Hire Farrell? (12/5: 2018 Option Exercised)
- Thread starter TonyPenaNeverJuiced
- Start date
I totally agree! Farrell made questionable pitching and hitter decisions all season. How do you not get your team prepared for the post season, let alone the last two series of the season. Don't get me wrong Price came up as a busy AGAIN!
This seems spot on.
Personally, I can see the case for both keeping him and moving on, and neither side strikes me as particularly stronger than the other.
I was questioning the Benintendi move as well. I figured JBJ would be out, not the guy that's hitting the ball.
I won't be surprised if Farrell is done now. Looking at his consistent ability to underperform the team's Pythag each year makes me think his time is short.
What comes to mind is the TV interview with a sad-faced Tony LaRussa outside the Cardinals clubhouse after Game 4 in 2004. Instead of answering the first question, he started by saying that if his team hadn't been properly prepared to play the Red Sox, it was his responsibility.
But IIRC, he didn't get fired after losing that series.
But IIRC, he didn't get fired after losing that series.
Well, it was the World Series not the ALDS.
They hadn't finished last the previous two seasons.
And TLR - despite the shit he gets here - was one of the more successful managers in the history of the game.
So I'm not sure what the point you're making is. Because I don't see how one compares to the other.
They hadn't finished last the previous two seasons.
And TLR - despite the shit he gets here - was one of the more successful managers in the history of the game.
So I'm not sure what the point you're making is. Because I don't see how one compares to the other.
To further, I'm kind of agnostic about Farrell. I would lean more towards fire him than keep him, but I can see the argument that he hasn't done anything egregious enough to be run out on a rail. I think he does a good job with the media, presumably with the clubhouse (which I don't pretend I'm privy enough to actually judge) and on the bad side of in game decisions. I'll fully give him credit for 2013 but I also knock him for every other season he's been a manager, none of which have been impressive and recognize had he not had cancer last year he would have been fired.
I don't buy into "well, if you fire him, who would be better?" type arguments because not every manager comes with a track record and not every team is the best fit for a certain guy. And I think those factors are beyond our ability to judge.
If nothing else I think he heads into next year on the hot seat. And I think that's detrimental to the team. If they're happy with the rest of the coaching staff, move him back to player development, promote Lovullo and retain everyone else. If not, I think you have to keep Chilli, Bannister and Butterfield.
It's a young team and I wouldn't mind seeing a young manager grow with them together. If they decide to keep him, so be it but I hope it means they're truly committed to him for the full year. There's no way to know that or ensure it, nor negate media speculation but either commit to riding with the guy or change it up.
I don't buy into "well, if you fire him, who would be better?" type arguments because not every manager comes with a track record and not every team is the best fit for a certain guy. And I think those factors are beyond our ability to judge.
If nothing else I think he heads into next year on the hot seat. And I think that's detrimental to the team. If they're happy with the rest of the coaching staff, move him back to player development, promote Lovullo and retain everyone else. If not, I think you have to keep Chilli, Bannister and Butterfield.
It's a young team and I wouldn't mind seeing a young manager grow with them together. If they decide to keep him, so be it but I hope it means they're truly committed to him for the full year. There's no way to know that or ensure it, nor negate media speculation but either commit to riding with the guy or change it up.
I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone here who thinks Farrell is an above average manager. His game management can be brutal as we all know. Bigger concern to to me is that his teams struggle to come back when down. Last place finishes. Play tight in playoffs. Underperform in Toronto. 2013 is obvious outlier, but that team was opposite, a front runner riding a crest and got a miracle from Ortiz. When I see a team get this tight and have more poor plays in the field and poor ABs in three games than they did in a month, that's a reflection of the manager, right?
If you are basing decisions on performance alone, Dumbrowski should be fired. If you look at What he was handed when he started and then what he added, spent and traded away, it's embarrassingly awful. But that's another topic.
If you are basing decisions on performance alone, Dumbrowski should be fired. If you look at What he was handed when he started and then what he added, spent and traded away, it's embarrassingly awful. But that's another topic.
The last paragraph is kind of ridiculous. Dombrowski took over a last place team and added some key parts that were helpful to the team's ability to make the playoffs this season. Also, no good franchise fires a GM after one season; no point in letting the Sox become the Diamondbacks.
As to the thread topic, I guess it depends if there's been as many "Fire Farrell" threads as "Fire Claude" threads. If so, then he can go. If not, then he should stay.
