sk7326

Oh I agree - I am just not going to say much based on three nights evidence

On a night to night basis, I think the game management matters - but the ones that matter the most are long-run sort of things which the staff has broken down before the game starts. The lineup card, bullpen usage and stuff. Certainly decisions have repercussions and whatnot. At the same time - for instance - Ned Yost and Mike Matheny are bad tactical managers - any cursory check of baseball social media during their games would get there - and it has often been more than offset by good players being good. It is also interesting that a couple of the most obvious examples of "active" game management - sacrifices and steals (often) often reduce run expectancy. And some of the high and mighty talk that NL fans have about strategy due to the pitcher hitting is bunk - most of those decisions are obvious.

Extremely important - but in the way that an actual manager sort is in RealJobLand. Lot of delegation, and the guys on the line (or in the cubes) are the ones who have to deliver. Manager's job is to put the workers in the right roles, and create a work environment where guys can do their best. And then there is being the public face of the team, and making sure management's vision and priorities make it onto the field. (so while nobody wants to lose, wins and losses are a very reductive way of looking at it). Francona is a favorite of mine - but it is because, of all the great coaches/managers I know in sport, he most closely resembles what a really good boss looks like in the sort of world where most of us live and work.

well the previous experience he had was as a SS (which is not a surprise since that's where your best athletes go). going from the middle to a corner is the easier adjustment than the reverse. (it is why Hanley's misadventures in LF were so surprising - it is hard to picture a SS playing an easier position so incompetently)

The vast majority of those decisions are obvious

Team started the trip in a dogfight for one of three playoff spots. That is how it's going to end. Now what stinks is all four of the losses come under the "games we wish we had back" category.

1. This is a strawman. 2. Often the numbers measure output. The human element is largely an input. There are lot of squishy things (that's why we have scouts and managers!) which work as inputs. Consistently positive measured outcomes usually are a pretty good indicator of all that human element stuff.

Always bet on the athlete. He has picked up stuff quickly. Yes, the errors at 2B are a mild concern - errors are a garbage stat, but it is what it is - but he was (if not already) bound to outgrow the position. But the percentages are for an athlete of his caliber to figure it all out.

I don't think it's that rigid. The platoon is a good place to start and let the kid dictate whether he is ready for more.

The sorts of moves you can blame a manager for to me are things like, say the Grady Little game ... because the percentages were so low. A manager cannot guarantee an outcome, but you can shift the odds. This applies with John McNamara in one of those other games which inspire expletives.

It's his third day on the job - I am okay with him being broken in gently - more to the point I am withholding judgment on these sorts of things for a little bit. If he is mothballed for the entire Dodgers series then eyebrows will be raised. I do agree with you - at least until Young returns (because Young is a proven lefty masher).

Well Benintendi and Brentz are the platoon until Young gets back ... which seems reasonable. Platoons at LF/3B best way forward for now until we know more about the Hanley thing.

I think it is somewhat moot. He will almost certainly be a September callup. And because of their guys on the DL (Sandoval, Smith, Rutledge) Moncada can be added to playoff roster without worrying about the August 31 deadline. Sox can take their time there.

He signed Espinoza - a 17 year old who has been compared without laughter to Pedro Martinez. Oh well.

Cherington and Anthopoulus would be good choices. Anthopolous got a raw deal in Toronto. Cherington had his flaws - but for building an org culture he is a good choice. A lot of really good baseball people in Boston stayed and turned down opportunities elsewhere to work for him. Surprised Jason McLeod not on early list, but you expect he will get added. He has been deserving a ride of his own for a long long time.

There is a reason that second basemen look more like Dustin Pedroia and less like Dez Bryant. Even when they signed him, there was very little chance he was going to stay in the middle infield. He was big and jacked as a 19 year old. His likely outcome was always going to be at a corner. The Sox (smartly) kept him in the middle because that is where you start any good athlete while you figure out their true level.

One more win and this 11 game trip ends up "okay". As of right now, the team's season will not end at Game 162. I also think the moves and stuff have left the Sox with a rotation which while not amazing, should give them a competitive start most nights out. The offense issues on this trip don't worry me that much - we are going through 3 historically pitching friendly parks.

I am not sure if the number is right. But I do agree with her in general that the majority of a manager's impact is the stuff we don't see. The marginal impact of the various levers he can pull during a game are fairly small. The largest parts are filling up the lineup card and managing the bullpen. Some of Farrell's moves in other areas bother me. I had some issues with whether his staff was doing its job with the players last year. But the "off the diamond stuff" part of it seems pretty solid.

As it turned out nobody - since Victorino got hurt. Here is what I saw then - the org let Ellsbury walk because they thought Bradley was ready for a full time ride. Sizemore, a former MVP candidate whose body had been falling apart limb by limb was available for a test drive. He had a really good spring and suddenly he was the starting CF. Bradley had a pretty rough one. There was a lot of irrational exuberance over Sizemore. Organizationally, they did not necessarily display the strong hands you need while kids figure out their thing. Guys like Bradley and Bogaerts weren't going to learn anything more at AAA - the adjustments needed had to take place in the Show.

Pedey needs to contact whomever is in charge of "hulking up"

The guys he was blocking needed reps - and they gave him the job due to his performance in spring, which is basically nuts

Sizemore's body was being held together by duct tape. He was the best player in the American league - in 2007. Bringing him as an extra guy made sense - to be an everyday CF in any form was not.

Well they hurt you if your team can't score. Porcello was very good last night - 3 bad pitches knocked down an excellent performance to just good. Bullpen can't complain about workload this week so far.

An itty bitty sample size caused them to demote their alleged catcher of the future - now if this is a smokescreen for "maybe he is not good" that is one thing - but if that is the actual logic, it is pretty darn silly. It is hard to give them a ton of credit for not selling low on Bradley - and then his second half of 2015 made that obvious. Dustin Pedroia's 31 games in 2006 showed no indicator he could actually play baseball for a living - he was really really bad at most aspects of the game. A lot of the emergency of Bogaerts and Bradley have just been a function of playing and getting reps, things which were monkeyed with unnecessarily in 2014. The post-Epstein management has been more inclined to make decisions with small sample sizes (note that Sizemore beat out Bradley for the CF job in spring 2014, which made no sense on any level ... and Middlebrooks being anointed the future on a small BABIP Spiked sample) - an urge for microwave prospects who fulfill John Sickels predictions instantly, instead of trusting their evaluations and doing the hard PR job of taking the slings and arrows from the press.

I don't think it's that cut and dried ... but he has been an AL MVP level performer this season. He and Bogaerts have had that level of season - Ortiz has been that level offensively, and Pedroia has been really damn good.