That's a fair question/point. Ultimately, I'm not qualified to say my expectations are any better than yours. I'm basing my opinion there mostly on the points others have made here throughout the season. All I can say is from what I can gather, being as rational as I could be about it, I was expecting a more dominant team than this, particularly offensively. And on the offensive end, there's plenty of objective evidence that just about everyone underperformed. Beyond that, I am having a hard time articulating my stance, so I'll let others provide more details.
But, I do think that something like Bogaerts playing through an injury isn't Xander's call. It's Farrell's. But, to be fair back, I'm not 100% sure that was the "wrong" decision (as in, I haven't thought deeply about it, not that I would have done the same thing). It seems wrong in hindsight, but that's not fair. And, the really good examples out there of puzzling decisions he's made are still very much relevant to his case, but that's not about "expectations" so I'll let them stand for themselves.
My opinion hasn't changed, but I don't have anything specific that nullifies yours, so I'm ok with agreeing to disagree on it. I do think the approach is our biggest divider, though. I believe that the manager is responsible for the intangibles by default. MY approach is more about whether or not someone else could do better than it is about whether or not Farrell "deserves" to be fired. I think the case for someone else stepping in and doing a better job is compelling, and I've put Farrell on a block where I would need a compelling reason I shouldn't look into other candidates. That may seem like guilty until proven innocent, but this isn't a criminal trial. Firing a manager isn't necessarily a black mark.