There are pros and cons with Farrell. But the pros don't seem to translate into the final W/L record, and in-game performance. The cons (to be fair) are not always disastrous. But they're there. Baseball is a game of little things, of inches, and Farrell often seems oblivious to that. For example, HFA would have been nice for the ALDS. Also, a couple of different decisions by Farrell regarding PH and reliever usage might have won game 3. I can't really place the *blame* on Farrell's tactical decisions, but post-series, I have a very unsatisfied feeling that *maybe* the team could have been given a better chance to rebound.
Overall, this may be the perfect time for the younger players to get a new manager, a new way of doing things, a new voice. Perhaps that helps on a psychological level. This team never seemed focused and hungry. I realize that's something of an illusion, but the power of belief is a thing in and of itself.
I won't go crazy if Farrell is retained, but I won't expect terribly different results next year either. He's not a manager who can make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. If he's given a dominant team, I expect he'll do very very well with it. If he's given a team that could benefit by squeezing out some extra wins, or really needs extra focus/prep, or needs a strategy to attack in a short post-season series, or needs to get fired up, or needs creative bullpen use or PH to maximize chances, this year is Exhibit A.
Overall, this may be the perfect time for the younger players to get a new manager, a new way of doing things, a new voice. Perhaps that helps on a psychological level. This team never seemed focused and hungry. I realize that's something of an illusion, but the power of belief is a thing in and of itself.
I won't go crazy if Farrell is retained, but I won't expect terribly different results next year either. He's not a manager who can make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. If he's given a dominant team, I expect he'll do very very well with it. If he's given a team that could benefit by squeezing out some extra wins, or really needs extra focus/prep, or needs a strategy to attack in a short post-season series, or needs to get fired up, or needs creative bullpen use or PH to maximize chances, this year is Exhibit A.
Totally reasonable and not at all stupid. I think unfocused and unhungry teams win their really competive divisions all the time.
I hope Farrell is not back. I do not think he's a good in game manager. I find fault with his decision making more than any Red Sox manager I can remember other than He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned. He is supposedly good in the Clubhouse.
The Sox seemed to perform better last year when he was gone. The Sox seem to have a worse record in every JF season than their talent would suggest that they should have. Somebody decided to rest guys when home field for the playoffs was still in reach.
I think it's a toss up as to what they will do. I fear that Farrell has won over DD and the worst-to-first thing will save him. Like Rovin, I wont lose my mind in that event. But I think it will be a rather large mistake by the team, and one that will deprive us of the one silver lining to this very sad early exit.
The Sox seemed to perform better last year when he was gone. The Sox seem to have a worse record in every JF season than their talent would suggest that they should have. Somebody decided to rest guys when home field for the playoffs was still in reach.
I think it's a toss up as to what they will do. I fear that Farrell has won over DD and the worst-to-first thing will save him. Like Rovin, I wont lose my mind in that event. But I think it will be a rather large mistake by the team, and one that will deprive us of the one silver lining to this very sad early exit.
They were certainly unfocused and terrible over their last 9 games.
I dunno, I'm agnostic on Farrell myself. I don't know if he's going to be the guy to nurture the young core players past this extreme playoff failure and get them over the hump. Obviously the young guys played well in the regular season, but how is that going to translate to playoff success? I don't know. I get the sense (unfounded of course) that he's probably better with vets than with kids, but the kids led the team to the division title so that may well be wrong.
Firing him or keeping him probably isn't going to make much of a difference, really.
The Sox won the best division in baseball, the kids developed into cornerstone players, and they were a few inches/bounces from being up 2-1 in the ALDS. Farrell will be back, and the idea that he shouldn't is silly.
Did those things happen because of Farrell or in spite of him? Or something in between?
How much blame, if any, does he get for the team limping to the finish line and not getting home field? And coming into the playoffs on a down note?
It's true that they won the division and Betts emerged as a great player. AB has started off very well. But Xander didn't really develop into a cornerstone player this year. He's been on an upward trajectory over the last few years and leveled off tremendously at the end of this season. JBJ was his usual streaky self, ended the year poorly and was awful in the Cleveland series. Travis Shaw started off on fire and faded. Sandy Leon teased us for a while and then seemingly returned to the player he is. The core has promise but anyone banking on peak performance out of all of these guys is overly optimistic.
Farrell doesn't get all of the blame for all of those things any more than he gets all of the credit for good players developing, however unevenly.
The downside about worst to first is that the Manager was in the seat for two years of worst.
