No, they shouldn't have, if you go by his win/loss record. Little's record in two seasons with the Red Sox was 188-136 and 358-290 overall.Well you've convinced me. The Sox should never have fired Grady Little.
No, they shouldn't have, if you go by his win/loss record. Little's record in two seasons with the Red Sox was 188-136 and 358-290 overall.Well you've convinced me. The Sox should never have fired Grady Little.
If you think there is some sort of equivalence between the two, you're proving my point.Well you've convinced me. The Sox should never have fired Grady Little.
I don't really have a dog in this fight - I agree with R(S)F, if we're going to go through this every time the team goes through a mediocre stretch, it's going to be a long season - and maybe I'm misunderstanding you (apologies if so), but you lose me with your point about 2014. To call 2014 anything other than a disappointment relative to expectations is a little disingenuous. They were returning essentially the same roster that had just won a World Series the year prior, and one of those "young players" you refer to didn't seem to have much difficulty with his transition the year prior. And indeed, I would argue that helping young players like Bogaerts and Bradley transition into the Majors is absolutely a part of a manager's job description.Won loss record is useless. Do you really think a different manager would have made a difference in 2014 and 2015? With all the young guys that struggled to make the transition to the bigs, all the significant acquisitions that had craptacular seasons, do you really think Torey Lovullo or Bud Black or whomever is going to make a damn bit of difference?
I don't believe I did say 2014 wasn't a disappointment, of course it was. And of course it's part of a manager's job to help young players make the transition.I don't really have a dog in this fight - I agree with R(S)F, if we're going to go through this every time the team goes through a mediocre stretch, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you (apologies if so), but you lose me with your point about 2014. To call 2014 anything other than a disappointment relative to expectations is a little disingenuous. They were returning essentially the same roster that had just won a World Series the year prior, and one of those "young players" you refer to didn't seem to have much difficulty with his transition the year prior. And indeed, I would argue that helping young players like Bogaerts and Bradley transition into the Majors is absolutely a part of a manager's job description.
I guess my point was, yes, the manager has to own at least some of that unless the young player in question is actually not good (ie, Will Middlebrooks), and yes, there do seem to be some managers (and coaches) who are more gifted in this area than others. Joe Maddon seems to be one, although I'm sure I'll get excoriated for daring to compliment him on SoSH. Terry Francona, dare I say, is another. Ned Yost probably deserves some credit for what happened in Kansas City. Whether the Red Sox could have hired a guy like that or should have fired Farrell one season after a World Series victory is perhaps a different argument (and of course the struggles of Bogaerts and Bradley were not the only issues with that team).I don't believe I did say 2014 wasn't a disappointment, of course it was. And of course it's part of a manager's job to help young players make the transition.
But, if a player really struggles with the transition like Bradley and Bogaerts did, it's not like you can just point the finger at the manager and say he's responsible.
Just wanted to share a thought on this tidbit by Ras. I'm no expert but it truly seems that there is something going on throughout the organization in regards to development and maintaining a certain level of excellence when it comes to pitching. It may be a combination of things including talent that is not what the Sox thought or planned that it would be. There is also what seems to be guys with pretty good potential that just seem to hit the wall for whatever reason. A mechanics expert (if there is such a thing) isn't a bad idea at all. Whether he's a roving assistant that works throughout the organization or a replacement for Carl Willis I think something needs to be done. Yes there will be personnel changes to the staff, but there are more holes that can reasonably filled from the outside, so IF this team is to not only make the playoffs, but contend for a championship then I think some sort of coaching change or addition need to be made. There have already been decisions made in the name of what's best for the team. Sandoval's bulky body and contract were benched, Buchholz was demoted and Kelly's not returning to the rotation, all moves made in the best interest of the team. If DD needs to step on Farrell or Willis' toes in the best interest of the team then so be it.Bring in a mechanics expert to work with Eduardo Rodriguez and don't even think of bringing him up until he's actually ready to pitch at the major league level.
.
I don't disagree with any of that. I don't see how it adds up to firing Farrell.I guess my point was, yes, the manager has to own at least some of that unless the young player in question is actually not good (ie, Will Middlebrooks), and yes, there do seem to be some managers (and coaches) who are more gifted in this area than others. Joe Maddon seems to be one, although I'm sure I'll get excoriated for daring to compliment him on SoSH. Terry Francona, dare I say, is another. Ned Yost probably deserves some credit for what happened in Kansas City. Whether the Red Sox could have hired a guy like that or should have fired Farrell one season after a World Series victory is perhaps a different argument (and of course the struggles of Bogaerts and Bradley were not the only issues with that team).
