|
Post by Coreno on Oct 8, 2016 14:30:38 GMT -5
The Rangers had the exact same record at Home as the Indians. I'm sick of this confirmation biased garbage narrative that they just arrogantly opted out of home field advantage and that's why they're down 2-0. They haven't played well and the Indians have had a ton of things go their way. Even with all of that, the Sox still just missed stealing game 1, which would have given them the advantage. They obviously need to play better, but they can still pull this off.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 8, 2016 15:42:40 GMT -5
The Rangers had the exact same record at Home as the Indians. I'm sick of this confirmation biased garbage narrative that they just arrogantly opted out of home field advantage and that's why they're down 2-0. They haven't played well and the Indians have had a ton of things go their way. Even with all of that, the Sox still just missed stealing game 1, which would have given them the advantage. They obviously need to play better, but they can still pull this off. How is what you're saying anything to do with the topic of the thread? What do you mean by confirmation biased garbage narrative?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 8, 2016 16:31:36 GMT -5
The Rangers had the exact same record at Home as the Indians. I'm sick of this confirmation biased garbage narrative that they just arrogantly opted out of home field advantage and that's why they're down 2-0. They haven't played well and the Indians have had a ton of things go their way. Even with all of that, the Sox still just missed stealing game 1, which would have given them the advantage. They obviously need to play better, but they can still pull this off. How is what you're saying anything to do with the topic of the thread? What do you mean by confirmation biased garbage narrative? People who use results to decide whether something that was said was correct after the fact. Like it was smart to start Papi at SS if they win a game with him at SS. Or that Leyland would have clinched home field advantage so we'd be beating the Indians now because it's Farrell's fault that the entire team stops hitting and Cleveland continues to get bloop singles and 350 foot HRs. I've wanted Farrell fired for over two years now so I'm no apologist, but people aren't using logic when deciding to bash him.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Oct 8, 2016 18:25:49 GMT -5
1 5 the last six games says it all about Farrell.
Now your down 0 2 vs a Team you should beat no matter who the Manager is and yes that is another story..
DD isnt off the hook either. As I stated before less money the first year and 5 mil more the duration would have gotten you both Cueto and Shark and your not in this mess with an overpaid stiff in Price..
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 8, 2016 20:42:28 GMT -5
How is what you're saying anything to do with the topic of the thread? What do you mean by confirmation biased garbage narrative? People who use results to decide whether something that was said was correct after the fact. Like it was smart to start Papi at SS if they win a game with him at SS. Or that Leyland would have clinched home field advantage so we'd be beating the Indians now because it's Farrell's fault that the entire team stops hitting and Cleveland continues to get bloop singles and 350 foot HRs. I've wanted Farrell fired for over two years now so I'm no apologist, but people aren't using logic when deciding to bash him. Who used "confirmation narrative" regarding Leyland? You mean the poster that said Leyland is coming? He's getting all worked up over that?
Or was it me-- because I used the word "maybe" that it is somehow turned into a confirmation?
Anyhow - pertaining to this thread- if one were to believe that Farrell has cost the Red Sox games more than Tito cost the Indians while it appears the Indians play better at home- then why wouldn't home field matter? I'm not saying we'd still win or anything but should it be dismissed? Sometimes teams play better at home, don't they? Sometimes they catch "Andrew Benetendi" nonchalant with a fly ball away from home, that maybe would never happen in Fenway, right? it is possible that CLeveland is a better home team / more confident etc when they play at home than when they play away, right?
We've even seen the Red Sox of 2007 first hand - sort of know Cleveland in huge trouble if they didn't win game 5. Why? Because the Red Sox were very tough at home. In 2nd half of season Red Sox started 50-31 and went 26-16 at home and 20-19 on the road. So they were much more scary at home, right? And isn't it possible Cleveland is much better home team too?
Pertaining to this thread, why I don't agree that losing home field is nothing-- imo it shouldn't be completely dismissed. Fortunes could have changed with home field. That's why sometimes teams play for it instead of just resting the whole team at the end. If 2007 was so prevalent of an advantage for the Red Sox then why can't 2016 be for Cleveland? It is possible but hardly "confirming" the fortunes would change but still possible. Though, I don't believe losing home field warrants a firing.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Oct 8, 2016 23:26:18 GMT -5
What warrants being fired will be 1 5 your last 6 with home field on the line and being swept in the playoffs.
If by a stroke of God Buchholz wins Sunday you throw Porcello in game 4 at Fenway with Price in game 5.
If that does not happen bye bye John
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 9, 2016 0:50:29 GMT -5
What warrants being fired will be 1 5 your last 6 with home field on the line and being swept in the playoffs. If by a stroke of God Buchholz wins Sunday you throw Porcello in game 4 at Fenway with Price in game 5. If that does not happen bye bye John I don't see DD doing that at all. They were last place last year with similar payroll. Whether he should is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 1:18:11 GMT -5
Ya so far the playoffs isn't Farrell's fault. Somebody needs to be blamed for getting swept in the playoffs if it indeeds happens though.
