Tyrone wants to fire Farrell

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Last year's team had the Cy Young winner, an elite hitter, a MVP candidate, three other very good position players, a guy who led the league in innings and pitched reasonably well, a catcher and starter who came out of nowhere to have what will all but certainly be career years and a pretty decent bullpen. They finished first in the league in runs scored (by 101) and third in runs allowed. They won the same number of games (and playoff games) as Gump's '02 team you described.
Not accounting for the difficulty of the division or the way the wild card has evolved in the interim and impacted how the regular season plays out, of course.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,333
Not accounting for the difficulty of the division or the way the wild card has evolved in the interim and impacted how the regular season plays out, of course.
Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but that's what makes the "sixth place" comment disingenuous (and they finished tied for fifth anyways). The 2002 AL was much more top-heavy - the Red Sox had to compete with a vintage Yankee team for the division and they only finished behind the Twins because the Central was atrocious. 2002 and 2016 are very similar which is an indictment of Farrell, assuming you think Gump was a moron.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
No, I'm saying that simply comparing win totals from two individual seasons with a decade and a half separating them tells us very little and it certainly doesn't serve as an effective indictment of Farrell, regardless of what you think of Little.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,062
Hingham, MA
No, I'm saying that simply comparing win totals from two individual seasons with a decade and a half separating them tells us very little and it certainly doesn't serve as an effective indictment of Farrell, regardless of what you think of Little.
I don't think anyone said it is an indictment of Farrell; just that "first place" does not necessarily mean he is doing well
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I don't think anyone said it is an indictment of Farrell; just that "first place" does not necessarily mean he is doing well
I mean...

Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but that's what makes the "sixth place" comment disingenuous (and they finished tied for fifth anyways). The 2002 AL was much more top-heavy - the Red Sox had to compete with a vintage Yankee team for the division and they only finished behind the Twins because the Central was atrocious. 2002 and 2016 are very similar which is an indictment of Farrell, assuming you think Gump was a moron.
I could be misreading that, though. In any case, I think arguing that a manager with a team in first place "does not necessarily mean he is doing well" is the crux of the disagreement here. If the last two seasons aren't enough for people to stop arguing that Farrell is a bad manager, nothing will ever be enough. 538 could come up with a definitive manager metric that concluded that Farrell was a top 10 or 5 or whatever manager and people here would still be waving it off and pointing to in game moves they disagreed with or his record in Toronto or during years in Boston when they were planning on rebuilding in the first place.

It's all a bit silly, but that's baseball discussion on the internet. The number of managers in the sport who aren't routinely complained about online is exceptionally small and it's not because that many managers suck at their jobs.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,062
Hingham, MA
If the last two seasons aren't enough for people to stop arguing that Farrell is a bad manager, nothing will ever be enough.
(snip)
It's all a bit silly, but that's baseball discussion on the internet. The number of managers in the sport who aren't routinely complained about online is exceptionally small and it's not because that many managers suck at their jobs.
The Gump Sox won 93 and 95 games in his two years here. He then won 170 and lost 154 in his two years in LA. 358 wins in 4 years as a manager, nearly 90 wins per year. He never had a losing season as a manager. If that's not enough for people to stop arguing that he was a bad manager, nothing will ever be enough. Right? Farrell is in his 7th year. 3 winning seasons, 3 losing seasons, one exactly .500 season. Decidedly average in terms of outcome. Less so when considering the talent, and of course his in game moves.

Re: your second point, I agree, there is a ton of mediocrity out there and very few difference makers. But that doesn't mean you should keep Farrell, IMO.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,333
No, I'm saying that simply comparing win totals from two individual seasons with a decade and a half separating them tells us very little and it certainly doesn't serve as an effective indictment of Farrell, regardless of what you think of Little.
They won the same number of games with Pythags two games apart. One team won their division because there was a ton of parity while the other finished tied for fifth in the league because it was super top-heavy and another team in the division won 103 games. Why don't you tell me what was all that different about them?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
The Gump Sox won 93 and 95 games in his two years here. He then won 170 and lost 154 in his two years in LA. 358 wins in 4 years as a manager, nearly 90 wins per year. He never had a losing season as a manager. If that's not enough for people to stop arguing that he was a bad manager, nothing will ever be enough. Right? Farrell is in his 7th year. 3 winning seasons, 3 losing seasons, one exactly .500 season. Decidedly average in terms of outcome. Less so when considering the talent, and of course his in game moves.

Re: your second point, I agree, there is a ton of mediocrity out there and very few difference makers. But that doesn't mean you should keep Farrell, IMO.
Grady wasn't a bad manager, actually. He wasn't the right manager for the new ownership, and he's rightly vilified in Boston for his blunder in 2003, but I don't think you can argue that he was a bad manager and back it up terribly well. His approach was outdated. He was a dinosaur shortly after the comet hit. But among his peers, during his career, he wasn't a bad manager. He just wasn't.

And sure, let's rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. Only, this is the HMHS Britannic, and there are no icebergs near-by.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
They won the same number of games with Pythags two games apart. One team won their division because there was a ton of parity while the other finished tied for fifth in the league because it was super top-heavy and another team in the division won 103 games. Why don't you tell me what was all that different about them?
It's really just the fact that the Little Sox were playing in an era where the Wild Card had no significant disadvantage, so playing for it rather than chasing down a Yankees team with zero financial restraints on them was a fundamentally different environment than the one in which Farrell is currently managing. The two environments just aren't comparable, so pointing to win-loss records or where teams finished is futile.

Edit: Though, if I had to pick one or the other I'd go with where teams finished vis-a-vis making the playoffs accounting for context. You play/manage for the environment you are in.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,062
Hingham, MA
Grady wasn't a bad manager, actually. He wasn't the right manager for the new ownership, and he's rightly vilified in Boston for his blunder in 2003, but I don't think you can argue that he was a bad manager and back it up terribly well. His approach was outdated. He was a dinosaur shortly after the comet hit. But among his peers, during his career, he wasn't a bad manager. He just wasn't.

And sure, let's rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. Only, this is the HMHS Britannic, and there are no icebergs near-by.
I agree that replacing Farrell right now would probably be fruitless. It is on the Sox braintrust to find someone who is actually a positive difference maker.
 

BillMuellerFanClub

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,388
love the attempt, though it has its share of flaws as the writer points out.

also really enjoy that the only attempt to statistically quantify Farrell's performance this season points to him being statistically above average. good stuff.