In one of these threads there was a quote by someone suggesting the Sox were more interested in having a pitcher attack the weakness in the hitters than use the pitcher's strength. If that's the case, I don't think it's working.Just wanted to share a thought on this tidbit by Ras. I'm no expert but it truly seems that there is something going on throughout the organization in regards to development and maintaining a certain level of excellence when it comes to pitching. It may be a combination of things including talent that is not what the Sox thought or planned that it would be. There is also what seems to be guys with pretty good potential that just seem to hit the wall for whatever reason. A mechanics expert (if there is such a thing) isn't a bad idea at all. Whether he's a roving assistant that works throughout the organization or a replacement for Carl Willis I think something needs to be done. Yes there will be personnel changes to the staff, but there are more holes that can reasonably filled from the outside, so IF this team is to not only make the playoffs, but contend for a championship then I think some sort of coaching change or addition need to be made. There have already been decisions made in the name of what's best for the team. Sandoval's bulky body and contract were benched, Buchholz was demoted and Kelly's not returning to the rotation, all moves made in the best interest of the team. If DD needs to step on Farrell or Willis' toes in the best interest of the team then so be it.
Wasn't that supposed to be Brian Bannister's role?Just wanted to share a thought on this tidbit by Ras. I'm no expert but it truly seems that there is something going on throughout the organization in regards to development and maintaining a certain level of excellence when it comes to pitching. It may be a combination of things including talent that is not what the Sox thought or planned that it would be. There is also what seems to be guys with pretty good potential that just seem to hit the wall for whatever reason. A mechanics expert (if there is such a thing) isn't a bad idea at all. Whether he's a roving assistant that works throughout the organization or a replacement for Carl Willis I think something needs to be done. Yes there will be personnel changes to the staff, but there are more holes that can reasonably filled from the outside, so IF this team is to not only make the playoffs, but contend for a championship then I think some sort of coaching change or addition need to be made. There have already been decisions made in the name of what's best for the team. Sandoval's bulky body and contract were benched, Buchholz was demoted and Kelly's not returning to the rotation, all moves made in the best interest of the team. If DD needs to step on Farrell or Willis' toes in the best interest of the team then so be it.
Some how seems that it should be a combo of both. Using your strengths against a hitter's weakness. That said there would need to be some sort of identification of both.In one of these threads there was a quote by someone suggesting the Sox were more interested in having a pitcher attack the weakness in the hitters than use the pitcher's strength. If that's the case, I don't think it's working.
And this is exactly it.All kinds of little decisions like that are the managers job. They cumulate to a difference. John Farrell has bad decision quality. -- it's a management buzzword these days, but it fits perfectly here.
Yeah but one season under Farrell the Blue Jays were fifth in the league in stolen bases. Fifth!And this is exactly it.
Is anyone confident that the Red Sox are going to get back on the horse and go back to winning at a .550+ clip? Because I'm not - they've been playing sub .500 ball for quite a while now. I think its much more likely that things continue to go poorly and they finish at about 80 wins than that they make the playoffs.
We've got 1100 games now of Farrell's teams failing to live up to expectation, with the same damn patterns over and over again. The same bad decisions, the same complaints about not being able to communicate with his subordinates and players, the same pitcher underperformance, young players being slow to transition because Farrell wasn't paying attention to them. All of the same complaints that there were in Toronto.
So when we talk about 2014 and 2015, and people are asking whether or not things would have been different, I think absolutely. Bogaerts and Betts and Bradly having trouble adjusting to the majors was absolutely expected - because Farrell being shitty with young players was something that people in Toronto complained about - it was something that HIS PLAYERS complained about. Omar Vizquel repeatedly complained that Farrell's coaches weren't doing anything to help rookies fix their mistakes. He repeatedly complained about young guys making the same defensive mistakes over and over again, and getting no coaching on those issues. He repeatedly complained about a lack of communication between Farrell and the rest of his staff, and between the staff and players.
So the idea that there's no evidence that he's not good at his job is patently absurd.
Plus they went undefeated in extra innings one year!Yeah but one season under Farrell the Blue Jays were fifth in the league in stolen bases. Fifth!
Could you list the analyses you've read in this thread, discuss their strengths and weaknesses and then describe what kind of analysis would be better and why?I'm Where's the homework?
- I don't know, really - but it would be interesting to read more thorough analyses of why Farrell sucks so bad (particularly after losses) - otherwise a lot of this comes off as frustration looking for an easy target, hoping that a "change at the top" will cure many ills.
