent (Pedey, Smith) to be hurt. I think we under performed quite a bit even with all of them considered. Sox won the AL East and I love it, but then again They SHOULD HAVE. But I have to save it for when all is said and done and see how this team performs in a playoff setting. If JF has them ready for the post season (they wern't ready at all last post season), then I'm fine with all of it. If it's a repeat of last post season, I won't be all that impressed and it will be a big disappointment. The big questions will be answered soon enough.

 

Let's Go Sox!!!

[Bellhorn04]

I'ma hold off too much criticism of JF until our post season is over. We had some big time injuries this year (Price, Thorn, HanRam, Wright) that I didn't predict and some I did or counted on to some extent (Pedey, Smith) to be hurt. I think we under performed quite a bit even with all of them considered. Sox won the AL East and I love it, but then again They SHOULD HAVE. But I have to save it for when all is said and done and see how this team performs in a playoff setting. If JF has them ready for the post season (they wern't ready at all last post season), then I'm fine with all of it. If it's a repeat of last post season, I won't be all that impressed and it will be a big disappointment. The big questions will be answered soon enough.

 

Let's Go Sox!!!

 

I agree, the final verdict on JF's 2017 performance is not in yet.

[moonslav59]

I'm still very hopeful for this year.

 

I realize we are not the co-favorites I expected us to be, but the playoffs are largely a crap shoot, and we have experience, pitching and defense.

 

I'll be at both games in Houston: standing room only tix.

[Bellhorn04]

We have a very talented team. We should have won the division. We won despite massive declines by our top 8 hitters and Cy Young winner.

 

With regard to the hitting declines, you may have to consider the possibility that the true outlier season was 2016. Some of these same hitters had big increases from 2015 to 2016.

[moonslav59]

With regard to the hitting declines, you may have to consider the possibility that the true outlier season was 2016. Some of these same hitters had big increases from 2015 to 2016.

 

Every top PA hitter, except HRam declined from 2015 as well.

 

Bogey .776 > .746

Betts .820 > .803

Holt .727 > .548

HRam .717 > .750

Pedey .797 >.760

JBJ .832 > .726

 

It was a massive and near total meltdown decline. The reasons may be unknown, but let's not sugar coat it.

[Bellhorn04]

Every top PA hitter, except HRam declined from 2015 as well.

 

Bogey .776 > .746

Betts .820 > .803

Holt .727 > .548

HRam .717 > .750

Pedey .797 >.760

JBJ .832 > .726

 

It was a massive and near total meltdown decline. The reasons may be unknown, but let's not sugar coat it.

 

Holt shouldn't be included.

 

Vazquez exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

Moreland probably exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

Devers possibly exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

I am picking cherries and coating them with sugar and they are quite tasty.

[S5Dewey]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "massive and near total meltdown decline". It may be more like each player having a slightly off year.

 

Those six players averaged almost exactly 500 PA's for the year. Taking the OPS's of those six players and isolating out the OBP, each time they got on base they raised their OPS by .002. That means that Bogaert's .030 drop in OPS was the result of his reaching base 15 times fewer in 162 games, or once every 11 games or one time fewer every week and a half. I don't consider that to be the sky falling in.

 

Those six player's average OPS fell by .336. They reached base one fewer time in every ~8.5 games. I'm not at all certain that it's anything but normal fluctuation, all of which unfortunately happened in the same season and amplified the effect of it.

[moonslav59]

Holt shouldn't be included.

 

Vazquez exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

Moreland probably exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

Devers possibly exceeded expectations in 2017.

 

I am picking cherries and coating them with sugar and they are quite tasty.

 

I included the top 2015 PA players. Go ahead and throw him out, and we still see 4 out of 5 declining- one by over 100 points.

Why count Vaz, if you don't count Holt? Holt had more PAs in 2015 than Vaz in 2016. Vaz was not a top 8 PA guy from 2016.

 

I do give credit for his improvement. I do think Moreland did slightly better offensively and poorer defensively than I expected.

 

I had high expectations for Devers, but I will say, he did very well right out of the gate. His defense still needs work, but that's not JF's fault at all.

 

[moonslav59]

I'm not sure I'd call it a "massive and near total meltdown decline". It may be more like each player having a slightly off year.

