The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[notin]

I'm starting to feel like Boston should have kept Farrell. I was the first person to bad mouth Farrell when he was in Boston, but I think he was more knowledgeable pitching wise. I don't think Cora knows when to pull a pitcher out exactly...I mean I would have pulled Porcello a run earlier than he was today. Thankfully, they scored enough runs to cover the mistake. Overall, I don't think Farrell was good enough to win another world series but he may have been better than Cora. I do think the team needs to adjust to not having Farrell as well. Overall, I think Farrell was a better fit as a manager because of his knowledge about handling pitching. I think Cora would be better as a hitting coach but its too late now I guess.

 

Are you actually arguing the manager does not know how to handle pitchers because he left the starter in for too long while he had an EIGHT RUN LEAD IN THE EIGHTH INNING?!?!!?

[moonslav59]

Are you actually arguing the manager does not know how to handle pitchers because he left the starter in for too long while he had an EIGHT RUN LEAD IN THE EIGHTH INNING?!?!!?

 

Core should be fired for PH'ing Swihart for the red hot HRam in the 8th!

 

Sarcasm alert.

[Bellhorn04]

I like it.

 

I'll get it started some time this week.

[Kimmi]

Sorry - I might be inclined to buy into this if the teams were exactly the same in addition to the umpires and their calls - the time of day or night of each game was the same - the teams they played in 2013 were the exact same teams and players that they faced last year etc. . etc, etc.

There are so many things that change form year to year that I can't buy your theory of randomness trumping skill at all. Randomness of course plays a role but teams that have good players and are also well coached get "lucky" a whole lot more than those that aren't prepared as well. Obviously I don't think that it is all luck. Teams that are better prepared often times make their own luck. I have never thought at all about the concept of winning games in any sport as a repeatable skill. A good coach emphasizes repeatable skills daily that enable teams to win games.

 

The umpires and their calls, the time of day or night of the game, and strength of schedule are actually all random factors which affect the outcome of a game. Kind of my point. If you had a different umpire in a one run game, with all other things remaining the same, it's very likely that you would have had a different outcome

 

If a game is won by 5 runs, you can be pretty sure, but not 100% sure, that the random factors were not significant factors in the outcome of the game.

 

If the game is decided by one run, you can be pretty sure that the random factors played a significant role in the outcome of the game.

[Kimmi]

Definitely. You always hear about the concept of being only as good as that day's starting pitcher, and that any given day, anything can happen. At the end of the day, these are all professional hitters and pitchers, capable of putting on a masterful performance. I think that Opening Day loss was a great example of that, and it was good to be humbled so early in the season. Yes, we have talent. Yes, we are probably a playoff team regardless. But being able to respect our opponent will prevent extended cold spells and some of the dumb losses we had last year.

 

Exactly. A team should never take any opponent lightly.

[OH FOY]

Farrell was a robot. 100 pitches or 7 innings, whatever came first. No feel for the game. Some Pitchers get stronger as game goes on. Might be only for that day, but you should be seeing this. Not assuming, he is done because of Pitch Counts, or Innings.

[cp176]

The umpires and their calls, the time of day or night of the game, and strength of schedule are actually all random factors which affect the outcome of a game. Kind of my point. If you had a different umpire in a one run game, with all other things remaining the same, it's very likely that you would have had a different outcome

 

If a game is won by 5 runs, you can be pretty sure, but not 100% sure, that the random factors were not significant factors in the outcome of the game.

 

If the game is decided by one run, you can be pretty sure that the random factors played a significant role in the outcome of the game.

 

I thought that when I posted this that you might feel this way. I 'm really not arguing whether randomness in athletics exists or not. Of course it does as does luck. We have spun around on this one before- you like to be able to quantify with supportable mathematical statistics. Not me so much. I believe in using statistical data to help my teams improve and be better but I readily accept what probably every coach I have been around truly believes and one of those things is that teams that are better prepared mentally and physically tend to be better when the game is on the line than their opponents are. Many coaches today would not coach if they did not believe this.

[Bellhorn04]

Farrell was a robot. 100 pitches or 7 innings, whatever came first. No feel for the game. Some Pitchers get stronger as game goes on. Might be only for that day, but you should be seeing this. Not assuming, he is done because of Pitch Counts, or Innings.

 

I disagree, I thought Farrell was generally fine with how he handled the pitching changes.

 

As far as looking strong is concerned, Sale looked strong as an ox in that game he reached 300 K's. But in retrospect it might have been a good idea to pull him sooner.

 

A lot of it's always going to be guesswork anyway.

[Emp9]

If you really attribute that type of hit to skill versus luck, then we are so far apart in our opinions that it's not even worth discussing. I don't mean that with any disrespect Emp, I just don't even know what else to say.

 

All I’m really trying to do is introduce the universally accepted definition of random. I question your grasp on the definition. Are there Craps leagues for 5 year olds, like T-ball? No. Besides really bad parenting, on multiple levels, it would prove fruitless. No one can get better at rolling dice. Or flipping a coin. You can’t teach someone to win the lottery. Correct?