Yes, I think it's completely obvious that the team is going to continue playing just as poorly as it played when half the team was injured and the other half in slumps even when the players get healthy and come out of their slumps. This team is 45-37 with 80 games left. Finishing with 80 wins would mean going 35-45 in those 80 games. That's a 71 win pace. The 2015 team won 78 games and the 2014 team won 71. Do I think that this team that is leading the majors in runs scored by a non trivial amount is going to play as poorly over the remainder of 2016 as the 2014 team did? I do not. I think there's going to be a trade to augment the pitching and that this team will contend for the AL East Division Title We might not win, but I like our chances.Is anyone confident that the Red Sox are going to get back on the horse and go back to winning at a .550+ clip? Because I'm not - they've been playing sub .500 ball for quite a while now. I think its much more likely that things continue to go poorly and they finish at about 80 wins than that they make the playoffs.
Is this team really failing to live up to expectations? Some players certainly are. Some other players are exceeding expectations. And no, we don't have the same patterns over and over again. The problems with the 2014 team weren't the problems with the 2015 team aren't the problems with the 2016 team.We've got 1100 games now of Farrell's teams failing to live up to expectation, with the same damn patterns over and over again. The same bad decisions, the same complaints about not being able to communicate with his subordinates and players, the same pitcher underperformance, young players being slow to transition because Farrell wasn't paying attention to them. All of the same complaints that there were in Toronto.
You know, if you would actually bother to read and understand things, you might not look like such a reactionary dingbat. When you say there is overwhelming evidence that John Farrell is incompetent, and people laugh at you for saying something stupid, that doesn't mean people don't think John Farrell has weaknesses.So when we talk about 2014 and 2015, and people are asking whether or not things would have been different, I think absolutely. Bogaerts and Betts and Bradly having trouble adjusting to the majors was absolutely expected - because Farrell being shitty with young players was something that people in Toronto complained about - it was something that HIS PLAYERS complained about. Omar Vizquel repeatedly complained that Farrell's coaches weren't doing anything to help rookies fix their mistakes. He repeatedly complained about young guys making the same defensive mistakes over and over again, and getting no coaching on those issues. He repeatedly complained about a lack of communication between Farrell and the rest of his staff, and between the staff and players.
So the idea that there's no evidence that he's not good at his job is patently absurd.
You say this as though the season begins today. As Ras pointed out, the Sox would have to be one of the 3-4 worst teams in the league the rest of the way (71-win pace) to fail to finish with more than 80 wins.Considering they have won 71 and 78 games the last 2 years do I think it's possible they end up with only 80 wins? Yes, it's possible. 2013 is an outlier in the managerial career of Farrell. If they end up over .500 this season, 2016 would also be an outlier. Outside of one season he has not produced good results on the field as manager.
A few points need to be made here.Considering they have won 71 and 78 games the last 2 years do I think it's possible they end up with only 80 wins? Yes, it's possible. 2013 is an outlier in the managerial career of Farrell. If they end up over .500 this season, 2016 would also be an outlier. Outside of one season he has not produced good results on the field as manager.
A few points need to be made here.
First and foremost, the manager doesn't produce the results on the field. I.
That Toronto team in 2012 was 69-87 when Vizquel made his comments. (tied with Boston for last in AL East).because Farrell being shitty with young players was something that people in Toronto complained about - it was something that HIS PLAYERS complained about. Omar Vizquel repeatedly complained that Farrell's coaches weren't doing anything to help rookies fix their mistakes. He repeatedly complained about young guys making the same defensive mistakes over and over again, and getting no coaching on those issues. He repeatedly complained about a lack of communication between Farrell and the rest of his staff, and between the staff and players.
It's largely accepted that today's manager is essentially an empty figurehead. There's a huge machine behind the scenes providing statistical and scouting support that takes care of optimizing lineups, defense, and pitching approach. Only in some special cases do managers get away with ignoring these tools like say Mike Scioscia. But in Boston all you're really looking for from your manager is a guy that can handle the circus and keep huge egos happy and in check. Tito was great at this and they won so he got huge acclaim while Valentine was pretty terrible at this and was shown the door a day after the season ended.Please produce evidence for your claim that the manager does not "produce results" on the field. Continuing to make a claim over and over and over again does not make that claim true.
Largely accepted by whom?It's largely accepted that today's manager is essentially an empty figurehead. There's a huge machine behind the scenes providing statistical and scouting support that takes care of optimizing lineups, defense, and pitching approach. .
