SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Farrell to remain Manager if health permits
|
Post by jmei on Oct 14, 2015 8:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2015 9:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Oct 14, 2015 11:37:42 GMT -5
I wonder how this will impact Dave and Mike in relation to in game management in 2016. I doubt there will be interference but there will likely be subtle guidance. At least I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 14, 2015 12:16:31 GMT -5
Bad science begets inaccurate results that leads to flawed expert analysis. Methodology is EVERYTHING. The determination of "best relievers" begins with corporate culture and their conviction to build and maintain a world class bullpen. This has not been the case for the Red Sox. Gorman, Duquette, Epstein, Cherrington were never known to either invest in, or specifically develop internal bullpen expertise. It has ALWAYS been catch as catch can. THE ONLY REAL closers the Red Sox ever developed came about through happenstance; Radatz, Lyle and Papelbon. Of those three Radatz flamed out early while playing for poor teams, Lyle was traded for "offense" (and went on to win a Cy Young award as a reliever), Papelbon (originally a starter) closed out a world series but was allowed to walk in free agency rather than being offered market value by the Red Sox. In short the commitment was never really their. Now we have a decision maker who has NEVER built (let alone maintained) a world class bullpen. The question at hand is not about Farrell (or Lovullo) it is about managements' commitment to staffing a bullpen with the best relievers available. Whether those relievers are developed in house, bought through free agency, or traded for. The decision on when and how to use each reliever becomes much easier the greater the choice of quality arms the field manager has at his disposal. It becomes really easy to second guess, when the manager has very few quality arms to choose from and is constantly at risk of burning out those arms due to lack of quality depth.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2015 13:29:22 GMT -5
Bad science begets inaccurate results that leads to flawed expert analysis. Methodology is EVERYTHING. The determination of "best relievers" begins with corporate culture and their conviction to build and maintain a world class bullpen. This has not been the case for the Red Sox. Gorman, Duquette, Epstein, Cherrington were never known to either invest in, or specifically develop internal bullpen expertise. It has ALWAYS been catch as catch can. THE ONLY REAL closers the Red Sox ever developed came about through happenstance; Radatz, Lyle and Papelbon. Of those three Radatz flamed out early while playing for poor teams, Lyle was traded for "offense" (and went on to win a Cy Young award as a reliever), Papelbon (originally a starter) closed out a world series but was allowed to walk in free agency rather than being offered market value by the Red Sox. In short the commitment was never really their. Now we have a decision maker who has NEVER built (let alone maintained) a world class bullpen. The question at hand is not about Farrell (or Lovullo) it is about managements' commitment to staffing a bullpen with the best relievers available. Whether those relievers are developed in house, bought through free agency, or traded for. The decision on when and how to use each reliever becomes much easier the greater the choice of quality arms the field manager has at his disposal. It becomes really easy to second guess, when the manager has very few quality arms to choose from and is constantly at risk of burning out those arms due to lack of quality depth. Regardless of how good or bad a bullpen is, the manager can be judged on how he uses it, unless you have a bullpen of 8 identical relief pitchers who fare the same vs. LH batters and RH batters.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Oct 14, 2015 13:50:39 GMT -5
Bad science begets inaccurate results that leads to flawed expert analysis. Methodology is EVERYTHING. The determination of "best relievers" begins with corporate culture and their conviction to build and maintain a world class bullpen. This has not been the case for the Red Sox. Gorman, Duquette, Epstein, Cherrington were never known to either invest in, or specifically develop internal bullpen expertise. It has ALWAYS been catch as catch can. THE ONLY REAL closers the Red Sox ever developed came about through happenstance; Radatz, Lyle and Papelbon. Of those three Radatz flamed out early while playing for poor teams, Lyle was traded for "offense" (and went on to win a Cy Young award as a reliever), Papelbon (originally a starter) closed out a world series but was allowed to walk in free agency rather than being offered market value by the Red Sox. In short the commitment was never really their. Now we have a decision maker who has NEVER built (let alone maintained) a world class bullpen. The question at hand is