 

Sports on the other hand, baseball in particular, one can learn and improve both physically and mentally. One can make better bets AND most importantly, actually “roll the dice better”.

 

We’re really not that far apart on this as much as you might think, but I’m certainly not in 100% agreement with you. Not on frequency. Not on amount.

[moonslav59]

All I’m really trying to do is introduce the universally accepted definition of random. I question your grasp on the definition. Are there Craps leagues for 5 year olds, like T-ball? No. Besides really bad parenting, on multiple levels, it would prove fruitless. No one can get better at rolling dice. Or flipping a coin. You can’t teach someone to win the lottery. Correct?

 

Sports on the other hand, baseball in particular, one can learn and improve both physically and mentally. One can make better bets AND most importantly, actually “roll the dice better”.

 

We’re really not that far apart on this as much as you might think, but I’m certainly not in 100% agreement with you. Not on frequency. Not on amount.

 

Actually, there are ways you can be taught to win some lotteries...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students-gamed-the-lottery/470349/

[moonslav59]

Farrell was a robot. 100 pitches or 7 innings, whatever came first. No feel for the game.

 

All that, and our starters still were burnt out by playoff time.

 

One could argue, he should have been a "robot" at 6 IP or 90 pitches.

[Bellhorn04]

Actually, there are ways you can be taught to win some lotteries...

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/how-mit-students-gamed-the-lottery/470349/

 

This is where some smart folks notice an overlooked flaw in the way a game is set up.

 

Much like finding a loophole in the tax code.

[notin]

All that, and our starters still were burnt out by playoff time.

 

One could argue, he should have been a "robot" at 6 IP or 90 pitches.

 

And when did pitch counts become such a bad idea? The number of games lost by being cautious with starters is probably significantly less than the number list by reporting to replacement level or below pitchers. ..

[Maxbialystock]

Farrell was a robot. 100 pitches or 7 innings, whatever came first. No feel for the game. Some Pitchers get stronger as game goes on. Might be only for that day, but you should be seeing this. Not assuming, he is done because of Pitch Counts, or Innings.

 

He was a former pitching coach who knew that accumulated pitches for a season were and are a factor. If anything, last year he let Sale, in his first year with the Sox, throw too many innings and pitches in the first four months.

 

There is a reason why every MLB manager has 12 pitchers on his 25 man roster and just 13 position players.

[moonslav59]

And when did pitch counts become such a bad idea? The number of games lost by being cautious with starters is probably significantly less than the number list by reporting to replacement level or below pitchers. ..

 

Agreed.

 

I never had issues with JF and our pitchers.

[a700hitter]

You have a lot to learn about the sport of bowling. The lanes do not stay exactly the same. The oil pattern is constantly changing due to the lighting, room temperature, and the balls rolling down the lanes. The bowlers have to constantly make adjustments, including ball changes.

 

When the pins are set, they can sometimes be off spot. A pin being off spot by just a millimeter can be the difference between a strike and a 10 pin.

 

Sometimes a bowler can throw a great shot, and leave a ringing 10 pin or a stone 7 pin. Bad luck. Sometimes a bowler can throw a bad shot and get a strike. Good luck.

 

Bowling is not nearly as random as baseball, but it has its randomness.

 

Throwing the same shot is a repeatable skill, despite not always getting the same result.

Ball changes? How many balls does a champion professional bowler use? They get sufficient reps with each of their balls so that it is not a problem. Also if they Bowl 5-6 games on a lane in a day, there is no variation in the lane or other external factors. The reason why the bowler doesn’t bowl a 300 in every game with his highly repeatable skill is that he is human and that his performance (although refined enough to reach the professional level) still varies. When a professional bowler leaves the 7 or the 10, he doesn’t bemoan his bad luck. He knows that his ball needs to be an inch or two in one direction or the other. Only the amateurs whine about luck. The professionals know that they didn’t throw the exact same ball that gave them a strike.

 

Similarly, teams that win more close than they lose is attributable to individual and collective skill. Your assertion that it is the product of random luck is bogus. The outcomes appear to be random when viewed as data, but the game is not played by data or chance rolls of the dice. The game is played by humans at a high skill level and skill is the major determining factor. Sorry, but it is instances like this where you sabremetrician wannabes go off the rails into crazy town. It makes it hard to take any of you seriously.

[a700hitter]

Repeatable skill means that there is some statistical correlation between records in one run games and overall records, and/or some correlation from season to season or even from the first half of the season to the second half of the season.

 

Yes, I am saying that given the same or similar teams, winning 1-2 run games would not be repeatable. Winning 4+ run games would be.

Every part of this post is bogus starting with the definition of “repeatable skill.”

