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...
|
Post by congusgambler33 on Apr 27, 2016 14:03:40 GMT -5
After Farrell refused to put in Ortiz this evening, I've gone full 100% and I'm ready to kick him out. I mean, it's the man's last game in that stadium. Put him IN!!! I thought about this too...Then I thought what if he brought him in & one of a thousand injuries happen, Pulled hammy, HBP on wrist, foul tip on foot, ect....then I thought otherwise, keep him on the bench till today. He could in jure himself in any game. that doesn't make much sense. the what if could be used anywhere. he should have pinch hit him somewhere in that game.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Apr 27, 2016 14:51:18 GMT -5
I thought about this too...Then I thought what if he brought him in & one of a thousand injuries happen, Pulled hammy, HBP on wrist, foul tip on foot, ect....then I thought otherwise, keep him on the bench till today. He could in jure himself in any game. that doesn't make much sense. the what if could be used anywhere. he should have pinch hit him somewhere in that game. There was no need to pinch hit him at any time. The Red Sox were ahead, and by wide margins, the whole game. They did pinch hit Young, but he hasn't been getting many rips lately, and he got a double, so it made sense. I mean, it's not like Papi were making his final appearance at Camden Yards or Yankee Stadium. Atlanta is not a regular rival. The team saluted Papi with a film highlight segment. Fans cheered. Papi came out of dugout and waved. He seemed happy. That's enough.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 27, 2016 15:40:15 GMT -5
He could in jure himself in any game. that doesn't make much sense. the what if could be used anywhere. he should have pinch hit him somewhere in that game. There was no need to pinch hit him at any time. The Red Sox were ahead, and by wide margins, the whole game. They did pinch hit Young, but he hasn't been getting many rips lately, and he got a double, so it made sense. I mean, it's not like Papi were making his final appearance at Camden Yards or Yankee Stadium. Atlanta is not a regular rival. The team saluted Papi with a film highlight segment. Fans cheered. Papi came out of dugout and waved. He seemed happy. That's enough. So, obviously my comment was tongue in cheek, but I along with the fans did want to see him hit last night. I didn't see the montage though, and I think that Farrell probably wanted that to be the ending for him, rather than a failed at-bat, so that makes sense. Still, I always want more Papi.
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Apr 27, 2016 16:19:48 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts, having just read the thread, from start to finish -
1. The way the poll was set-up, why didn't it just have one option - "Fire Farrell"; whoever set that up, clearly had a pre-disposed position, regardless of the very apparent majority opinion of this group. 1 & 3 are basically the same, and item 2, the way it was written, is slanted to the point of almost forcing a responder to 1 or 3. A more fair construct would've have been something more like "not at this point in time, due to significant roster construct issue beyond his control;
2. Pivoting off #1, a more fair poll, would have also included my preferred option - Farrell's decision making "popularity", this season and prior, would likely not be too far off from any other MLB manager I'd have an opportunity to watch "every day" over the course of a season.
I also note the praise heaped on TL, without placing his term as interim Manager. in context. I don't have the memory of most of the members here, but I recall TL's success was against the backdrop of DD arrival, the removal of Hanley from the OF, and some members of the rotation pitching at a level they had not, earlier in the season.
