2024-2025 Front Office, Staff, and Coaching Changes

I don't really have much stake in keeping Fatse one way or another as I really don't think that hitting coaches really sway things to a large degree one way or another, perhaps I am wrong on that though? However it is comical that some on here are ready to pretty much blame him for any and all underperformers but wave off any credit for all the overperformers. It doesn't really help your argument to use all the negative points you can but stick your head in the sand and ignore the overperformers.

...for me when I hear the idea of fundamentals that is adjusting your approach at the plate based on the situation, advancing runners with productive outs, etc. On defense, backing up bases, hitting the cutoff, knowing how many outs there are, etc. I would agree that these should be known for anybody that makes it to the majors and a major league coach wouldn't need to teach them. However, a major league coach should be reinforcing the importance or players will drift away from them in favor of something they think will be rewarded. One way to get out of a slump is to "focus on fundamentals".

I also think that a good coach works with the skills of each individual. The minute a coach tries to run everyone thru the same cookie cutter they are making a mistake. Let big slow guys focus on home runs and smaller speedy guys focus on getting on base and stealing bases. Everyone doesn't have to be all the same.

O'Neill was previously injured.  Romy was previously injured.  This was widely reported. 

That said, I think Fatse has made a stronger case for himself this year: Abreu and Hamilton seemed to get though their growing pains moderately well.  Duran is just a physical beast who benefitted from revamping his running style, fielding coaching, and sinking himself into the game.  

OTOH, Yoshida was inconsistent (yes, there was also injury there.)  Rafaela failed miserably.  And of all the bit players only Smith approached adequacy.  Pablo Reyes cratered, as did Dalbec and Valdez and Cooper.  It seemed they couldn't bring in anyone who was remotely competent or had a plan at the plate.  Raffy fell apart at the end and someone must have been telling Cora he would do just fine at the plate when he was actually a black hole for a month.  (Not that ultimately playing Raffy is on Fatse, but still, it's not a glowing endorsement of the orgs ability to vet player performance/injury impacts.)  Meanwhile behind the dish, Wong faded badly in the second half, McGuire struggled, and Jansen underachived.  Grissom was entirely lost early-on, but I'm willing to chalk that up to injury.

Also, the Sox had an offensive resurgence when they decided to have one-on-one meetings with the hitters.  (Which just sounds nuts to me - that they weren't doing that already.)

So there's a lot of indicators pointing this way and that.  Ultimately, I'm more agnostic on Fatse than I was going into the year, but the constant trying to barrel the ball no matter what became tired.  Sure, they scored runs in bunches, but there was no coordination at times to the offense.  The whole was less than the sum of its parts. 

Not to pick on you specifically, but the board has in the past understood this part of the game. That knowledge seems to have been lost so it needs to be restated. Tom Tango in The Book explained why strikeouts are no costlier than other batting outs. He runs through the different states, the combination of men on base and outs at the time. He lists the probability of each of those in detail. In one case it's better to have the batter K so the likelihood of a GDP is quashed. The other negative cases arise relatively infrequently. We may not like the optics but that has little to nothing at all to do with the run value of a strikeout as opposed to any other out. Disabuse yourself of that notion.

Something interesting to ponder......coincidence?

The 5 teams (COL, SEA, BOS, OAK, PIT) with the highest strikeout rates did NOT make the playoffs

The 5 teams (SDP, HOU, KCR, ARI, CLE) with the lowest strikeout rates DID make the playoffs

Not to pick on you specifically, but the board has in the past understood this part of the game. That knowledge seems to have been lost so it needs to be restated. Tom Tango in The Book explained why strikeouts are no costlier than other batting outs. He runs through the different states, the combination of men on base and outs at the time. He lists the probability of each of those in detail. In one case it's better to have the batter K so the likelihood of a GDP is quashed. The other negative cases arise relatively infrequently. We may not like the optics but that has little to nothing at all to do with the run value of a strikeout as opposed to any other out. Disabuse yourself of that notion.

As for Fatse, my own opinion which I've stated many times is that the offense has not been the issue. The numbers back that up. If you need a whipping boy then whip away, but other facets of the game - specifically strong defense and reliable relief pitching - have been lacking. Correct those and the team I believe is on its way.