Farrell

[a700hitter]

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying. I think it's probably good to have "roles," but also that sometimes the manager needs to be flexible based on game situations.

We would like to see more flexibility in response to game situations, but most managers like to assign roles these days. Speaking for myself, I would prefer Kelly as the 8th inning guy and Barnes as the 7th. I also don't like this 3 outs and next pitcher mentality. If Barnes comes in for the 7th and he is pumping strikes, I would send him back out for the 8th and then hand the ball to Kimbrel. That would leave Kelly rested enough to pitch 2 innings the next night. If Kelly got in trouble in the 7th on night 2, maybe you can go to Barnes for an inning or mix an match until you get to Kimbrel. If a guy breezes through an inning, I don't see the sense of going for another arm that might not have his stuff or location. The more times you role the dice the more likely you are to crap out.

[Bellhorn04]

On the topic of bullpen management, I watched last night's game on MLB Network with Costas and Jim Kaat. Kimbrel was warming up for the 9th and then Boyer joined him as the Sox were rallying, and then Kimbrel sat down when the Sox made it 9-4. Kaat made an excellent point about why managers will often bring in the closer in those situations even if the team does score some insurance runs. He pointed out that if Boyer gets in trouble, Kimbrel has to get up and warm up all over again, which takes some extra toll on his arm. Edited June 24, 2017 by Bellhorn04

[oldtimer]

On the topic of bullpen management, I watched last night's game on MLB Network with Costas and Jim Kaat. Kimbrel was warming up for the 9th and then Boyer joined him as the Sox were rallying, and then Kimbrel sat down when the Sox made it 9-4. Kaat made an excellent point about why managers will often bring in the closer in those situations even if the team does score some insurance runs. He pointed out that if Boyer gets in trouble, Kimbrel has to get and warm up all over again, which takes some extra toll on his arm.

 

That was a good point but last night I don't think Kimbrel fully warmed up. He lobbed a couple and then sat back down. Good win last night by the way.

[S5Dewey]

We would like to see more flexibility in response to game situations, but most managers like to assign roles these days. Speaking for myself, I would prefer Kelly as the 8th inning guy and Barnes as the 7th. I also don't like this 3 outs and next pitcher mentality. If Barnes comes in for the 7th and he is pumping strikes, I would send him back out for the 8th and then hand the ball to Kimbrel. That would leave Kelly rested enough to pitch 2 innings the next night. If Kelly got in trouble in the 7th on night 2, maybe you can go to Barnes for an inning or mix an match until you get to Kimbrel. If a guy breezes through an inning, I don't see the sense of going for another arm that might not have his stuff or location. The more times you role the dice the more likely you are to crap out.

 

Excellent point. I remember Jim Leyland in the playoffs continually replacing pitchers who were doing the job until he found one who couldn't.

[cp176]

We would like to see more flexibility in response to game situations, but most managers like to assign roles these days. Speaking for myself, I would prefer Kelly as the 8th inning guy and Barnes as the 7th. I also don't like this 3 outs and next pitcher mentality. If Barnes comes in for the 7th and he is pumping strikes, I would send him back out for the 8th and then hand the ball to Kimbrel. That would leave Kelly rested enough to pitch 2 innings the next night. If Kelly got in trouble in the 7th on night 2, maybe you can go to Barnes for an inning or mix an match until you get to Kimbrel. If a guy breezes through an inning, I don't see the sense of going for another arm that might not have his stuff or location. The more times you role the dice the more likely you are to crap out.

 

it is exactly what I have been trying to say. I don't think this sort of strict adherence to prescribed roles is even good for the game.

[Bellhorn04]

Excellent point. I remember Jim Leyland in the playoffs continually replacing pitchers who were doing the job until he found one who couldn't.

 

I don't know if you've ever read Phil Mushnick's stuff in the New York Post, but he uses those exact words when he complains about the way managers do things now.

[S5Dewey]

I don't know if you've ever read Phil Mushnick's stuff in the New York Post, but he uses those exact words when he complains about the way managers do things now.

 

Damn... and I thought that line was original, too.

[a700hitter]

Damn... and I thought that line was original, too.