Regarding on the suggestion made that JF did not have control over the line-up (as I recall, during the back and forth in this thread about giving JF credit for certain decisions this season, measuring in-game versus more "global" decisions like playing time - e.g. playing Shaw > Pablo being credited to FO > JF) - wasn't JF quoted, very early this season, that he wasn't use to that type of latitude? I'm more of an opinion that PRIOR to DD, JF would more likely have been directed to play Pablo > Shaw...and that DD signed off on JF filling out a lineup card that gave Sox best chance to win.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 27, 2016 19:32:42 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts, having just read the thread, from start to finish - 1. The way the poll was set-up, why didn't it just have one option - "Fire Farrell"; whoever set that up, clearly had a pre-disposed position, regardless of the very apparent majority opinion of this group. 1 & 3 are basically the same, and item 2, the way it was written, is slanted to the point of almost forcing a responder to 1 or 3. A more fair construct would've have been something more like "not at this point in time, due to significant roster construct issue beyond his control; 2. Pivoting off #1, a more fair poll, would have also included my preferred option - Farrell's decision making "popularity", this season and prior, would likely not be too far off from any other MLB manager I'd have an opportunity to watch "every day" over the course of a season. I also note the praise heaped on TL, without placing his term as interim Manager. in context. I don't have the memory of most of the members here, but I recall TL's success was against the backdrop of DD arrival, the removal of Hanley from the OF, and some members of the rotation pitching at a level they had not, earlier in the season. Regarding on the suggestion made that JF did not have control over the line-up (as I recall, during the back and forth in this thread about giving JF credit for certain decisions this season, measuring in-game versus more "global" decisions like playing time - e.g. playing Shaw > Pablo being credited to FO > JF) - wasn't JF quoted, very early this season, that he wasn't use to that type of latitude? I'm more of an opinion that PRIOR to DD, JF would more likely have been directed to play Pablo > Shaw...and that DD signed off on JF filling out a lineup card that gave Sox best chance to win. cry crybaby
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 27, 2016 19:36:52 GMT -5
This isn't the WEEI comments section as you'll probably find out soon.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 27, 2016 20:41:39 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts, having just read the thread, from start to finish - 1. The way the poll was set-up, why didn't it just have one option - "Fire Farrell"; whoever set that up, clearly had a pre-disposed position, regardless of the very apparent majority opinion of this group. 1 & 3 are basically the same, and item 2, the way it was written, is slanted to the point of almost forcing a responder to 1 or 3. A more fair construct would've have been something more like "not at this point in time, due to significant roster construct issue beyond his control; 2. Pivoting off #1, a more fair poll, would have also included my preferred option - Farrell's decision making "popularity", this season and prior, would likely not be too far off from any other MLB manager I'd have an opportunity to watch "every day" over the course of a season. I also note the praise heaped on TL, without placing his term as interim Manager. in context. I don't have the memory of most of the members here, but I recall TL's success was against the backdrop of DD arrival, the removal of Hanley from the OF, and some members of the rotation pitching at a level they had not, earlier in the season. Regarding on the suggestion made that JF did not have control over the line-up (as I recall, during the back and forth in this thread about giving JF credit for certain decisions this season, measuring in-game versus more "global" decisions like playing time - e.g. playing Shaw > Pablo being credited to FO > JF) - wasn't JF quoted, very early this season, that he wasn't use to that type of latitude? I'm more of an opinion that PRIOR to DD, JF would more likely have been directed to play Pablo > Shaw...and that DD signed off on JF filling out a lineup card that gave Sox best chance to win. cry crybaby You have received three previous private warnings and one public warning about this kind of thing. Consider this your final warning. If you continue to insult and antagonize other posters, you will be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 27, 2016 21:08:18 GMT -5
speaking of which was godot banned or did he leave on his own? Some of his stuff made me laugh out loud.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Apr 27, 2016 21:31:05 GMT -5
