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.
John Farrell: To fire or not to fire...
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 15:24:00 GMT -5
Managers in general are hugely overrated. Joe Madden is a guy who gets a lot of praise, but does it really take a brilliant baseball mind to put Arietta, Lester, and Lackey on the mound every fifth day? Or Bryant and Rizzo 3-4 in the lineup every day? Or Chapman in for the ninth inning?
The only thing a manager really has to do is manage a bullpen over the course of a season. But even then, the managers who are best at it tend to be the ones with the best bullpen arms.
It's not like football or basketball where coaching makes a huge difference. I honestly don't think a manager is all that responsible for the success/failure of a team.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 22, 2016 21:21:25 GMT -5
I agree about the football and basketball analogy, and hockey as well. Those sports rely a lot on motivation and a high degree of intensity. No matter how much you motivate a baseball player, if Justin Verlander throws him a hard slider on the outside corner, the guy's not going to hit it.
But a manager has a huge impact on the outcome of a game, and, thus, the season. He selects the roster, chooses the lineup, tries to keep each individual focused on the mission, directs the coaching staff in the management of the roster, makes decisions on when to replace a hitter or make a pitching change, give players a rest, bench guys to send messages.
What I like about our manager, and Terry before him, is their accountability in addressing the media and the fans to explain their moves and rationalize decisions.
Don't discount the influence managers have in the outcome of games.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Sept 22, 2016 21:55:51 GMT -5
Can we get the second option changed to: no, but the team is not garbage? Would few more people change their vote to no?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 22, 2016 22:26:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 22, 2016 22:42:54 GMT -5
Managers in general are hugely overrated. Joe Madden is a guy who gets a lot of praise, but does it really take a brilliant baseball mind to put Arietta, Lester, and Lackey on the mound every fifth day? Or Bryant and Rizzo 3-4 in the lineup every day? Or Chapman in for the ninth inning? The only thing a manager really has to do is manage a bullpen over the course of a season. But even then, the managers who are best at it tend to be the ones with the best bullpen arms. It's not like football or basketball where coaching makes a huge difference. I honestly don't think a manager is all that responsible for the success/failure of a team. Doesn't a manager understand that when you have an option to use Pomeranz or Wright as a pinch runner - that the more obvious choice was Pomeranz?
Doesn't a manger have a sense of logic when early in year he knows Taz and Koji are susceptible to get worn down - yet he knowlngly keeps using them all-the-while having Ross in the bullpen?
Doesn't a manager realize that when one of your top power hitters is leading off, that maybe it's not a good idea to keep him 1st while oyur number 2 hitter is hitting into double plays at an alarming rate?
Doesn't the manger realize that Young is a better hitter than Shaw?
Doesn't the manger realize that it might be a good idea to utilize hit-and-runs throughout the season instead of maybe just the 1st month and last month?
Doesn't a manager realize that when Taz was done during a portion of the season, that it might nto be a good idea to keep throwing him out there over-and-over?
Doesn't a manager supposed to have some skill understanding when a guy like Hanigan needs to be benched? Yet how long did it take him?
There is a reason why the pythagorean has him a -5 in terms of wins, right? Or did they just make that up like some posters have in defending Farrell when they say things up - to paraphrase: "well we don't know that Pomeranz wasn't hurt" or the other "well maybe Pomeranz could have gotten hurt too."
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 22, 2016 22:48:19 GMT -5
The author of the latter article, Shaw, writes for Cleveland.com. Anthony Castrovince for years was the beat writer for the Indians. Do you think there might be a little bias in there for the Cleveland manager? I would not complain if Terry were named M.O.T.Y., he has earned it. But Castrovince lists Giardi and Showalter as contenders, two managers our guy just vanquished. I'm not touting Farrell as M.O.T.Y, but, c'mon, citing Shaw and Castrovince as expert opinions ignores their partialiaty.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 22, 2016 23:13:00 GMT -5
I bet Farrell bites his fingernails too. Completely unfit to be a manager.
But to be serious. Farrell starting to pop up on these lists just shows how hard it is to evaluate a major league manager. The manager is never the one to give up the runs, but he doesn't drive them in either.