When I use the line, I will credit you. Mushnick probably was trolling TalkSox and stole it from you. Cafardo and other Boston beat writers troll us here and use our ideas/ phrases etc. I am certain of it. They should just give credit once in a while. Scavengers.

[cp176]

When I use the line, I will credit you. Mushnick probably was trolling TalkSox and stole it from you. Cafardo and other Boston beat writers troll us here and use our ideas/ phrases etc. I am certain of it. They should just give credit once in a while. Scavengers.

 

Just going to suggest that Alex Speir (sp) isn't using any of my little pearls of wisdom.

[a700hitter]

Just going to suggest that Alex Speir (sp) isn't using any of my little pearls of wisdom.

Speier is also a scavenger but too nerdy to use your stuff.

[S5Dewey]

When I use the line, I will credit you. Mushnick probably was trolling TalkSox and stole it from you. Cafardo and other Boston beat writers troll us here and use our ideas/ phrases etc. I am certain of it. They should just give credit once in a while. Scavengers.

 

I've often suspected that the writers sometimes come to places like this for ideas for columns. Also, O'B said something recently that made me wonder if he'd been reading TalkSox.

 

And BTW, feel free to use that phrase as if it were yours. I don't have a copyright on it.

[a700hitter]

I've often suspected that the writers sometimes come to places like this for ideas for columns. Also, O'B said something recently that made me wonder if he'd been reading TalkSox.

 

And BTW, feel free to use that phrase as if it were yours. I don't have a copyright on it.

The thing about worrying if Pedroia was being underappreciated? He might as well have mentioned MVP in his remarks.

[Spudboy]

I have had conversations with media types, writers, personalities, blah blah.

 

They know of Talksox if I mention it.

[a700hitter]

I have had conversations with media types, writers, personalities, blah blah.

 

They know of Talksox if I mention it.

I am pretty sure that Steve Lyons comes here. I started using a phrase to refer to pitchers with no stuff. I would say that they were throwing puss. Not long afterward on a post-game Lyons used the term when describing a pitcher. LOL!! Who uses that term? Not some of my better work, Steve. Send me a PM and i will give you some catchy phrases.

[Kimmi]

Well, even the dumbest of managerial moves only affects the outcome .01% of the time.

 

He also only has 12 holds out of those 22 times.

 

First off, if you're going to quote me, especially in a sarcastic nature, at least do so correctly.

 

Barnes may only have 12 Holds, which is a stupid stat, but he has been effective in those Hold situations. In other words, he is not blowing the Holds, which actually get recorded as blown saves.

 

I don't disagree about moving Kelly to the 8th inning, but while Barnes is not always efficient, he is getting the job done for the most part.

[Kimmi]

Yes, I would like to hear Kimmi's comments on this because it's kind of central to this whole issue about whether the manager has any impact or not.

 

Well, no one ever said that a manager doesn't have any impact. The impact of in game decisions is just not as significant as you think it is. I would have gone with Kimbrel once Barnes walked the first two batters because it was the % move, IMO. And even though the % difference in win expectancy is not large at all, that doesn't mean you shouldn't go with the % move.

 

That said, keep in mind that every move has a not only a positive impact, but also a negative impact in some other way. For instance, if Kimbrel is used in the 8th and can't pitch in the 9th, then there is a negative impact in the 9th. This makes the overall impact of a manager's move even smaller. Therefore, it really is not correct to say that Farrell cost the team that win. It takes way more than one 'bad' decision to cost a win.

 

It goes against the human way of thinking, but it's all about win expectancy and the inability to know what would have happened in the game had the other decision been made.

 

If you're interested, here is a very good read on manager's decision making impact with some actual numbers:

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/10/21/9574081/the-impact-of-managerial-mistakes

[Kimmi]

if Kelly is throwing strikes, I would try to get 2 innings out of him in each outing.

 

I often wonder about a manager taking a reliever out after only one inning when that reliever just dominated in the inning. If Kelly takes the side down in order on 10 pitches, why not leave him in or another inning?

 

I know there are valid reasons for not leaving him in, but I have questioned this before.

