|
Post by dcsoxfan on May 29, 2015 22:33:11 GMT -5
I don't think John Farrell is a particularly good manager. However the Red Sox are five games below because they have been outscored by 39 runs in less than 1/3 of the season.
Earl Weaver couldn't win with this team playing the way it is right now.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 29, 2015 22:33:39 GMT -5
Whether hooking Wright with Hamilton up is objectively correct or not, it just seems glaringly obvious that Farrell is making decisions based on data with sample sizes as low as 2 AB. The decision-making process matters, and Farrell's decision-making process is inexcusable. I can't knock Farrell for taking Wright out based on the two jacks. Sure it's a sample size of two ABs, but it's two ABs in tonight's game. That's different than a manager making decisions based on a small number of ABs stretching over years.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 29, 2015 22:39:50 GMT -5
Selection bias and small samples. Dude, first you bring up this data to support your argument, then I tell you it doesn't support your argument, then you tell me the data is deeply flawed? Why bring it up in the first place then?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 29, 2015 22:43:58 GMT -5
trying to micro-manage Farrell is folly ... let the genius do his thing. (but why did Ogando come in to face the lefty when layne only threw 2 pitches?) Splain dat one!
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 29, 2015 22:44:24 GMT -5
Sure it's a sample size of two ABs, but it's two ABs in tonight's game. That's different than a manager making decisions based on a small number of ABs stretching over years. Absolutely not. 2 ABs today might tell you more than 2 ABs a year ago, but they don't tell you more than 3 ABs a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 29, 2015 22:48:53 GMT -5
(but why did Ogando come in to face the lefty when layne only threw 2 pitches?) Splain dat one! Well, Layne already had a multi-inning appearance yesterday with a total of 20 pitches. Could be having him sit in the dugout and come back out next inning two nights in a row is a bit much for him.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 30, 2015 4:43:01 GMT -5
Sure it's a sample size of two ABs, but it's two ABs in tonight's game. That's different than a manager making decisions based on a small number of ABs stretching over years. Absolutely not. 2 ABs today might tell you more than 2 ABs a year ago, but they don't tell you more than 3 ABs a year ago. I disagree
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 30, 2015 8:18:32 GMT -5
Absolutely not. 2 ABs today might tell you more than 2 ABs a year ago, but they don't tell you more than 3 ABs a year ago. I disagree Hey, feel free to get the data and show that 2 ABs from the same day have any sort of predictive value. The methodology should be easy enough - look at Chapter 2 of The Book where they found negligible predictive value for 5- and 7-game hot/cold streaks. Present your findings and start a sabremetric revolution!
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 30, 2015 9:57:34 GMT -5
Hey, feel free to get the data and show that 2 ABs from the same day have any sort of predictive value. The methodology should be easy enough - look at Chapter 2 of The Book where they found negligible predictive value for 5- and 7-game hot/cold streaks. Present your findings and start a sabremetric revolution! How about a common-sense revolution? Tommy Layne dominates LHH. That surely had as much to do with Farrell's decision as the druggie's 2 HRs. Layne vs. LHH in 2015: .161/.206/.161/.367. That's an sOPS-plus of 4. Any manager in the ML would have brought his lefty killer in to replace his back-end SP to face Hamilton in that spot.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 30, 2015 10:10:45 GMT -5
Hey, feel free to get the data and show that 2 ABs from the same day have any sort of predictive value. The methodology should be easy enough - look at Chapter 2 of The Book where they found negligible predictive value for 5- and 7-game hot/cold streaks. Present your findings and start a sabremetric revolution! How about a common-sense revolution? Tommy Layne dominates LHH. That surely had as much to do with Farrell's decision as the druggie's 2 HRs. Layne vs. LHH in 2015: .161/.206/.161/.367. That's an sOPS-plus of 4. Any manager in the ML would have brought his lefty killer in to replace his back-end SP to face Hamilton in that spot. Good job totally ignoring what we were talking about. To get you back on subject ... can you explain why, if it was so obvious to put in Layne against Hamilton, it was not equally obvious to do so two batters earlier against Prince Fielder?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 10:27:11 GMT -5
I think the invective here against Farrell and Breslow about last night's game is somewhat over the top. Last night's game was lost because of Ogando who has been a good RP, not because of Breslow or any other move that Farrell made. Yes, Breslow gave up a hit that scored the second run counted against Ogando, but the situation was created by Ogando and no RP can be expected to be perfect, especially in that kind of situation.
Yes, Breslow should not have been brought back the next inning but that move had no effect on the outcome of the game since the Sox didn't score any more runs.
