Yeah. The Yankees look great for the foreseeable future. I was just pointing out the obvious hyperbole.
You will never see this objective evidence. It doesn't exist whether Farrell is the devil or the best manager ever. I totally agree that observational evidence is the lowest form of evidence, but it's going to be the only form of evidence here.I mean, I'm relatively indifferent towards Farrell, I guess -- but I have yet to see a piece of objective (i.e., not "remember that one game this one time!") evidence that Farrell has cost the Red Sox numerous games.
This is patently false. There have been plenty of stats posted on this board since the end of the Astros series that give us useful information in trying to measure the impact of John Farrell. That virtually none of them have come from the Fire Farell crowd isn't really all that surprising, though.You will never see this objective evidence. It doesn't exist whether Farrell is the devil or the best manager ever. I totally agree that observational evidence is the lowest form of evidence, but it's going to be the only form of evidence here.
And that's totally fine if you're not convinced by it. You're allowed to just disagree. People are having a conversation about it. We're not actually deciding his fate. It's ok. But this automatic stance of ignoring everything because they're not posting stats is just obnoxious. There's no stat for this. Not one person here is going to be able to even define how much of an effect a manager has in a season let alone Farrell specifically. This is going to be a 100% subjective argument.
So, if there's anything you like about Farrell, and some have brought a few decent points, btw, I'm happy to hear them. If you just want to say you remain unconvinced, that's totally cool, too.
Well, we've got three "Fire Farrell" threads for you to go ahead and post them in. You know, back up your claim or shut the fuck up, I believe it was?This is patently false. There have been plenty of stats posted on this board since the end of the Astros series that give us useful information in trying to measure the impact of John Farrell. That virtually none of them have come from the Fire Farell crowd isn't really all that surprising, though.
I have.Well, we've got three "Fire Farrell" threads for you to go ahead and post them in. You know, back up your claim or shut the fuck up, I believe it was?
There is zero reason they cant trade for Stanton this offseason and sign Machado the year after that. I think the nationals will be committed to signing harper, their owners are not afraid to drop loads of money on big stars and the have very few salary commitments outside of Scherzer, Straz and Zimmerman entering next offseason.The scary thing about the Yankees is that in addition to the young talent that won't get expensive for a while, they have very little in future payroll commitments, with Ellsbury the one bad contract and Tanaka/Chapman the only other guys signed long term. Zero reason they can't sign both Machado and Harper.
I am probably going to sound stupid here, but line drives wouldnt be going through the wall at Fenway, right? so red dots landing over the wall must have been fly balls, and so they would land where indicated at Kaufman? Maybe I am misinterpreting something, it wouldnt be the first timeMy post was in response to a question about whether anyone in the lineup was capable of hitting 30 HR's. Just one season after Mookie hit 31. An overreaction in a thread full of them.
Expecting Mookie to hit 25-30 HR's per year is not asking a lot giving his brief career so far, as well as his age and skills. I think I agree with most in that this team needs more power, but we definitely have a few players capable of hitting HR's.
I'm just here to prove my point. CoraFarrell had his run but I believe his time is up. Sale should have never started the 8th after the long 7th, I agree with Smilin' Joe 100%, Reed should have pitched the 8th.
How about Houston's bench coach as the Sox next manager?? What's his name, Alex Cora.
Unless his shoulder issues get better and he can give 130 games of 2016 production.Either Hanley has to go or the FO has to forget about staying under the luxury tax. The lineup just doesn't compute otherwise.
They aren't staying under the luxury tax threshold in 2018, so no need trying to figure out ways they can do it. $237M is the number to worry about, as that's when their top draft pick gets dropped 10 spots as an additional penalty. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if even that threshold won't be a deterrent for Dombrowski this winter.Either Hanley has to go or the FO has to forget about staying under the luxury tax. The lineup just doesn't compute otherwise.
Seriously. While it’s probable that having shoulder surgery will sap Hanley’s power in the long-term, in the short term of his one remaining guaranteed season he may be a great lineup presence.Unless his shoulder issues get better and he can give 130 games of 2016 production.
Pedroia's home/away wRC+ split for the past three years: 129/102With Farrell’s firing and DDski stating that one reason for the change is him wanting to bring in a manager whose team culture will allow the younger players to start assuming leadership roles, I have to wonder whether Pedroia will be quietly shopped this offseason.
Oops, sorry, missed your post date. My bad. Though I still think even before the surgery, the Fenway-centric character of his offensive game would have kept his trade value low enough to make a trade unlikely. He really is worth more to us than to anyone else.Well, to be fair SH, I posted that before Pedroia went under the knife, and before the extent of the time he’d miss next season was guesstimated.
Pedroia obviously won’t be shopped now. Just like with Hanley, surgery to start the offseason also guaranteed the Sox would have Pedroia on their books in April.
I can't recall where I saw it but I think there has been some success rate "bracketing" of draft picks posted on this site from back in the Ball/Benintendi days as to how likely you are to get value from various draft tiers plays out, with back end of the first and comp. picks/early 2nd not being worlds apart.They aren't staying under the luxury tax threshold in 2018, so no need trying to figure out ways they can do it. $237M is the number to worry about, as that's when their top draft pick gets dropped 10 spots as an additional penalty. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if even that threshold won't be a deterrent for Dombrowski this winter.
Character and chemistry are the participation trophies that get handed out when you win. I've never seen a last place team lauded for it's chemistry. And I've never seen a world series winner that sport writers claim had bad character.Mods, not sure where this belongs but on the topic of building a winning team I thought this of general interest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/astros-world-series-win-may-be-remembered-as-the-moment-analytics-conquered-mlb-for-good/2017/11/02/ac62abaa-bfec-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_series-452pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.eb594fccaa36
Amid the focus on analytics, the value of character and team chemistry arise.
I agree in principle, but the 2015 Red Sox finished last and by the end of the season looked like they were having a great time playing together.Character and chemistry are the participation trophies that get handed out when you win. I've never seen a last place team lauded for it's chemistry. And I've never seen a world series winner that sport writers claim had bad character.
Weren't born during the run of the early 70s A's?And I've never seen a world series winner that sport writers claim had bad character.
There most certainly are good and bad guys, and their influence on other players is variable. And some teams get along better than others. But I don't think we can judge those things well from the outside, by reading sports writers like Cafardo or watching on TV. These characteristics are handed out to explain why teams win because people are confused by how a team can win a few close games in a row on a big stage, when talent and random chance have the most to do with it. People's inability to understand how big things work lead them to reduce things down to personal moral characteristics, even when they have scant proof for those characteristics. That is what I meant above.Also the 1986 Mets were like the prison team in the never made baseball version of The Longest Yard (Lenny Dykstra!), and the late seventies Yankees too, Cliff Johnson and Goose Gossage in 1979 is one clubhouse fight I remember, that put Gossage on the DL.
There are pretty clearly guys who are better to have in the clubhouse than others, which is why I would never ever hire A-Rod for anything that puts him back in the dugout. He is pretty knowledgable about baseball but he is still so awkward at interacting with people, he always seems to give off such creepy vibes. Of course in this he is a very extreme case, as he usually is.