This is why I have no problem with Farrell being the lead guy to go if the Sox do get swept. I hope they don't. The Sox didn't show up to play, in some way shape or form the manager has to be held accountable.
Plus, addition by subtraction with Farrell being gone.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 9, 2016 9:20:02 GMT -5
Why exactly does someone "need to be blamed" if the Sox lose? The playoffs are a crapshoot, and they got cold at the wrong time...it happens, and it was no fault of Farrell's.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 9, 2016 10:09:22 GMT -5
The biggest gaffe Farrell has made this post-season was not a move he has made in October. Steven Wright should have been pitching either game 1 or 2 with the year he was having and instead, he's not even on the roster due to an injury from being put into a position he never should have been in.
But this team go cold at the absolute worst time. In game 1 they were swinging at everything out of the zone. In game 2 they watched everything go right over the plate. I don't know whose to blame for the team coming out looking so lost.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 9, 2016 10:51:55 GMT -5
The biggest gaffe Farrell has made this post-season was not a move he has made in October. Steven Wright should have been pitching either game 1 or 2 with the year he was having and instead, he's not even on the roster due to an injury from being put into a position he never should have been in. But this team go cold at the absolute worst time. In game 1 they were swinging at everything out of the zone. In game 2 they watched everything go right over the plate. I don't know whose to blame for the team coming out looking so lost. There were so many awful moves he has made this year which justifies his negative 5 pythag. And I don't even think pythag picks up that major gaffe. He's been awful manager and we're going to be stuck with him leading into next year. As you say that move was an enormous blunder. He refuses to pinch hit his catchers when he only has two because he is scared of an injury for a game unless the situation is dire yet he uses an inexperienced slow starting pitcher when he had much better options and doesn't worry about an injury in this case? It just makes no sense.
Farrell is the type of manager that needs a team in which he has to do virtually nothing all year. Even then his batting lineups are flawed to such a degree that a 10 year old at times could make up a better lineup. For example once it was apparent Shaw "was done" how many times were we forced to watch the Shaw/Hill combo hit ahead of Young/Beni It wasn't very often in terms of qty but just the belief that it should happen once just highlights that he is just so thick/stubborn that all too often it takes an avalanche to change his philosophy. And when he does, often it is the wrong time to change.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 9, 2016 12:12:28 GMT -5
Some of you need to take a breath geez, it can't be healthy to be this angry at someone you don't even know personally.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 13:45:30 GMT -5
Why exactly does someone "need to be blamed" if the Sox lose? The playoffs are a crapshoot, and they got cold at the wrong time...it happens, and it was no fault of Farrell's. Because this is Boston. It's been like this for forever. The Sox lost their best manager in franchise history because of this very reason in 2011. At least the Sox will be losing a bad manager this time around.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 13:53:45 GMT -5
Some of you need to take a breath geez, it can't be healthy to be this angry at someone you don't even know personally. I'm not angry at Farrell, I just know he's not good at his job. Most Sox fans were supporting Farrell when he had cancer and gave him a standing ovation on opening day when he returned. It's not like I want him out of baseball altogether or something. Just not a manager for the Sox. He's done a lot of damage this year. The Sox best starting pitcher is done because of him. That alone is a fireable offense.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 9, 2016 14:11:18 GMT -5
Why exactly does someone "need to be blamed" if the Sox lose? The playoffs are a crapshoot, and they got cold at the wrong time...it happens, and it was no fault of Farrell's. Because this is Boston. It's been like this for forever. The Sox lost their best manager in franchise history because of this very reason in 2011. At least the Sox will be losing a bad manager this time around. "Because this is Boston. And in Boston we're consistent with our bad decisions!"