[SoxHop]

I often wonder about a manager taking a reliever out after only one inning when that reliever just dominated in the inning. If Kelly takes the side down in order on 10 pitches, why not leave him in or another inning?

 

I know there are valid reasons for not leaving him in, but I have questioned this before.

 

I saw the Rangers lose a World Series because of that foolishness

[Maxbialystock]

Since the title of this thread is Farrell, I have to think at least some of the discussion about how to use the bullpen relates to him. Moving Barnes to the 7th inning and Kelly to the 8th is fine with me, but I would hardly call it a big fix. Indeed, in most games where the bullpen is key, both of them get in there. On top of that, the bullpen has done pretty darn well so far this season and clearly is not in need of major surgery.

 

About that other topic--rotating relievers thru an inning at a time. I used to believe--devoutly--that it was sheer idiocy. If one reliever is clearly going great guns, leave him in, I say. These days, however, I'm not so sure. Oh, it still makes sense for anybody going in in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, or even the 6th inning. But after that I suspect "roles" make some sense. And don't forget that the manager still has the option of pulling whoever goes in when he doesn't have it.

[Nick]

A f***ing hit and run with our .153 hitter, with no out on first pitch?

 

Are we that stupid? WHAT THE f***?

[oldtimer]

A f***ing hit and run with our .153 hitter, with no out on first pitch?

step

Are we that stupid? WHAT THE f***?

 

Marrero is not a contact hitting and Vazquez doesn't run well so it was a highly questionable decision. I think playing Marrero at third is also a questionable decision given that he seems helpless at the plate. Time for either Lin or Devers to step in.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe

 

John Farrell suspended one game for poking umpire Bill Miller on Saturday. Gary DiSarcina has the #RedSox tonight.

[Dojji]

I often wonder about a manager taking a reliever out after only one inning when that reliever just dominated in the inning. If Kelly takes the side down in order on 10 pitches, why not leave him in or another inning?

 

I know there are valid reasons for not leaving him in, but I have questioned this before.

 

It depends on whether you might need him later. If you're in the bottom of your rotation and have your warhorses going in the next couple days it's easier to take that risk, because if you've used someone for 2 innings it's probably the course of wisdom not to trot him out there in the next game if you can avoid it.

 

Because the problem with increasing a pitcher's workload in any one game is that you can NOT turn around and increase the reliever's TOTAL workload. So using him more in one inning in any given situation means using him in fewer situations. There's costs and benefits associated with that that need to be weighted accurately if you don't want it to blow up on you.

 

Unless this game is strategically far above the mean in terms of importance though, it's rarely worth it to risk poisoning the well. And the tragedy of the commons needs to be managed against. 2 innings this game and 2 the next followed by another 2 is not worth elbow soreness next week and 30-40 plus games missed by the playoffs. It just isn't.

 

I wish "use your best relievers for all the innings ever" was an actionable decision and a valid option that wouldn't have drawbacks later in the season or even wreck the reliever's career too, but I learned a long time ago that just because I want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Dojji

[Behindenemylines]

I have to question Farrell's handling of the pitching staff. For example, in Sunday game he had told the media that Fister was on a 90 pitch count. He then sent him back out after passing 90 pitches and Fister did not get another out. The hit and run the other day with a .153 hitter who is now lost at the plate was an another bone head call as well.

[Dojji]

Two really minor things if I may say so. Managers make a million decisions, even a good manager has a error rate in the 30% range, that means that if you nitpick any manager you're going to find things not to like.

 

Every manager with a handful of exceptions makes roughly the same number of mistakes. If you arbitrarily decide to like a manager you brush past that stuff, if you arbitrarily decide you don't like him, these little mistakes instantly start galling you, it has nothing to do with his performance and everything to do with how human prejudice works. That's why I try to avoid prejudicing myself against any manager, it colors every conclusion I draw thereafter.

[Kimmi]

It depends on whether you might need him later. If you're in the bottom of your rotation and have your warhorses going in the next couple days it's easier to take that risk, because if you've used someone for 2 innings it's probably the course of wisdom not to trot him out there in the next game if you can avoid it.