not about Farrell (or Lovullo) it is about managements' commitment to staffing a bullpen with the best relievers available. Whether those relievers are developed in house, bought through free agency, or traded for. The decision on when and how to use each reliever becomes much easier the greater the choice of quality arms the field manager has at his disposal. It becomes really easy to second guess, when the manager has very few quality arms to choose from and is constantly at risk of burning out those arms due to lack of quality depth. Regardless of how good or bad a bullpen is, the manager can be judged on how he uses it, unless you have a bullpen of 8 identical relief pitchers who fare the same vs. LH batters and RH batters. First, the Sox also let Miller walk, but the also tried for a solid Pen with Gagne, Bailey, Melancon and whatisname. On the other hand, even a pen of middling or fatigued relievers can be use effectively, situationally, to maximize efficiency and ensure success. Warming up and using Taz and Koji in blowouts where another RP would be better used. Bringing in Breslow, etc with inherited runners on base. Pitching Ogando to power lefties (or righties). Stats and common sense seem to mesh here pretty well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 14:01:32 GMT -5
Righteous. People shouldn't lose their job because of illness, no matter the occupation. Illness is not why people want to get rid of Farrell. I'm not sure personally. I've always been suspicious of Farrell's ability to handle young players, and it is kind of interesting how the team's young core seemed to blossom as soon as he left, but clearly there's other reasons for it working out that way. Still though, nothing that's happened since he's been gone indicates that Farrell is essential to the future success of this organization. Spot on Jerry. Unfortunately, a lot of other people subscribe to a vulture mentality. The body is still warm and they're already fighting over grandma's possessions. In contrast, Red Sox ownership and management and Torey Lovullo have all handled this entire situation with the kind of class and dignity you'd expect from a top notch organization.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 14, 2015 14:06:27 GMT -5
Illness is not why people want to get rid of Farrell. I'm not sure personally. I've always been suspicious of Farrell's ability to handle young players, and it is kind of interesting how the team's young core seemed to blossom as soon as he left, but clearly there's other reasons for it working out that way. Still though, nothing that's happened since he's been gone indicates that Farrell is essential to the future success of this organization. Spot on Jerry. Unfortunately, a lot of other people subscribe to a vulture mentality. The body is still warm and they're already fighting over grandma's possessions. In contrast, Red Sox ownership and management and Torey Lovullo have all handled this entire situation with the kind of class and dignity you'd expect from a top notch organization. Disagree fully. Farrell was on his way out and illness shouldn't be what keeps him on this job.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2015 14:06:29 GMT -5
Illness is not why people want to get rid of Farrell. I'm not sure personally. I've always been suspicious of Farrell's ability to handle young players, and it is kind of interesting how the team's young core seemed to blossom as soon as he left, but clearly there's other reasons for it working out that way. Still though, nothing that's happened since he's been gone indicates that Farrell is essential to the future success of this organization. Spot on Jerry. Unfortunately, a lot of other people subscribe to a vulture mentality. The body is still warm and they're already fighting over grandma's possessions. In contrast, Red Sox ownership and management and Torey Lovullo have all handled this entire situation with the kind of class and dignity you'd expect from a top notch organization. It's not genuine to leave out the fact that many of us wanted him fired before he was diagnosed with cancer. Now he can't be fired precisely because of cancer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2015 14:12:42 GMT -5
Yeah, literally nobody here is saying "he got lymphoma - get rid of him!" My guess is not a single person's opinion of Farrell has changed much between June 1 and October 14.
Put it this way - if Matt Williams is discovered to have lymphoma on September 28, that probably shouldn't save his job for 2016. That just makes him a bad manager who contracted a horrible disease instead of just a bad manager. It should change how the organization deals with him (say, still pay his salary for 2016 even though he's not working for them, or transition him into a token front-office position for two years if he'd accept that, or some similar substantive olive branch), but the organization should not have to keep the manager around for reasons unrelated to his on-field performance.