There was no need to pinch hit him at any time. The Red Sox were ahead, and by wide margins, the whole game. They did pinch hit Young, but he hasn't been getting many rips lately, and he got a double, so it made sense. I mean, it's not like Papi were making his final appearance at Camden Yards or Yankee Stadium. Atlanta is not a regular rival. The team saluted Papi with a film highlight segment. Fans cheered. Papi came out of dugout and waved. He seemed happy. That's enough. So, obviously my comment was tongue in cheek, but I along with the fans did want to see him hit last night. I didn't see the montage though, and I think that Farrell probably wanted that to be the ending for him, rather than a failed at-bat, so that makes sense. Still, I always want more Papi. Okie,suppose Farrell had sent up Papi to pinch hit to please the fans. And, he pulls a hammy or twists an ankle running out a ground ball. Can you imagine the vitriol from the dump Farrell crowd on this site? Managers have to look at the big picture, not provide a "happy moment" for some fans. Sure, he could get injured running out his doubles tonight, but last night, after the Sox put the game away, was not a moment to take a risk. Farrell should be commended, not criticized for how he handled the situation.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 27, 2016 21:31:14 GMT -5
speaking of which was godot banned or did he leave on his own? Some of his stuff made me laugh out loud. He was banned, one of three or four folks that we've banned since the transition from proboards.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 27, 2016 22:03:07 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts, having just read the thread, from start to finish - 1. The way the poll was set-up, why didn't it just have one option - "Fire Farrell"; whoever set that up, clearly had a pre-disposed position, regardless of the very apparent majority opinion of this group. 1 & 3 are basically the same, and item 2, the way it was written, is slanted to the point of almost forcing a responder to 1 or 3. A more fair construct would've have been something more like "not at this point in time, due to significant roster construct issue beyond his control; 2. Pivoting off #1, a more fair poll, would have also included my preferred option - Farrell's decision making "popularity", this season and prior, would likely not be too far off from any other MLB manager I'd have an opportunity to watch "every day" over the course of a season. I also note the praise heaped on TL, without placing his term as interim Manager. in context. I don't have the memory of most of the members here, but I recall TL's success was against the backdrop of DD arrival, the removal of Hanley from the OF, and some members of the rotation pitching at a level they had not, earlier in the season. Regarding on the suggestion made that JF did not have control over the line-up (as I recall, during the back and forth in this thread about giving JF credit for certain decisions this season, measuring in-game versus more "global" decisions like playing time - e.g. playing Shaw > Pablo being credited to FO > JF) - wasn't JF quoted, very early this season, that he wasn't use to that type of latitude? I'm more of an opinion that PRIOR to DD, JF would more likely have been directed to play Pablo > Shaw...and that DD signed off on JF filling out a lineup card that gave Sox best chance to win. Eh, most posters here would agree that Farrell manages personalities pretty well, hence the wording of (1). I would argue that (2) doesn't push anyone anywhere...the team was playing poorly (and several key individuals playing well under expectations), and the option reflects that idea...that it was a roster problem and not a managerial one. You might have a fair point with (3), but it was probably designed as reflective of a gestalt view seen by the creator...lots of people frustrated with Farrell continuing to repeat questionable decision-making patterns despite repeatedly getting burned for them. Personally, I've softened to (3), in that I have less issue with his general personnel management (starters vs bench, who plays where and how often), while remaining frequently annoyed with "hunch" in-game moves. I find his over-reliance on Tazawa irritating, and while I like that he's trusting Hembree (who's earned it), I cringe at a guy used to going 1-plus doing multiple 3-plus outings. In that sense, I find Farrell's in-game management to be out of touch with his bigger-picture management. IOW, warming guys up frequently and/or overextending them may be fine in the short term, but there's a clear history of that sort of thing affecting guys down the road. OTOH, I do like that he's let Price and Wright pitch fairly deep into their last games, meaning at least he has *some* consideration of the big picture. I'd just like to see a little higher order of thinking than "I'll leave my starter in to save the 'pen." The too-frequent warm ups, missing platoon match ups, etc is a weakness, I think, at a particularly costly time in the game, when more significant swings in win probability occur.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on May 13, 2016 17:02:23 GMT -5
Full disclosure, I absolutely voted to get rid of John Farrell, but after the great start, the anti-Farrell talk has died down on this board, and these types of pieces are starting to sprout up www.bostonglobe.com/sports/baseball/newsletter/108-stitches-newsletterwww.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2016/05/13/david-price-clubhouse-chemistry-playstation-pHere is a sample of Speier's writing: In 2013, a great deal was made of the chemistry of the Red Sox. The team enjoyed across-the-board performance at something approaching peak levels not just because they liked each other, but because they liked to talk about baseball with one another. That club obsessed over the details of the game, as players talked all the time with one another about how to find and exploit an edge.