[Spudboy]

Ball changes? How many balls does a champion professional bowler use? They get sufficient reps with each of their balls so that it is not a problem. Also if they Bowl 5-6 games on a lane in a day, there is no variation in the lane or other external factors. The reason why the bowler doesn’t bowl a 300 in every game with his highly repeatable skill is that he is human and that his performance (although refined enough to reach the professional level) still varies. When a professional bowler leaves the 7 or the 10, he doesn’t bemoan his bad luck. He knows that his ball needs to be an inch or two in one direction or the other. Only the amateurs whine about luck. The professionals know that they didn’t throw the exact same ball that gave them a strike.

 

Similarly, teams that win more close than they lose is attributable to individual and collective skill. Your assertion that it is the product of random luck is bogus. The outcomes appear to be random when viewed as data, but the game is not played by data or chance rolls of the dice. The game is played by humans at a high skill level and skill is the major determining factor. Sorry, but it is instances like this where you sabremetrician wannabes go off the rails into crazy town. It makes it hard to take any of you seriously.

 

Lol.

 

Post of the day.

[S5Dewey]

lol.

 

Post of the day.

 

yup!!

[Dalas21000]

Are you actually arguing the manager does not know how to handle pitchers because he left the starter in for too long while he had an EIGHT RUN LEAD IN THE EIGHTH INNING?!?!!?

 

It didn't matter yesterday....But in a close game against a better team it will

[Dalas21000]

It was a 10-2 game in the 8th. Who cares whether Porcello gave up another run after 7 excellent innings?

 

This pitching staff has the lowest ERA ever for a Sox team—granted, just the first eight games—and you think Cora is clueless?

 

I'm not saying he's clueless, but why leave someone in the game any longer than you need to? From what I remember, Porcello had notoriously been about a 7 inning pitcher. Couldn't the bullpen have finished up the last 2?

[Dalas21000]

Farrell was an excellent pitching coach. It's too bad we couldn't have kept him there, but you can't blame a guy for wanting to be the manager.

 

If we were able have both that'd be awesome I think. But Cora probably wouldn't have come here just to be a hitting coach and Farrell had already been released.

[Dalas21000]

I disagree, I thought Farrell was generally fine with how he handled the pitching changes.

 

As far as looking strong is concerned, Sale looked strong as an ox in that game he reached 300 K's. But in retrospect it might have been a good idea to pull him sooner.

 

A lot of it's always going to be guesswork anyway.

 

I agree, especially considering Farrels experience as a Pitching Coach etc, I think he did well in that area. I think Cora brings insight in other ways, but for Pitching changes, I don't think Farrell could have done any better. And I don't think Cora will be as precise in that area.

[devildavid]

It didn't matter yesterday....But in a close game against a better team it will

 

And Cora will manage the close games differently.

[Natick to NC]

Well I can't kill the man for today's outcome but I'll say this ........I never and I mean never everrrrr ....everrrrrr want to see JDM manning any and I repeat anyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy position other than DH on this team ....id rather the man pitched 3 innings .

[moonslav59]

Well I can't kill the man for today's outcome but I'll say this ........I never and I mean never everrrrr ....everrrrrr want to see JDM manning any and I repeat anyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy position other than DH on this team ....id rather the man pitched 3 innings .

 

So, does that mean you want Swihart in LF, so you can bench JBJ for good?

[Natick to NC]

So, does that mean you want Swihart in LF, so you can bench JBJ for good?

 

Moon be nice ...don't poke me lol I never want Swihart near that wall .

Edited April 8, 2018 by Natick to NC

[S5Dewey]

There were at least three plays that Beni didn't make today that JBJ would have either made or had a good shot at making and at least two of them led to the Rays scoring runs. I don't want to hear any more of that crap about how moving Beni to CF isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Yes, the Sox won today but they're not going to be playing the Rays every day and every run saved against those other teams is going to count.

 

I'm not one to dump on a manger BUT if I see that defensive OF out there again I may change my policy on that. Today's win does not justify having that outfield (read JDM) out there. JDM is shaky in LF and I've seen JBJ play and Beni is no JBJ.

[moonslav59]

There were at least three plays that Beni didn't make today that JBJ would have either made or had a good shot at making and at least two of them led to the Rays scoring runs. I don't want to hear any more of that crap about how moving Beni to CF isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Yes, the Sox won today but they're not going to be playing the Rays every day and every run saved against those other teams is going to count.

 

I'm not one to dump on a manger BUT if I see that defensive OF out there again I may change my policy on that. Today's win does not justify having that outfield (read JDM) out there. JDM is shaky in LF and I've seen JBJ play and Beni is no JBJ.

 

+ 1000

[Maxbialystock]

There were at least three plays that Beni didn't make today that JBJ would have either made or had a good shot at making and at least two of them led to the Rays scoring runs. I don't want to hear any more of that crap about how moving Beni to CF isn't going to make that much of a difference.

Yes, the Sox won today but they're not going to be playing the Rays every day and every run saved against those other teams is going to count.

 

I'm not one to dump on a manger BUT if I see that defensive OF out there again I may change my policy on that. Today's win does not justify having that outfield (read JDM) out there. JDM is shaky in LF and I've seen JBJ play and Beni is no JBJ.

 

Agree JBJ makes a difference in the OF, especially in comparison to Beni.