Keeping people happy and keeping egos in check is not being an empty figurehead. People management is an important, and hugely valuable skill. Valentine is a perfect example of this - his abrasive personality clearly caused clubhouse issues, and clearly affected the play on the field. Are you really arguing that a manager like Valentine doesn't affect the on-field product? Are you really arguing that the only difference between Tito and Valentine was in the press room, and that it didn't bleed over at all? Are you arguing that a clearly hostile work environment does not affect on-field performance?and keep huge egos happy and in check.
A manager that loses the clubhouse may affect on field production only if the talent level lets it. We've seen plenty of wild clubhouse teams with hugely talented rosters win. And conversely a happy go lucky clubhouse doesn't always equate to on field production if the talent level isn't there. Where is your proof that managers "produce results" on the field? Are you just going to point to a Maddon or a Tito completely ignoring that they've won with hugely talented teams and also lost with teams devoid of talent? See, I can do the condescending question thing too.Keeping people happy and keeping egos in check is not being an empty figurehead. People management is an important, and hugely valuable skill. Valentine is a perfect example of this - his abrasive personality clearly caused clubhouse issues, and clearly affected the play on the field. Are you really arguing that a manager like Valentine doesn't affect the on-field product? Are you really arguing that the only difference between Tito and Valentine was in the press room, and that it didn't bleed over at all? Are you arguing that a clearly hostile work environment does not affect on-field performance?
This is a joke, right?Please produce evidence for your claim that the manager does not "produce results" on the field. Continuing to make a claim over and over and over again does not make that claim true.
It's kinda funny how you see Ned Yost as bad at his job yet not Farrell.Also, honest to God, people, we live in a world where Ned Yost has two pennants and a World Series title. If Ned Yost can win a title, John Farrell sure as shit can.
Farrell ought to be judged by weighing the actual impact he has against the potential impact he has. Both are difficult to know, but Plympton has it here; we can look at the actual decisions that Farrell makes in game and with his roster usage, to see if he's putting the team in an optimal position to win games. His decisions, while not uniformly bad, are often so. Hence the concern. No one is saying (except you perhaps) that it would be some sort of travesty for Farrell to be fired because, He's clearly making all the right calls, nearly all of the time, but those untalented players keep letting him down.This is a joke, right?
Are you really trying to make the claim that the manager has more of an impact on the game than the players that play in it?
Hall of Fame manager Connie Mack, winner of 9 pennants, and five world series has a career winning percentage of .486.
Hall of Fame manager Tony LaRussa, winner of 6 pennants and three world series had nine seasons and one half of 1981 with a sub .500 record.
Hall of Fame manager Joe Torre, winner of 6 pennants and 4 world series had eleven seasons with a record below .500.
Simply put, if you think managers have more impact on the won loss record than the players who play the game, you have a misunderstanding of reality that is breathtaking in its depth. You have a view of baseball that is counterindicated by over a century of play. Stop using won loss record as an indicator of managerial acumen, it does nothing but paint you as a clueless dolt.
Why don't you do this instead? From now until the break, document every strategic decision John Farrell makes and point out how bad most of them are.
Platooning in general hasn't been a strong point for him.I'm sorry but what is wrong with his roster usage?
Can you help us out here? Are you referring to how he handled Chris Young before his hamstring snapped?Platooning in general hasn't been a strong point for him.
"Smart and Wolfe (2003) assessed the concurrent contribution of leadership and human resources to Major League Baseball (MLB) team performance. They found that player resources (defense/pitching and offence/batting) explained 67% of the variance in winning percentage, whereas leadership explained very little (slightly more than 1%) of the variance."Please produce evidence for your claim that the manager does not "produce results" on the field. Continuing to make a claim over and over and over again does not make that claim true.
The quality of Main Board discussion has degenerated to the point that a lurker who has brought little to the conversation nonetheless feels free to lay down the snark on a member who, agree with him or not, has brought lots of substance to the discussion.Please produce evidence for your claim that the manager does not "produce results" on the field. Continuing to make a claim over and over and over again does not make that claim true.
Whatever I think about Farrell, the job he's done, and his future, this post is awesome.The Red Sox are playing too well to fire Farrell. It's not like there's a recent example in professional sports where a head coach, despite having his team in first place, was fired and replaced by his assistant in the middle of the season, only for the team to win the championship, solidifying the all-time credentials of a beloved local star. Sure that hypothetical team might have just been blown out by twenty points by a team from California, but it would be absurd to fire a coach in those circumstances and promote his assistant. You don't win championships by having three difference coaches in three years. Too much instability. Maybe hypothetically it works in other sports, but teams that promote their assistant coach - whether it be a bench coach or a former pitching coach - never win Word Series, especially not in the first year after going through a bunch of managers in the previous few years.