It’s still relatively early in 2016. Yet there are signs of a similar culture taking shape on the Red Sox this year. Pedroia’s observation to Price offered one indication of a culture taking root, of the player-to-player interactions that can amplify messages from the coaching staff and put teams in position to win.Not claiming that Farrell is now a tactical genius or anything, but the team is off to a great start, and the clubhouse culture seems pretty awesome. Even taking these accounts with a grain of salt, it seems Farrell deserves a big chunk of credit for both the fast start and the clubhouse culture (because if we were going to blame him for poor records and what seemed like lousy clubhouse cultures in year's past, we have to give him credit now, right?). I will gladly accept this start in lieu of Farrell getting canned, and just hope it keeps going. Regardless, this start has bought Farrell a great deal of breathing room, and only a huge choke will get him back on the hot seat.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 13, 2016 17:13:58 GMT -5
Not claiming that Farrell is now a tactical genius or anything, but the team is off to a great start, and the clubhouse culture seems pretty awesome. Even taking these accounts with a grain of salt, it seems Farrell deserves a big chunk of credit for both the fast start and the clubhouse culture (because if we were going to blame him for poor records and what seemed like lousy clubhouse cultures in year's past, we have to give him credit now, right?). In terms of Farrell talk dying down, it's still in my signature and I still stand by it. Anyway, it is my contention that Farrell doesn't actually have a significant influence on the clubhouse culture / chemistry / whatever, and furthermore that this doesn't cause winning but rather is caused by it anyway, so I would still judge him by his actual game management which is still awful. Even if all this did matter and Farrell had influence on it, you'd think you could expect more than a 50% hit rate given what they are paying him.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on May 13, 2016 17:43:04 GMT -5
You have to credit Farrell with building a terrific coaching staff.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 13, 2016 21:01:08 GMT -5
Yeah, his game management is still often ineffective, occasionally bizarre, but the team is gelling, and in my personal experience, winning culture starts with the coach/manager. I think the right blend of players (and that includes both personalities and performances) is key, but Farrell's been able to do that to a large extent because of Dombrowski's "you perform, you play" dictum. I was something like 98% on Farrell, but I think I was wrong, and I'm glad DD stuck to his "through 40 games" guns.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 0:58:38 GMT -5
Yeah, his game management is still often ineffective, occasionally bizarre, but the team is gelling, and in my personal experience, winning culture starts with the coach/manager. I think the right blend of players (and that includes both personalities and performances) is key, but Farrell's been able to do that to a large extent because of Dombrowski's "you perform, you play" dictum. I was something like 98% on Farrell, but I think I was wrong, and I'm glad DD stuck to his "through 40 games" guns. You know who was an absolutely exquisite long-haul player's manager, and a bad tactician? Bobby Cox. How did that work out for the Braves, in terms of championships? You know who was a very good player's manager and a brutal tactician? Think about it. Go back a lucky 13 years. I agree, JF is plenty good enough to get this team to the post-season, and should deserve some of the credit if that happens. But the contrast between his bullpen management and Terry Francona's in 2004 (which left Theo, Josh Byrnes, and Jed Hoyer all shaking their heads in amazement), and between Tito's and his predecessor's ... that doesn't leave me very optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 14, 2016 7:34:17 GMT -5
I still don't really even buy that Farrell is a great "player's manager". Who are the difficult personalities to manage on this team? The team is socked with high-makeup guys and they're winning. I doubt there's a manager in baseball who could screw that clubhouse up.