And despite what some posters trying to make this a black and white issue - it has a lot of nuance. The truth is that ALL managers make questionable decisions....but they also have more information on any given night than anyone else. Farrell has shown, very clearly, that he can get the best out if his players. Here's to hoping they clench soon and everyone stays healthy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 22, 2016 23:13:26 GMT -5
I agree about the football and basketball analogy, and hockey as well. Those sports rely a lot on motivation and a high degree of intensity. No matter how much you motivate a baseball player, if Justin Verlander throws him a hard slider on the outside corner, the guy's not going to hit it. But a manager has a huge impact on the outcome of a game, and, thus, the season. He selects the roster, chooses the lineup, tries to keep each individual focused on the mission, directs the coaching staff in the management of the roster, makes decisions on when to replace a hitter or make a pitching change, give players a rest, bench guys to send messages. What I like about our manager, and Terry before him, is their accountability in addressing the media and the fans to explain their moves and rationalize decisions. Don't discount the influence managers have in the outcome of games. That's one of the things that used to drive me nuts about Jimy Williams. He'd do something that made no sense at all and he'd tell the media "It's a manager's decision" and nothing more. Terrible.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 23, 2016 0:22:39 GMT -5
The author of the latter article, Shaw, writes for Cleveland.com. Anthony Castrovince for years was the beat writer for the Indians. Do you think there might be a little bias in there for the Cleveland manager? I would not complain if Terry were named M.O.T.Y., he has earned it. But Castrovince lists Giardi and Showalter as contenders, two managers our guy just vanquished. I'm not touting Farrell as M.O.T.Y, but, c'mon, citing Shaw and Castrovince as expert opinions ignores their partialiaty. C'mon man- bigpup provided from cbssports- the guy's main reasoning was last year to this year. What kind of analysis was that? In this article they lsit three. In bipgpup's he lists 5.
And you're serious about what ahs happened the last week vs an entire season? Really? SO all the games Farrell blew earlier don't count? It's not like I'm coming out from left field saying he blew more than the others, right? After all Pythagorean sort of indicates that, doesn't it? In fact if you read the 1st link you would have seen they even reference that instead of what bigpup provided. At least try to pretend you are fair here.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 5:59:39 GMT -5
I agree about the football and basketball analogy, and hockey as well. Those sports rely a lot on motivation and a high degree of intensity. No matter how much you motivate a baseball player, if Justin Verlander throws him a hard slider on the outside corner, the guy's not going to hit it. But a manager has a huge impact on the outcome of a game, and, thus, the season. He selects the roster, chooses the lineup, tries to keep each individual focused on the mission, directs the coaching staff in the management of the roster, makes decisions on when to replace a hitter or make a pitching change, give players a rest, bench guys to send messages. What I like about our manager, and Terry before him, is their accountability in addressing the media and the fans to explain their moves and rationalize decisions. Don't discount the influence managers have in the outcome of games. I agree with most everything said. Farrell does seem to explain moves and decisions. I have coached baseball and basketball up to including high school. Motivation plays a big part in both sports. The motivation skills in baseball are much different than basketball but just as important. Baseball is not as much rah rah as focus and challenge to the individual. Baseball comes at you most time in a controlled speed and smaller bites of action. Not talking a 99 mph fastball either. A manager has tremendous impact on a game. He has picked the 25 guys on his roster in most cases. He makes a decision everyday on the 21 who can play that day. If they play and where they play. Where they bat in the order and what inning and how many innings they pitch. He makes decisions on each pitch. He is greatly influenced by charts and sabermetrics. He listens to his staff who he picks most times. He needs those people to be on the same page but not necessarily yes men. The metrics and the data do not tell you if your pitcher is tired or just does not have it on that particular day. The chart says the guy at the plate can't hit a curve but this day your guy is throwing hangers. Do you still throw the curve? The manager juggles the emotions and the drama of 25 players plus his staff every day. His decisions are strongly shaped by metrics and charts, but he still has to make the decision now based on what he sees. Yes a manager has great control and influence over a game. He is open every day to critics on many fronts for a dozen decisions he has made throughout the game. Tough job, especially in a big market with passionate fans like boston. Farrell has certainly handled some areas very poorly, bp, players rest. Can we get someone better? YES, Just not sure who and how many better there are out there who are available.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 23, 2016 6:11:09 GMT -5
Should Farrell be fired or should he be retained?
YES!!!
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 6:40:05 GMT -5
Should Farrell be fired or should he be retained? YES!!! Who would you get? Who would be on your short list? Think Dave agrees with you?