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 30, 2015 10:36:23 GMT -5
How about a common-sense revolution? Tommy Layne dominates LHH. That surely had as much to do with Farrell's decision as the druggie's 2 HRs. Layne vs. LHH in 2015: .161/.206/.161/.367. That's an sOPS-plus of 4. Any manager in the ML would have brought his lefty killer in to replace his back-end SP to face Hamilton in that spot. Good job totally ignoring what we were talking about. To get you back on subject ... can you explain why, if it was so obvious to put in Layne against Hamilton, it was not equally obvious to do so two batters earlier against Prince Fielder? I never said anything about the merits of putting Layne in for Prince Fielder. My initial comment was that I agreed with putting him in for Hamilton. Ignoring that Layne is a very good P against LHH and focusing only on the two HRs is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room (though I think just about any ML manager would want to throw a different look at a hitter who had just hit two HRs off a specialist-type SP.) If you want to argue that he should have put him in for Fielder, I won't disagree with you. I tend to be a big advocate of LOOGYs and like to see them used aggressively. I'm not in Farrell's head and cannot explain his thought process in leaving Wright in for Prince. I also don't have a lot of faith that his thought process was sound because I don't think he's a particularly good game mgr. Would you say under oath that if he had left Wright in for Hamilton and Hamilton hit another HR that you wouldn't be second-guessing that decision based partly on the HRs?
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 30, 2015 10:51:36 GMT -5
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful. Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 30, 2015 11:11:29 GMT -5
I never said anything about the merits of putting Layne in for Prince Fielder. My initial comment was that I agreed with putting him in for Hamilton. Ignoring that Layne is a very good P against LHH and focusing only on the two HRs is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room (though I think just about any ML manager would want to throw a different look at a hitter who had just hit two HRs off a specialist-type SP.) If you want to argue that he should have put him in for Fielder, I won't disagree with you. I tend to be a big advocate of LOOGYs and like to see them used aggressively. I'm not in Farrell's head and cannot explain his thought process in leaving Wright in for Prince. I also don't have a lot of faith that his thought process was sound because I don't think he's a particularly good game mgr. It's hard to say what I would do differently because if I were the manager the bullpen etc. would work completely differently. Also I would have someone reviewing slo-mo video and telling me how many rotations Wright is getting on each and every knuckleball he throws. The point is, putting in the LOOGY at that particular moment, as opposed to any other moment (e.g. against Fielder), strongly suggests Farrell is basing his decision on the result of the 2 previous ABs against Hamilton. And I'm convinced that that's a bad decision-making process. Yes, absolutely. Constantly second-guessing good process decisions that had bad results in small sample sizes is exactly the way to become a terrible manager who doesn't understand baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 30, 2015 11:17:05 GMT -5
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful. Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? No. But I'm ready for Farrell to go anyway.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on May 30, 2015 11:26:47 GMT -5
Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? No. But I'm ready for Farrell to go anyway. Same
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on May 30, 2015 11:28:05 GMT -5
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful. Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? Yes, it is possible. I think, as in September 2011, there is a psychological aspect to the Red Sox struggles. I think a number of current Red Sox are pressing, which I think at least partially explains the gap between their peripherals and their results. However, I see no reason to think this is Farrell's fault or that a change of managers would have any real effect. The 2013 Red Sox were studs at crunch time under Farrell. Human beings are complex, and human performance is highly variable and influenced by a wide range of variables. Right now a number of Red Sox are not performing as well as their previous histories suggest they should. Some of these players are old enough that they may be in decline, but most of them will probably eventually play in a manner more consistent with their previous performance. It just might not happen this year. Having said that, I would be perfectly happy to change managers if someone could identify a manager they think would be better. I am not a believer in changing managers for the sake of changing managers.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 30, 2015 11:34:53 GMT -5
Unless the hitting improves no manager could make this team successful. Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? I don't think a manager can have much effect on hitting, per se. However, there certainly are examples in Sox history of managers who have changed the atmosphere and the way the team played - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. I am not defending Farrell and probably there should be a change of management, maybe even higher. However, he didn't cost the Sox the game last night. The only thing he did that I dispute was bringing Breslow back the next inning. That didn't make sense. I do dispute the attacks on Breslow. He has been a pretty good pitcher this year, much better than last year. However, he is not what he once was, and if he could be replaced by someone measurably better, it should be done. But that also applies to several other RPs in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 30, 2015 11:47:00 GMT -5