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 9, 2016 15:02:36 GMT -5
Some of you need to take a breath geez, it can't be healthy to be this angry at someone you don't even know personally. I'm not angry at Farrell, I just know he's not good at his job. Most Sox fans were supporting Farrell when he had cancer and gave him a standing ovation on opening day when he returned. It's not like I want him out of baseball altogether or something. Just not a manager for the Sox. He's done a lot of damage this year. The Sox best starting pitcher is done because of him. That alone is a fireable offense. I agree. Just because we know Farrell has been incompetent, it doesn't make us angry.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 15:17:34 GMT -5
Because this is Boston. It's been like this for forever. The Sox lost their best manager in franchise history because of this very reason in 2011. At least the Sox will be losing a bad manager this time around. "Because this is Boston. And in Boston we're consistent with our bad decisions!" Yeap they are, but firing Farrell wouldn't be a bad decision.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 9, 2016 17:01:00 GMT -5
I'm not angry at Farrell, I just know he's not good at his job. Most Sox fans were supporting Farrell when he had cancer and gave him a standing ovation on opening day when he returned. It's not like I want him out of baseball altogether or something. Just not a manager for the Sox. He's done a lot of damage this year. The Sox best starting pitcher is done because of him. That alone is a fireable offense. The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 9, 2016 17:41:52 GMT -5
I'm not angry at Farrell, I just know he's not good at his job. Most Sox fans were supporting Farrell when he had cancer and gave him a standing ovation on opening day when he returned. It's not like I want him out of baseball altogether or something. Just not a manager for the Sox. He's done a lot of damage this year. The Sox best starting pitcher is done because of him. That alone is a fireable offense. The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title. The best starter didn't even need to be playing or in harm's way when the injury occurred. This is on the manager. Things like chemistry and steadiness can't be measured. There's no way of knowing another manager could do the same or better, so there's no need to argue about this statement.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 9, 2016 18:22:28 GMT -5
The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title. The best starter didn't even need to be playing or in harm's way when the injury occurred. This is on the manager. Things like chemistry and steadiness can't be measured. There's no way of knowing another manager could do the same or better, so there's no need to argue about this statement. What we do know which has been mentioned before is that there was an easy alternative and his name was Pomeranz. Not using Pomeranz was easily one of the dumbest moves done by a coach all season. I've seen several people make the argument to use Pomeranz on this thread and the only counter has been alice-in-wonderland make-believe counter arguments. There was absolutely no reason to not use Pomeranz. You are absolutely right this move is all on the manager.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,634
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 9, 2016 18:38:01 GMT -5
The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title. The best starter didn't even need to be playing or in harm's way when the injury occurred. This is on the manager. Things like chemistry and steadiness can't be measured. There's no way of knowing another manager could do the same or better, so there's no need to argue about this statement. You remember the chaos that was the short lived Bobby Valentine era? A manager can absolutely destroy the chemistry and wreck the clubhouse. It took Bobby V all of one year. Farrell hasn't done that. Doesn't make him a good manager, but it is easy to say that he has that over Bobby V in spades.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 9, 2016 18:53:59 GMT -5
I'm not angry at Farrell, I just know he's not good at his job. Most Sox fans were supporting Farrell when he had cancer and gave him a standing ovation on opening day when he returned. It's not like I want him out of baseball altogether or something. Just not a manager for the Sox. He's done a lot of damage this year. The Sox best starting pitcher is done because of him. That alone is a fireable offense. The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title. Because injuries happen? Seriously? So, if they send Rick Porcello to play catcher for an inning and he twists his knee, that's ok because injuries happen? The injury to Wright was 100% preventable. He put his THEN best starting pitcher, whose slow, nonathletic, and is unfamiliar with base running into a position to get hurt. Why did he even need to pinch run for Ortiz? The logic doesn't even make sense, but even if he REALLY wanted to do it, why wouldn't you use Pomeranz, who came from the NL and had experience pinch running this year? Why wouldn't you use a BP arm that hasn't been working out too well or a fast runner, like Buchholz?
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Oct 9, 2016 19:07:06 GMT -5
The best starting pitcher is done because injuries happen in baseball. You see a manager doing "a lot of damage", I see a manager that steadied his young core into an AL East title. Because injuries happen? Seriously? So, if they send Rick Porcello to play catcher for an inning and he twists his knee, that's ok because injuries happen? The injury to Wright was 100% preventable. He put his THEN best starting pitcher, whose slow, nonathletic, and is unfamiliar with base running into a position to get hurt. Why did he even need to pinch run for Ortiz? The logic doesn't even make sense, but even if he REALLY wanted to do it, why wouldn't you use Pomeranz, who came from the NL and had experience pinch running this year? Why wouldn't you use a BP arm that hasn't been working out too well or a fast runner, like Buchholz? This has been covered ad-naseum. Ortiz was removed from the game the night before because of leg pain, and it was Pomeranz's side day. That means he was available to pitch that night if there was an emergency. Wright might have been a bad guy to run, but he was Farrell's only real option.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 9, 2016 19:20:34 GMT -5
1 5 the last six games says it all about Farrell. Now your down 0 2 vs a Team you should beat no matter who the Manager is and yes that is another story.. DD isnt off the hook either. As I stated before less money the first year and 5 mil more the duration would have gotten you both Cueto and Shark and your not in this mess with an overpaid stiff in Price.. It says nothing. You're also ignoring the 11-0 prior that wrapped up the division. I'm no Farrell apologist by a long shot, but your reasoning should have some semblance of reason (i.e., internal consistency) to it.
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on Oct 9, 2016 19:24:39 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of Farrell but I don't think he gets fired. Don't see much of a upgrade available. 80 to 90% of managers would do about the same with the same kind of mistakes. I really think there's 2 or 3 managers who have a noticeable impact on their teams and don't think we're prying them away from their current teams. If Farrell gets replaced, I don't think it moves our long term outlook much unless we find the next big time manager but that's unlikely considering how samey most of them are.
What we really need is our other young players to get Mookie's consistency. The slumps that Bogaerts and JBJ went in really hurt. Our lineup went from having 6 or 7 tough at bats in row to having 3 useless spots in SS, CF, and 3B with catcher dipping as well. That made it tough to string anything together since the winning streak ended
|
|