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 23, 2016 8:02:50 GMT -5
The author of the latter article, Shaw, writes for Cleveland.com. Anthony Castrovince for years was the beat writer for the Indians. Do you think there might be a little bias in there for the Cleveland manager? I would not complain if Terry were named M.O.T.Y., he has earned it. But Castrovince lists Giardi and Showalter as contenders, two managers our guy just vanquished. I'm not touting Farrell as M.O.T.Y, but, c'mon, citing Shaw and Castrovince as expert opinions ignores their partialiaty. C'mon man- bigpup provided from cbssports- the guy's main reasoning was last year to this year. What kind of analysis was that? In this article they lsit three. In bipgpup's he lists 5.
And you're serious about what ahs happened the last week vs an entire season? Really? SO all the games Farrell blew earlier don't count? It's not like I'm coming out from left field saying he blew more than the others, right? After all Pythagorean sort of indicates that, doesn't it? In fact if you read the 1st link you would have seen they even reference that instead of what bigpup provided. At least try to pretend you are fair here.
You keep citing Pythagorean as if it's a managers effectiveness statistics, but you know full well that it isn't. The Sox regularly winning games big because of their amazing offense and being only 18-22 in 1 run games completely explains the teams Pythag. If you believe that Farrell is 100% to blame for every single 1 run loss then that's an interesting take - but certainly not "fair" Here's an article that agrees with my point www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/17/5504652/manager-pythagorean-wins
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 23, 2016 9:30:18 GMT -5
Th Sox bottomed out in Win Efficiency at (IIRC) -10.9, around August 30. They are now at -8.5, so they have been about +2.0 or more in September.
This corresponds with the stretch of time where I and many others haven't complained about any of JF's bullpen moves. That's not a coincidence.
Earlier I ran the numbers that showed that JF was easily the worst manager in baseball at the combination of judging whether a struggling starter should be left in or yanked, and matching reliever quality to reliever leverage (the two things we had complained continually about). The sum of this metric, plus offensive clutch differential, essentially is Win Efficiency.
There's an extremely strong case that JF had cost the team as many as 6 wins by his bad bullpen management, through the end of August. That's what the metric said, and we had criticized all of the mistakes he had made before we knew their results. There's probably a degree of luck in this metric, and Kimbrel's off-year contributed to it as well. I'm willing to concede that the actual number of wins he cost us was more like 4.
In any case, for whatever reasons, he's stopped doing that. Certainly having better weapons at his disposal is a lot of it. But I also think he's shown more flexibility in his role use this month, and that may well be because he thinks the players are more open to being used flexibly in the home stretch of a pennant race than they are during the mid-season grind.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 10:23:08 GMT -5
Th Sox bottomed out in Win Efficiency at (IIRC) -10.9, around August 30. They are now at -8.5, so they have been about +2.0 or more in September. This corresponds with the stretch of time where I and many others haven't complained about any of JF's bullpen moves. That's not a coincidence. Earlier I ran the numbers that showed that JF was easily the worst manager in baseball at the combination of judging whether a struggling starter should be left in or yanked, and matching reliever quality to reliever leverage (the two things we had complained continually about). The sum of this metric, plus offensive clutch differential, essentially is Win Efficiency. There's an extremely strong case that JF had cost the team as many as 6 wins by his bad bullpen management, through the end of August. That's what the metric said, and we had criticized all of the mistakes he had made before we knew their results. There's probably a degree of luck in this metric, and Kimbrel's off-year contributed to it as well. I'm willing to concede that the actual number of wins he cost us was more like 4. In any case, for whatever reasons, he's stopped doing that. Certainly having better weapons at his disposal is a lot of it. But I also think he's shown more flexibility in his role use this month, and that may well be because he thinks the players are more open to being used flexibly in the home stretch of a pennant race than they are during the mid-season grind. All good points. It sounds like you are leaning to the fire Farrell side? If that is true who do you want as the manager?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 23, 2016 11:27:24 GMT -5