Dombrowski has said that Farrell is retaining his job because he wants to be able to evaluate him himself before making any decisions one way or the other. Farrell is not retaining his job because he underwent chemotherapy. I'm sure Farrell himself is just fine with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 14:22:14 GMT -5
Spot on Jerry. Unfortunately, a lot of other people subscribe to a vulture mentality. The body is still warm and they're already fighting over grandma's possessions. In contrast, Red Sox ownership and management and Torey Lovullo have all handled this entire situation with the kind of class and dignity you'd expect from a top notch organization. It's not genuine to leave out the fact that many of us wanted him fired before he was diagnosed with cancer. Now he can't be fired precisely because of cancer. If what you've expressed here is reflective of your core values, then I'd say that you need to reflect on the role of perspective and integrity both within organizations and individuals, including yourself. Yes, the world DOES stop when cancer strikes. Perhaps you don't have the life experience to know what it's like to be sitting with a family member when they receive a cancer diagnose and have to excuse yourself from the exam room so that you can go to your car and pray to God to "give it to you instead." That's genuine. Expressing frustration over not being able to fire someone because they have cancer is something that doesn't even belong in the spectrum of human emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2015 15:07:11 GMT -5
Posts violating the ground rules and otherwise not germane to the discussion have been and will continue to be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2015 15:18:18 GMT -5
Posts violating the ground rules and otherwise not germane to the discussion have been and will continue to be deleted. How is that last post remaining then? It's a personal attack on me, which is why I responded how I did. My personal values have nothing to do with Farrell remaining the manager if health permits. And yeah, I've had plenty of relatives with cancer and I wouldn't have wanted them to manage the Red Sox either. Does not mean I am heartless. I take spiders outside and set them free when they're in the house.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 15:26:01 GMT -5
Why not try to turn this discussion into something positive? Personally, I'm proud of the way this organization has addressed the serious health concerns of its employees - And there have been many of them. Whether it was Jon Lester, Anthony Rizzo or Ryan Westmoreland, the Red Sox have always rallied around their fallen. That's a virtue we can all learn from and one that shouldn't be taken for granted. Every day in this country, there are ICUs filled with people who aren't visited by anyone. Nurses will tell you about "That poor woman in Room X who has no family ever visit her." With regard to the Red Sox, we could be talking about a clubhouse attendant and I'm fairly confident the Red Sox would do the right thing. Regardless of what happens on the field, that's a winning organization.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Oct 15, 2015 2:34:44 GMT -5
Why not try to turn this discussion into something positive? Personally, I'm proud of the way this organization has addressed the serious health concerns of its employees - And there have been many of them. Whether it was Jon Lester, Anthony Rizzo or Ryan Westmoreland, the Red Sox have always rallied around their fallen. That's a virtue we can all learn from and one that shouldn't be taken for granted. Every day in this country, there are ICUs filled with people who aren't visited by anyone. Nurses will tell you about "That poor woman in Room X who has no family ever visit her." With regard to the Red Sox, we could be talking about a clubhouse attendant and I'm fairly confident the Red Sox would do the right thing. Regardless of what happens on the field, that's a winning organization. I have misjudged you. Sorry. Agree fully with the instincts and actions that have given the Sox a human face as it deals with players and personell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2015 3:43:05 GMT -5
Why not try to turn this discussion into something positive? Personally, I'm proud of the way this organization has addressed the serious health concerns of its employees - And there have been many of them. Whether it was Jon Lester, Anthony Rizzo or Ryan Westmoreland, the Red Sox have always rallied around their fallen. That's a virtue we can all learn from and one that shouldn't be taken for granted. Every day in this country, there are ICUs filled with people who aren't visited by anyone. Nurses will tell you about "That poor woman in Room X who has no family ever visit her." With regard to the Red Sox, we could be talking about a clubhouse attendant and I'm fairly confident the Red Sox would do the right thing. Regardless of what happens on the field, that's a winning organization. I have misjudged you. Sorry. Agree fully with the instincts and actions that have given the Sox a human face as it deals with players and personell. No sweat. What I said about getting the diagnosis about a family member (my Mom) and having to excuse myself from the exam room to go to my car and say to God "Give it to me instead" actually happened. Call it my Walter White awakening. By the way, we will all have that day eventually - The day we truly understand that all that matters is the health of those we care about (including ourselves). Everything else doesn't mean squat. That's why I say that, regardless of what you thought about Farrell prior to his diagnosis, you should be rooting for him now. Literally and figuratively, his success will be our success. Another thing to consider that nobody here has brought up is the fact that cancer doesn't develop overnight. By the time of his diagnosis, Farrell's body had been filling up with cancer cells for quite some time. It is entirely possible that he had cancer prior to becoming our manager and/or while guiding the team to a World Series. Think about that for a moment. If that's the case, then we aren't getting back the SAME manager we had in 2013 and 2014 - The guy who probably didn't sleep all that well and who probably had pains he put off getting checked out and who really wasn't ever 100%. If the chemo worked, in a sense, that guy is already gone.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 15, 2015 8:20:52 GMT -5