Isn't it possible that a new manager might change the atmosphere of the clubhouse and thus might also cause the hitting to improve? Yes, it is possible. I think, as in September 2011, there is a psychological aspect to the Red Sox struggles. I think a number of current Red Sox are pressing, which I think at least partially explains the gap between their peripherals and their results. However, I see no reason to think this is Farrell's fault or that a change of managers would have any real effect. The 2013 Red Sox were studs at crunch time under Farrell. Human beings are complex, and human performance is highly variable and influenced by a wide range of variables. Right now a number of Red Sox are not performing as well as their previous histories suggest they should. Some of these players are old enough that they may be in decline, but most of them will probably eventually play in a manner more consistent with their previous performance. It just might not happen this year. Having said that, I would be perfectly happy to change managers if someone could identify a manager they think would be better. I am not a believer in changing managers for the sake of changing managers. It's probably more likely that if they get a new manager and their BABIP improves so everyone thinks it's the manager's doing. Kind of like what is going on with Willis over Nieves.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on May 30, 2015 12:00:31 GMT -5
Yes, it is possible. I think, as in September 2011, there is a psychological aspect to the Red Sox struggles. I think a number of current Red Sox are pressing, which I think at least partially explains the gap between their peripherals and their results. However, I see no reason to think this is Farrell's fault or that a change of managers would have any real effect. The 2013 Red Sox were studs at crunch time under Farrell. Human beings are complex, and human performance is highly variable and influenced by a wide range of variables. Right now a number of Red Sox are not performing as well as their previous histories suggest they should. Some of these players are old enough that they may be in decline, but most of them will probably eventually play in a manner more consistent with their previous performance. It just might not happen this year. Having said that, I would be perfectly happy to change managers if someone could identify a manager they think would be better. I am not a believer in changing managers for the sake of changing managers. It's probably more likely that if they get a new manager and their BABIP improves so everyone thinks it's the manager's doing. Kind of like what is going on with Willis over Nieves. Sounds good to me
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,951
|
Post by TearsIn04 on May 30, 2015 12:09:15 GMT -5
I never said anything about the merits of putting Layne in for Prince Fielder. My initial comment was that I agreed with putting him in for Hamilton. Ignoring that Layne is a very good P against LHH and focusing only on the two HRs is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room (though I think just about any ML manager would want to throw a different look at a hitter who had just hit two HRs off a specialist-type SP.) If you want to argue that he should have put him in for Fielder, I won't disagree with you. I tend to be a big advocate of LOOGYs and like to see them used aggressively. I'm not in Farrell's head and cannot explain his thought process in leaving Wright in for Prince. I also don't have a lot of faith that his thought process was sound because I don't think he's a particularly good game mgr. It's hard to say what I would do differently because if I were the manager the bullpen etc. would work completely differently. Also I would have someone reviewing slo-mo video and telling me how many rotations Wright is getting on each and every knuckleball he throws.The point is, putting in the LOOGY at that particular moment, as opposed to any other moment (e.g. against Fielder), strongly suggests Farrell is basing his decision on the result of the 2 previous ABs against Hamilton. And I'm convinced that that's a bad decision-making process. 1. For all we know, they may be doing this. 2. No, it doesn't. Fangraphs tells us that Hamilton has had more success against KBs in his career than Prince. As mentioned, I'm not a big Farrell fan. But I have no doubt that he goes into a Wright game with a pretty good idea of which opposing hitters have hit KBs well and which ones haven't. That's pretty basic for any manager not named Grady.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 30, 2015 12:37:52 GMT -5
Hey, feel free to get the data and show that 2 ABs from the same day have any sort of predictive value. The methodology should be easy enough - look at Chapter 2 of The Book where they found negligible predictive value for 5- and 7-game hot/cold streaks. Present your findings and start a sabremetric revolution! How about a common-sense revolution? Tommy Layne dominates LHH. That surely had as much to do with Farrell's decision as the druggie's 2 HRs. Layne vs. LHH in 2015: .161/.206/.161/.367. That's an sOPS-plus of 4. Any manager in the ML would have brought his lefty killer in to replace his back-end SP to face Hamilton in that spot. - Wright had thrown 18 pitches that inning when he was lifted. What's the data on performance after 18 pitches in an inning? - Layne had 2 lefties in a row with Hamilton, which he did not if he came in to face Fielder. - 2 men on base is more leveraged than 1 man on base (Fielder's AB).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on May 30, 2015 13:01:40 GMT -5
Grady Little was a better manager than Farrell is.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 30, 2015 13:10:21 GMT -5
Grady Little was a better manager than Farrell is. He really wasn't. And I'm a Farrell critic. The 2003 Red Sox had their three lowest OBP hitters batting 1-2-3. Also, he couldn't figure out how to use a bullpen that didn't have a previously-established closer. Like, it totally blew his mind.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 30, 2015 13:17:35 GMT -5
Grady Little was a better manager than Farrell is. No he wasn't
|
|