Th Sox bottomed out in Win Efficiency at (IIRC) -10.9, around August 30. They are now at -8.5, so they have been about +2.0 or more in September. This corresponds with the stretch of time where I and many others haven't complained about any of JF's bullpen moves. That's not a coincidence. Earlier I ran the numbers that showed that JF was easily the worst manager in baseball at the combination of judging whether a struggling starter should be left in or yanked, and matching reliever quality to reliever leverage (the two things we had complained continually about). The sum of this metric, plus offensive clutch differential, essentially is Win Efficiency. There's an extremely strong case that JF had cost the team as many as 6 wins by his bad bullpen management, through the end of August. That's what the metric said, and we had criticized all of the mistakes he had made before we knew their results. There's probably a degree of luck in this metric, and Kimbrel's off-year contributed to it as well. I'm willing to concede that the actual number of wins he cost us was more like 4. In any case, for whatever reasons, he's stopped doing that. Certainly having better weapons at his disposal is a lot of it. But I also think he's shown more flexibility in his role use this month, and that may well be because he thinks the players are more open to being used flexibly in the home stretch of a pennant race than they are during the mid-season grind. All good points. It sounds like you are leaning to the fire Farrell side? If that is true who do you want as the manager? If JF can manage like this all year, he can stay. I wanted him gone in June. If he screws up in the playoffs, I want him gone. (In both cases, I think Lovullo deserves a shot.) If he leads us to a WS win, then I'm crossing my fingers that he's been educated about doing a better job with the pen, and that he's not as bad with it during next year's regular season. I'd hate to be saddled with a guy who cost you 4 wins every season, even if he changes his style every year and is much better in September and the post-season.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 23, 2016 14:28:27 GMT -5
All good points. It sounds like you are leaning to the fire Farrell side? If that is true who do you want as the manager? If JF can manage like this all year, he can stay. I wanted him gone in June. If he screws up in the playoffs, I want him gone. (In both cases, I think Lovullo deserves a shot.) If he leads us to a WS win, then I'm crossing my fingers that he's been educated about doing a better job with the pen, and that he's not as bad with it during next year's regular season. I'd hate to be saddled with a guy who cost you 4 wins every season, even if he changes his style every year and is much better in September and the post-season. I like tory as well. How much input, you think, does willis have with Farrell? Seems like most of the season had a big disconnect on the pitching side. Does banister move in and bring his own special assistant?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 23, 2016 23:05:21 GMT -5
C'mon man- bigpup provided from cbssports- the guy's main reasoning was last year to this year. What kind of analysis was that? In this article they lsit three. In bipgpup's he lists 5.
And you're serious about what ahs happened the last week vs an entire season? Really? SO all the games Farrell blew earlier don't count? It's not like I'm coming out from left field saying he blew more than the others, right? After all Pythagorean sort of indicates that, doesn't it? In fact if you read the 1st link you would have seen they even reference that instead of what bigpup provided. At least try to pretend you are fair here.
You keep citing Pythagorean as if it's a managers effectiveness statistics, but you know full well that it isn't. The Sox regularly winning games big because of their amazing offense and being only 18-22 in 1 run games completely explains the teams Pythag. If you believe that Farrell is 100% to blame for every single 1 run loss then that's an interesting take - but certainly not "fair" Here's an article that agrees with my point www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/17/5504652/manager-pythagorean-winsAgain seem to think you're privileged on this site. Why? You first explain what Farrell is thinking when he makes a decision then admonish those that believe they know why he made the decision but because it doesn't agree with yours, you claim the person can't know. -- Yet Only YOU can when you spoke of what he was thinking? Who do you think you are - privileged?
Now with this- You have a right to post the garbage from cbs sports in which all the guy is doing is putting Farrell on the list because last year the Sox stunk and this year they're real good. That's his only analysis and yet you're admonishing other sources while you posted garbage to begin with? Again- who do you think you are - you get to post suspect analysis while looking at the post I sent in a vacuum? With all the ignorant blunders Farrell has made over the course of the season it lends credence to Pythagorean in this instance. Again all the ignorant decisions with his handling Taz and Koji. His ignorant handling of Abad and Zeigler and the stupidity of not using Pomeranz. I mean c'mon who is anyone kidding that he hasn't been good leading up ot this point?
I'm happy for the guy now- -- but it doesn't take away his ignorance from before and Pythagorean seemed to nail it for this instance. The game has changed now and Farrell is doing fine though I still don't agree with Holy over Vaz. I think it's incredibly stupid to put Hill at 6 over Young.
And please stop with the garbage of "you know full well it isn't."
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll take the pythaogroean when ti is backed up by the many blunders already mentioned here.