|
|
|
Post by lonborgski on May 14, 2016 8:50:33 GMT -5
Yeah, his game management is still often ineffective, occasionally bizarre, but the team is gelling, and in my personal experience, winning culture starts with the coach/manager. I think the right blend of players (and that includes both personalities and performances) is key, but Farrell's been able to do that to a large extent because of Dombrowski's "you perform, you play" dictum. I was something like 98% on Farrell, but I think I was wrong, and I'm glad DD stuck to his "through 40 games" guns. You know who was an absolutely exquisite long-haul player's manager, and a bad tactician? Bobby Cox. How did that work out for the Braves, in terms of championships? You know who was a very good player's manager and a brutal tactician? Think about it. Go back a lucky 13 years. I agree, JF is plenty good enough to get this team to the post-season, and should deserve some of the credit if that happens. But the contrast between his bullpen management and Terry Francona's in 2004 (which left Theo, Josh Byrnes, and Jed Hoyer all shaking their heads in amazement), and between Tito's and his predecessor's ... that doesn't leave me very optimistic. So this is primarily about bullpen management. Is there a way to measure a good bullpen manager? Is Ned Yost a bullpen wizard? There has to be a trick. How do you think he does it? What makes him so good?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 9:41:36 GMT -5
You know who was an absolutely exquisite long-haul player's manager, and a bad tactician? Bobby Cox. How did that work out for the Braves, in terms of championships? You know who was a very good player's manager and a brutal tactician? Think about it. Go back a lucky 13 years. I agree, JF is plenty good enough to get this team to the post-season, and should deserve some of the credit if that happens. But the contrast between his bullpen management and Terry Francona's in 2004 (which left Theo, Josh Byrnes, and Jed Hoyer all shaking their heads in amazement), and between Tito's and his predecessor's ... that doesn't leave me very optimistic. So this is primarily about bullpen management. Is there a way to measure a good bullpen manager? Is Ned Yost a bullpen wizard? There has to be a trick. How do you think he does it? What makes him so good? One objective way to measure it is to compare the Leverage Index that relievers pitch at with their quality, which you can measure either by provable skill (xFIP-) or by results (WPA / InLI / G). You want the best guys to pitch the most important innings. Since May 2, the guy who has gotten the most important innings has been Matt Barnes, who is supposed to be the extra emergency reliever and measures as the 8th best. I think Hembree is second. FG has a bug that is omitting the May 9 game from the totals; when they fix that, I'll post the data. A more sophisticated way would be to go game-by-game with the same idea, and have some metric defining reliever restedness. But that suggests a cool preliminary study -- look at every relief situation in MLB over the last whatever years, limit the study to guys who pitched all year with an average LI above, say, 0.8, and have the data for their recent appearances in terms of how recently they had pitched, and how many innings and pitches they threw. Come up with a formula that classifies every pitcher into 5 levels of availability. You can then look at a situation in terms of LI, and the number of alternative pitchers who were rested and better. If the number of better alternatives exceeds the number of innings left in the game, you've definitely screwed up. If you have 4.2 innings left, the LI is 2.4, and there are 8 rested guys in the pen, bringing in the 8th best is indefensible, and leaving him in to pitch the 6th with the score tied (LI 1.3) is arguably even worse. The point here is that most managerial choices are subject to debate and have pros and cons. But some are not. You really don't want a manager who makes literally indefensible decisions in close games.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 14, 2016 10:26:48 GMT -5
Yeah, his game management is still often ineffective, occasionally bizarre, but the team is gelling, and in my personal experience, winning culture starts with the coach/manager. I think the right blend of players (and that includes both personalities and performances) is key, but Farrell's been able to do that to a large extent because of Dombrowski's "you perform, you play" dictum. I was something like 98% on Farrell, but I think I was wrong, and I'm glad DD stuck to his "through 40 games" guns. You know who was an absolutely exquisite long-haul player's manager, and a bad tactician? Bobby Cox. How did that work out for the Braves, in terms of championships? You know who was a very good player's manager and a brutal tactician? Think about it. Go back a lucky 13 years. I agree, JF is plenty good enough to get this team to the post-season, and should deserve some of the credit if that happens. But the contrast between his bullpen management and Terry Francona's in 2004 (which left Theo, Josh Byrnes, and Jed Hoyer all shaking their heads in amazement), and between Tito's and his predecessor's ... that doesn't leave me very optimistic. Well, that's the issue, right? 