 

Because the problem with increasing a pitcher's workload in any one game is that you can NOT turn around and increase the reliever's TOTAL workload. So using him more in one inning in any given situation means using him in fewer situations. There's costs and benefits associated with that that need to be weighted accurately if you don't want it to blow up on you.

 

Unless this game is strategically far above the mean in terms of importance though, it's rarely worth it to risk poisoning the well. And the tragedy of the commons needs to be managed against. 2 innings this game and 2 the next followed by another 2 is not worth elbow soreness next week and 30-40 plus games missed by the playoffs. It just isn't.

 

I wish "use your best relievers for all the innings ever" was an actionable decision and a valid option that wouldn't have drawbacks later in the season or even wreck the reliever's career too, but I learned a long time ago that just because I want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

 

I get all that. I just think that perhaps in a really close game, if a reliever like Kelly looks that dominant, let him come out for another inning. I realize he may not be available for the next game, but we'll worry about that when the time comes.

 

Your point about who's coming up in the rotation is a valid one.

[a700hitter]

I get all that. I just think that perhaps in a really close game, if a reliever like Kelly looks that dominant, let him come out for another inning. I realize he may not be available for the next game, but we'll worry about that when the time comes.

 

Your point about who's coming up in the rotation is a valid one.

If you let the reliever pitch a second inning and he is not available the next night, there should be a pitcher who is getting the night off who is available the following night for 1 or 2 innings.

[Bellhorn04]

Or, the guy who pitched so well in that first inning of work might pitch like crap in the second inning, which has certainly been known to happen. I'm not strongly for or against the general idea. It'd work sometimes and sometimes it'd get f***ed up, like most strategies in baseball.

[Dojji]

I think the point about the tragedy of the commons is the most important issue I'm putting out there. The one thing you can't do is make the decision based solely on the in game situation. You never WANT to have a lesser arm in there with the game on the line, but if you're managing for the season you have to do it sometimes. And if you're not managing the bullpen for the season rather than the game, your top relievers will all have dead arms by the time you need them most. That actually happened to us in 2003, it was one of the reasons we all got Gumped, Grady mismanaged his pen over the course of the year and couldn't trust them in game 7 so he overworked his starter and got burnt for it.

 

The fact is that it's going to be very hard to accurately pick which times to put the hammer down and leave a given reliever in extra long and when you don't need to. Quite frankly ideally your bullpen is so deep that the need to force any reliever to the edge of his endurance in any one outing is pretty rare, whether that means you follow Hembree with Kelly with Kimbrel 2-3 nights in a row, or bridge Hembree to Kimbel one night, Kelly to Kimbrel the next and then back to Hembree. At the end of the day it's the same number of total innings so depending on what each reliever is comfortable with it can be a distinction without a difference -- unless of course your bullpen is so shallow that any effort at bullpen management is an exercise in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. In which case it still doesn't matter.

 

The niceties of bullpen management only ever seem to get debated when the bullpen blows the lead anyway, and that leads to a lot of argument from the outcome. I don't think I see any greater number, depth and severity of logical fallacies on this or any other forum than I do when the bullpen blows a game late. At the end of the day if all of your relievers are doing their jobs it almost doesn't matter who's pitching. And if one or a few of them are not, that's the problem rather than when those arms are in the game.

[a700hitter]

Or, the guy who pitched so well in that first inning of work might pitch like crap in the second inning, which has certainly been known to happen. I'm not strongly for or against the general idea. It'd work sometimes and sometimes it'd get f***ed up, like most strategies in baseball.

Sure that can happen, but if the guy is really throwing the ball well and commanding his pitches, I would rather take my chances with him going another inning than bringing in a new arm from the pen. That's just me.

 

Tonight, Alex Cobb was throwing a beauty against the Pirates. They didn't even get a hit against him until the 7th inning and Cobb got them 1-2-3 in the 8th inning and had 96 pitches. The Pirates were helpless all night long. Cobb had it on cruise control, but Cash managing to formula went to his closer to start the 9th. The Pirates hitters were no longer helpless against the closer and got a couple of doubles to tie the game. Colome is not Kimbrel. I thought it was a dumb move and turned off the game before Colome threw a pitch. So many dumb managers.