I do think he shouldn't be fired if they win the division. Looks like Sox are going to win the division. Good for him.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 23, 2016 23:34:27 GMT -5
You keep citing Pythagorean as if it's a managers effectiveness statistics, but you know full well that it isn't. The Sox regularly winning games big because of their amazing offense and being only 18-22 in 1 run games completely explains the teams Pythag. If you believe that Farrell is 100% to blame for every single 1 run loss then that's an interesting take - but certainly not "fair" Here's an article that agrees with my point www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/3/17/5504652/manager-pythagorean-winsAgain seem to think you're privileged on this site. Why? You first explain what Farrell is thinking when he makes a decision then admonish those that believe they know why he made the decision but because it doesn't agree with yours, you claim the person can't know. -- Yet Only YOU can when you spoke of what he was thinking? Who do you think you are - privileged?
Now with this- You have a right to post the garbage from cbs sports in which all the guy is doing is putting Farrell on the list because last year the Sox stunk and this year they're real good. That's his only analysis and yet you're admonishing other sources while you posted garbage to begin with? Again- who do you think you are - you get to post suspect analysis while looking at the post I sent in a vacuum? With all the ignorant blunders Farrell has made over the course of the season it lends credence to Pythagorean in this instance. Again all the ignorant decisions with his handling Taz and Koji. His ignorant handling of Abad and Zeigler and the stupidity of not using Pomeranz. I mean c'mon who is anyone kidding that he hasn't been good leading up ot this point?
I'm happy for the guy now- -- but it doesn't take away his ignorance from before and Pythagorean seemed to nail it for this instance. The game has changed now and Farrell is doing fine though I still don't agree with Holy over Vaz. I think it's incredibly stupid to put Hill at 6 over Young.
And please stop with the garbage of "you know full well it isn't."
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll take the pythaogroean when ti is backed up by the many blunders already mentioned here.
I do think he shouldn't be fired if they win the division. Looks like Sox are going to win the division. Good for him.
The only thing I'll say about this post is that you need to do a better job with identifying which posters are disagreeing with you. I posted a link to a CBS article and you did the same thing with articles from another site. Someone else tried to discredit those articles - not me. Beyond that, I'll just say a mod asked that we cut the crap in another thread. I assume from your previous post that you're incapable of agreeing to disagree - so I'll go ahead and block your posts and would appreciate if you do the same with me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 24, 2016 7:14:11 GMT -5
Yeah, please cut out the personal stuff and the petty bickering. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 25, 2016 7:38:37 GMT -5
Looking back I have found the choices to be Leyland, gardenhire and tory. Leyland is very old and I do not think his personality would play well in Boston. Gardenhire would be an interesting choice. Have big reservations with him handling the Boston market. HUGE different between coaching the sox and the twins. Tory of the 3 probably makes the most sense. Familiar with Boston and knows the players and the system. Based on what we know today. JF will be here next year. UNLESS he makes some BIG bonehead move in the playoffs that costs the sox the ring or he has a health issue reoccur. I think the greater likelihood is that the coaching staff on the pitching side changes. Not sure how, but there seems to be some disconnects when you read that pedy and chili are making suggestions to pitchers and the pitchers are following them. Bannister has been getting good press and kudos for some of the things he has accomplished, but on the whole pitching until recently has been frustrating and troublesome. So my guess is that this thread will continue next season as well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 4, 2016 5:56:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 4, 2016 8:20:56 GMT -5
Best part is in the comments when someone makes a sarcastic #firefarrell comment, and someone else responds with "Are people actually making this argument? I haven’t heard it." Guess they don't come around here very often.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 4, 2016 8:22:18 GMT -5
IF, Farrell is gone after the year, I'd like to see Brad Ausmus get Lovullo's job as bench coach. Seems like a smart guy, former catcher, young, not far removed from playing, ect. I'm sure though he'll get another gig as a manager.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 4, 2016 8:44:48 GMT -5
IF, Farrell is gone after the year, I'd like to see Brad Ausmus get Lovullo's job as bench coach. Seems like a smart guy, former catcher, young, not far removed from playing, ect. I'm sure though he'll get another gig as a manager. Doesn't look like Farrell's going anywhere. And if, by any stretch of the imagination he does, DD would most likely sweep the bench clean. Ausmus was his hire in Detroit. Borges aptly described the manager's perception in Boston in today's Herald. www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2016/10/borges_john_farrell_even_without_the_credit_has_red_sox_back_on_top. I would add to his column that this blame phenomena is not just a Boston issue. Other cities with competitive teams constantly berate their manager when things don't go well.
|
|
|