2013 seemed to work out well because certain players played transcendently; there were several "smart" personnel moves but some real head-scratching tactical ones. I will never buy into the Grady Little narrative. When NY took the lead, they did so on an unlikely stream of soft-hit cheapies. If there was ever an instance of blind luck affecting outcome, that was it. That said, I'm not sure why Wake was in there, but whatever. Grady did make a number of head-scratchers. Barnes is third in the AL in average FB velocity. I think Farrell thinks he's better than he is. Or maybe he's hoping the confidence/high leverage situations will make him better. But it's true that he's at least the 6th option behind Kimbrel, Koji, Smith, Tazawa, and either (or both) of Ross/Hembree. So yeah, it should probably be Koji in those situations, followed by Tazawa/Smith, and Ross as the pseudo-LOOGY. So there's obviously some pretty significant bullpen mismanagement going on. It seems to have shown up in their X-inning and 1-run game results the past two years (although it's tough to judge last year's atrocious bullpen as a managerial issue). However, Farrell did take them all the way in '13, which means he's matched Bobby Cox already. I'm not sure that it would make sense to replace him at this point...that would seem shockingly bad for morale. So we're stuck in a "three strikes" scenario...because if he mismanages this team out of the playoffs, I've got to think DD makes a change, regardless of where they finish.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on May 14, 2016 10:55:21 GMT -5
You know who was an absolutely exquisite long-haul player's manager, and a bad tactician? Bobby Cox. How did that work out for the Braves, in terms of championships? You know who was a very good player's manager and a brutal tactician? Think about it. Go back a lucky 13 years. I agree, JF is plenty good enough to get this team to the post-season, and should deserve some of the credit if that happens. But the contrast between his bullpen management and Terry Francona's in 2004 (which left Theo, Josh Byrnes, and Jed Hoyer all shaking their heads in amazement), and between Tito's and his predecessor's ... that doesn't leave me very optimistic. Well, that's the issue, right? 2013 seemed to work out well because certain players played transcendently; there were several "smart" personnel moves but some real head-scratching tactical ones. I will never buy into the Grady Little narrative. When NY took the lead, they did so on an unlikely stream of soft-hit cheapies. If there was ever an instance of blind luck affecting outcome, that was it. That said, I'm not sure why Wake was in there, but whatever. Grady did make a number of head-scratchers. Barnes is third in the AL in average FB velocity. I think Farrell thinks he's better than he is. Or maybe he's hoping the confidence/high leverage situations will make him better. But it's true that he's at least the 6th option behind Kimbrel, Koji, Smith, Tazawa, and either (or both) of Ross/Hembree. So yeah, it should probably be Koji in those situations, followed by Tazawa/Smith, and Ross as the pseudo-LOOGY. So there's obviously some pretty significant bullpen mismanagement going on. It seems to have shown up in their X-inning and 1-run game results the past two years (although it's tough to judge last year's atrocious bullpen as a managerial issue). However, Farrell did take them all the way in '13, which means he's matched Bobby Cox already. I'm not sure that it would make sense to replace him at this point...that would seem shockingly bad for morale. So we're stuck in a "three strikes" scenario...because if he mismanages this team out of the playoffs, I've got to think DD makes a change, regardless of where they finish. Totally with you on JF here. And you try to educate him. One of the reasons last night was so disappointing is that he should have been spanked after the Cuevas game, and then he did it again. Re Grady, somewhere I have a detailed analysis of how obviously, incredibly spent Pedro was the inning before the meltdown. He only got out of the previous inning because the last batter he had to retire was Soriano.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on May 14, 2016 11:20:46 GMT -5
As far as educating the manager, Sam Miller and Ben Lindbergh were relating an interesting story re: Clint Hurdle.
Hurdle is largely regarded as one of the more enlightened/progressive managers in the game, and the Pirates are rightly considered one of the most analytical FOs in the game.
But initially, Hurdle completely ignored the "advice" of the FO. They patiently explained their reasoning, presented the data, etc. and then Hurdle went out and made all of the "old-school" moves that he had been inculcated with.
Exasperated, the FO finally went to Hurdle and said, do it our way or you're fired. Only then, did Hurdle see the light.
At this point, I think this is the only approach that can succeed. Cherington probably lacked the personality, and Dombrowski lacks the analytics - that's the conundrum. And I doubt Lovullo would be any improvement.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on May 14, 2016 11:43:57 GMT -5
Lovullo handled the bullpen much better, didn't ignore splits, and never bunted. Managers may not be that important, but he would be better.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on May 14, 2016 13:30:09 GMT -5
I still don't really even buy that Farrell is a great "player's manager". Who are the difficult personalities to manage on this team? The team is socked with high-makeup guys and they're winning. I doubt there's a manager in baseball who could screw that clubhouse up.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on May 14, 2016 16:57:12 GMT -5
speaking of which was godot banned or did he leave on his own? Some of his stuff made me laugh out loud. He was banned, one of three or four folks that we've banned since the transition from proboards. So waiting for his return would be fruitless? I'd like to be hopeful.
|
|
|