Bad science begets inaccurate results that leads to flawed expert analysis. Methodology is EVERYTHING. The determination of "best relievers" begins with corporate culture and their conviction to build and maintain a world class bullpen. This has not been the case for the Red Sox. Gorman, Duquette, Epstein, Cherrington were never known to either invest in, or specifically develop internal bullpen expertise. It has ALWAYS been catch as catch can. THE ONLY REAL closers the Red Sox ever developed came about through happenstance; Radatz, Lyle and Papelbon. Of those three Radatz flamed out early while playing for poor teams, Lyle was traded for "offense" (and went on to win a Cy Young award as a reliever), Papelbon (originally a starter) closed out a world series but was allowed to walk in free agency rather than being offered market value by the Red Sox. In short the commitment was never really their. Now we have a decision maker who has NEVER built (let alone maintained) a world class bullpen. The question at hand is not about Farrell (or Lovullo) it is about managements' commitment to staffing a bullpen with the best relievers available. Whether those relievers are developed in house, bought through free agency, or traded for. The decision on when and how to use each reliever becomes much easier the greater the choice of quality arms the field manager has at his disposal. It becomes really easy to second guess, when the manager has very few quality arms to choose from and is constantly at risk of burning out those arms due to lack of quality depth. Regardless of how good or bad a bullpen is, the manager can be judged on how he uses it, unless you have a bullpen of 8 identical relief pitchers who fare the same vs. LH batters and RH batters. Disagree. The choice of who to use and when does not lend itself to statistical analysis. Too many variables and too few samples. In addition, it was apparent (to me at least) that Farrell (and Lovullo) made numerous pitching changes that were intended to audition some relief pitchers to specific roles. Two examples which come to mind are Layne (lefty specialist) and Ramirez (righty specialist). Neither pitcher were used in this fashion while at Pawtucket. Making assumptions with respect to a set bullpen when only a handful of teams have such rosters is the beginning of bad science.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 15, 2015 8:43:20 GMT -5
Go read the article.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 15, 2015 11:14:48 GMT -5
It's not genuine to leave out the fact that many of us wanted him fired before he was diagnosed with cancer. Now he can't be fired precisely because of cancer. If what you've expressed here is reflective of your core values, then I'd say that you need to reflect on the role of perspective and integrity both within organizations and individuals, including yourself. Yes, the world DOES stop when cancer strikes. Perhaps you don't have the life experience to know what it's like to be sitting with a family member when they receive a cancer diagnose and have to excuse yourself from the exam room so that you can go to your car and pray to God to "give it to you instead." That's genuine. Expressing frustration over not being able to fire someone because they have cancer is something that doesn't even belong in the spectrum of human emotion. Well said. Sometimes we get so caught up in our zeal to secure another championship that we lose track of what really matter in life. Personally, I believe Farrell has done a reasonable job and, even without his serious illness, deserved the chance to finish out his contract. If his health doesn't permit it next year, a position in the front office assisting in the pitching program should be in order.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 15, 2015 11:29:01 GMT -5
I take spiders outside and set them free when they're in the house. Honestly, I had to laugh at this a bit, I do the same thing. It's an emotional subject.....cancer.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 15, 2015 12:13:09 GMT -5
Spiders are the worst. I'm not afraid of them at all, but would prefer not to touch them or have my girlfriend cry over seeing one. Life is hard
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 2, 2015 13:07:59 GMT -5
Counting down the days until I'm b*tching about Farrell starting him against RHP. This is who we should have signed in 2014 instead of Grady Sizemore. And so it begins: @jtomase 15m15 minutes ago Farrell views Young as 4th OF to play mostly against LHP, but says he will get some looks against RHP, too. Sox like athleticism in OF.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 2, 2015 15:55:14 GMT -5
Counting down the days until I'm b*tching about Farrell starting him against RHP. This is who we should have signed in 2014 instead of Grady Sizemore. And so it begins: @jtomase 15m15 minutes ago Farrell views Young as 4th OF to play mostly against LHP, but says he will get some looks against RHP, too. Sox like athleticism in OF. Let's not make a huge deal out of this. This is simply Farrell saying "We're going to do what gives us the best chance to win with how the roster is currently constructed." In 2015, Young actually produced a higher OPS against righties than Castillo. Not by much, but it still would have been a slight improvement. If Castillo starts mashing, they will play him. Let's just relax.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 2, 2015 16:11:15 GMT -5
And so it begins: @jtomase 15m15 minutes ago Farrell views Young as 4th OF to play mostly against LHP, but says he will get some looks against RHP, too. Sox like athleticism in OF. Let's not make a huge deal out of this. This is simply Farrell saying "We're going to do what gives us the best chance to win with how the roster is currently constructed." In 2015, Young actually produced a higher OPS against righties than Castillo. Not by much, but it still would have been a slight improvement. If Castillo starts mashing, they will play him. Let's just relax. I'm just going to point out that you weren't around when Farrell declared that Gomes had seized the every day job in LF because of his .500 something OPS vs. RHP while Nava was rotting. There are a lot of cynics here with Farrell and his lack of understanding very simple statistical analysis.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 2, 2015 17:12:42 GMT -5
Farrell will always mismanage the lineup and bullpen. That's a given.
|
|
|