 

Those six players averaged almost exactly 500 PA's for the year. Taking the OPS's of those six players and isolating out the OBP, each time they got on base they raised their OPS by .002. That means that Bogaert's .030 drop in OPS was the result of his reaching base 15 times fewer in 162 games, or once every 11 games or one time fewer every week and a half. I don't consider that to be the sky falling in.

 

Those six player's average OPS fell by .336. They reached base one fewer time in every ~8.5 games. I'm not at all certain that it's anything but normal fluctuation, all of which unfortunately happened in the same season and amplified the effect of it.

 

It was massive. All 8 fell by over 50 points and 6 of 8 by over 100.

 

The fact that all 8 declined while none improved makes it "melt-down caliber.

[a700hitter]

Love is real. Clutch and god are beliefs.

This is nonsense regarding clutch.

[Bellhorn04]

I included the top 2015 PA players. Go ahead and throw him out, and we still see 4 out of 5 declining- one by over 100 points.

Why count Vaz, if you don't count Holt? Holt had more PAs in 2015 than Vaz in 2016. Vaz was not a top 8 PA guy from 2016.

 

I said Vaz exceeded expectations. I think that's a fair statement.

 

Holt only had 164 PA's this year. Pretty short sample. Plus the concussion/vertigo.

[S5Dewey]

This is nonsense regarding clutch.

 

Even one of our resident statisticians said a few days ago,

 

Pom stepped it up and pitched like an ace when we really needed an ace performance. The offense stepped it up too.

 

If the ability to "step it up" isn't almost the very definition of "clutch', I don't know what is! Sheesh

[Bellhorn04]

Even one of our resident statisticians said a few days ago,

 

Pom stepped it up and pitched like an ace when we really needed an ace performance. The offense stepped it up too.

 

If the ability to "step it up" isn't almost the very definition of "clutch', I don't know what is! Sheesh

 

Well, you see, Kimmi and the SABRmetricians say clutch exists...but isn't a repeatable skill.

[a700hitter]

Well, you see, Kimmi and the SABRmetricians say clutch exists...but isn't a repeatable skill.

That not repeatable stuff is nonsense too. Nothing can be repeatable if there are other actors and variables also affecting an outcome.

[Spudboy]

That not repeatable stuff is nonsense too. Nothing can be repeatable if there are other actors and variables also affecting an outcome.

 

Boom.

 

The idea that Baseball is "such a random sport" is entirely nonsense.

 

Every f***ing play is cause and effect.

[moonslav59]

I said Vaz exceeded expectations. I think that's a fair statement.

 

Holt only had 164 PA's this year. Pretty short sample. Plus the concussion/vertigo.

 

Yes, Vaz did improve, but he was not a top 8 PA player last year.

 

Holt was a top 8 player in 2015, so I used him in that comp.

 

I realize I selected the cutoff of PAs for maximum affect with my argument. One could claim 9 of our top 10 players declined, if I counted Vaz and Beni.

 

Interesting how the only actual top 10 guy who improved this year was Travis Shaw, who was not managed by JF. Papi retired. Young was 10th and also declined by a lot.

 

I'm okay with arguing about the reasons for the massive decline, or if JF is to blame for any part of it, but I cannot agree that it was anything less than massive.

 

Listed in order of 2016 PAs

Betts .897> .803 (-94)

Bogey .802> .746 (-56)

Pedey .825> .760 (-65)

J B J .835> .726 (-109)

Ortiz .1.021>>> retired

HRam .866> .750 (-116)

TShaw .726> Milwaukee (.862 up 136)

Holt .705> . 548 (-157)

Leon .845> .644 (-101)

Young .850> .709 (-141)

Vaz .585> .735 (+150)

 

Again, the top 8 returning players- by 2016 PAs- declined by more than 55 points!

 

6 of 8 declined by over 94.

 

Vaz, at #9 last year went up 150 points. Shaw at #7 went up with another team.

 

These numbers are frightening. Yes, there are excuses for Holt, Leon, Pedey & HRam, but one still could have done slightly better or much closer to 2016 than they ended up doing. Oh for 4 was probably against the odds. Then, couple that with the fact that all the young guys declined as well, and to me, the word "massive" fits the bill.

 

(BTW, the next guy, #11 Beni, declined too, but the 2016 sample size was very small.)