Not disagreeing with anything in your post, but if you think about that in terms of WAR, it's a significant number. Even if we say the ultimate outcome between a good manager and a poor one is three games, that's like upgrading 2015 Mookie to 2015 Trout.The quality of Main Board discussion has degenerated to the point that a lurker who has brought little to the conversation nonetheless feels free to lay down the snark on a member who, agree with him or not, has brought lots of substance to the discussion.
The best evidence for his "claim" is that no one is taking your side -- the thoughtful members of the anti-Farrell contingent understand that unless the manager is a complete tire fire (think Bobby V), the difference between a good manager and a bad one is maybe a couple games over the course of a 162-game season. The on-field results are largely a result of the on-field talent.
Exactly. There's a lot of room between "a manager has no impact on the game at all" and "the manager has a greater impact than all the players on the field put together." Managers are paid salaries between utility infielders and back of the rotation starters even though there's great demand for a small number of openings. By that measure, a manager is worth somewhere between the 15th and 25th man on the roster, which sounds reasonable.Not disagreeing with anything in your post, but if you think about that in terms of WAR, it's a significant number. Even if we say the ultimate outcome between a good manager and a poor one is three games, that's like upgrading 2015 Mookie to 2015 Trout.
.
I just...you understand that Ned Yost is legendary for bad managerial decisions, right?It's kinda funny how you see Ned Yost as bad at his job yet not Farrell.
I'm certainly not saying that. I'm not sure that there is a manager in the game who is clearly making all the right calls nearly all the time. I'm not sure baseball is a game where that's even possible. Farrell makes some bad decisions. He makes more of them than I'd like, but there are two things mitigating the discussion of managerial decisions. Managers have more information than we do. Some of the decisions we think are bad are made because there's something going on we didn't know about--someone is feeling a little fluish, someone twisted an ankle in the clubhouse before the game, et cetera and so forth. Also--and I don't think this is something the Fire Farrell Fanatics care to acknowledge--in many cases there simply isn't a clearly right answer.Farrell ought to be judged by weighing the actual impact he has against the potential impact he has. Both are difficult to know, but Plympton has it here; we can look at the actual decisions that Farrell makes in game and with his roster usage, to see if he's putting the team in an optimal position to win games. His decisions, while not uniformly bad, are often so. Hence the concern. No one is saying (except you perhaps) that it would be some sort of travesty for Farrell to be fired because, He's clearly making all the right calls, nearly all of the time, but those untalented players keep letting him down.
Maybe it's helpful to think of the distinction as being more like goalies (or pitchers, to stick to the sport we're talking about). There's a range between replacement level and good that's probably reasonably narrow. With managers, there's probably no Trout-level uber-performance worth 6+ WAR available. But it would be possible to find someone (e.g., goalie, pitcher) who's so far below replacement level that they have large negative variance (wrt managers, Bobby V was one, and IIRC, Butch Hobson fit here, too).Separate from the evaluation of Farrell's performance, I think we need to dispel with this notion that the difference between a good manager and a bad manager is one to three wins. If we're talking only about the impact of his in game decisions that may be accurate. But the impact of the preparation and how dysfunctional the clubhouse is could have a larger impact. I find it hard to believe that Bobby V only cost the team two wins, for example.
First of all, I dont think anyone in what is being called the "Pro-Farrell camp" thinks that managers literally have no impact. So "if they have no impact, then why not just replace him" doesn't hold water.d) in a world with 7 billion plus people, there are undoubtedly some who might be better than JF - including the bench coach (not saying he WILL be, but he might be)
Two of George's several Billy Martin hirings came when Bill Virdon and Bob Lemon, respectively, werr over 500. Billy had the better record both times, but NY finished 3rd and 4th.I am going to guess that the number of cases where a team dismissed a manager midseason who had a record over .500 is a rather small sample, but does anyone have the pre/post numbers on that?
I was going to suggest that Billy had to have been fired with a winning record once ... or twice ... or thriceOne of George's several Billy Martin hirings came when Bob Lemon was over 500. Billy had the better record, but NY still finished 4th.
Indeed, looks like in the same season as Morgan Magic, Billy Martin was fired and replaced by Pinella. Lou's winning % was lower than Billy's that season. I don't think there's a lot to learn from the Martin-Steinbrenner psychodrama, however.I was going to suggest that Billy had to have been fired with a winning record once ... or twice ... or thrice