I don't see how anyone could term the possibility that Farrell would not be back as silly. The man makes head scratching in game decisions frequently, the team did finish last twice on his watch, they did sputter at the very end and they were across the board (save the pen and a few other players) piss poor against Cleveland.
I'm not saying it would be batshit crazy to give him one more chance. But the thought of going in another direction is anything but silly.
The decision to use one of his best starting pitchers, however much he was coming back to earth at the time, as a pinch runner, which led to him getting hurt and being unable to pitch down the stretch is, by itself, a reason to question whether he should be retained. Where would this team have finished if Wright had been pitching in meaningful games in those final two weeks instead of running Henry Owens (as an example, since I know he only made a couple spot starts in the last few weeks) out there to get shelled? He did the same thing with Buchholz a few years back during the World Series and it nearly bit him in the ass (he apparently wasn't paying attention to Jeff Suppan's baserunning clinic 9 years earlier in the same situation).
It's not even that he's a bad in-game manager. I mean, he is, but it's more that some of his bad decisions have done more than hurt the team's chances of winning one game, instead having a potentially negative impact on the rest of the season. I'm not sure he'll ever figure out the little things it takes to steal a win in big games, like Tito batting Chisenhall against Price on Game 2, a move that arguably won Cleveland the ALDS.
The only defensible reason I can see for retaining him is the shadow of David Ortiz and the desire to have at least a buffer period between his departure and the hiring of a new skipper so any rough start doesn't get blamed on the managerial change and even that is a reach.
I don't think he should be back. But there's been nothing to lead me to believe he won't be and more's the pity. One lucky year will continue to trump all the bad ones he's had as a Major League manager but it will because of how lucky it was.
It's not even that he's a bad in-game manager. I mean, he is, but it's more that some of his bad decisions have done more than hurt the team's chances of winning one game, instead having a potentially negative impact on the rest of the season. I'm not sure he'll ever figure out the little things it takes to steal a win in big games, like Tito batting Chisenhall against Price on Game 2, a move that arguably won Cleveland the ALDS.
The only defensible reason I can see for retaining him is the shadow of David Ortiz and the desire to have at least a buffer period between his departure and the hiring of a new skipper so any rough start doesn't get blamed on the managerial change and even that is a reach.
I don't think he should be back. But there's been nothing to lead me to believe he won't be and more's the pity. One lucky year will continue to trump all the bad ones he's had as a Major League manager but it will because of how lucky it was.
The decision to use Wright as a pinch runner has been discussed before. If Ortiz had gotten hurt trying to score from 2nd, the board would have been on fire. Wright had a mental lapse, and that was entirely on the pitcher. And pulling Buchholz in that Series game at that time was not an option.
Chisenhall had an excellent at bat against Price. But I'm not sure how Tito gets all the credit and Farrell all the blame in that situation. The players play, and in this case one guy made the play and the other didn't. That had nothing to do with either manager.
Henry Owens made one start down the stretch and while he wasn't great(2 R in 4.2 innings) he didn't get shelled.
I personally think the Wright pinch running issue was the single most overblown issue of the season, I know others disagree and I don't want to go down that path again. If DD is on the side of those that it was an awful mistake then Farrell will be probably be gone.
I personally think the Wright pinch running issue was the single most overblown issue of the season, I know others disagree and I don't want to go down that path again. If DD is on the side of those that it was an awful mistake then Farrell will be probably be gone.
I like John Farrell. He seems like a great guy. The players obviously love him. I think the team competed hard this year.
But he simply isn't good at applying modern strategic thinking, or even common sense, to in-game decisions. We saw it all year with the way he used his bullpen, consistently deploying better relievers in lower-leverage situations and vice versa. We saw it with batting Brock Holt 2nd in the postseason. We saw it with using Young for Benintendi instead of Bradley. Even if these decisions didn't end up meaningfully affecting our odds of winning the World Series, they were indefensible, and suggest that, were he faced with a decision that would end up meaningfully affecting those odds, he couldn't be trusted to make the right call.
Can you win a World Series even with a bad in-game manager? Of course you can. We did in 2013! But I think there has to be a change in the way our games are managed. So even if you want to keep Farrell for whatever other reasons, I think you need a commitment that he or someone on his staff will internalize better in-game strategy.
But he simply isn't good at applying modern strategic thinking, or even common sense, to in-game decisions. We saw it all year with the way he used his bullpen, consistently deploying better relievers in lower-leverage situations and vice versa. We saw it with batting Brock Holt 2nd in the postseason. We saw it with using Young for Benintendi instead of Bradley. Even if these decisions didn't end up meaningfully affecting our odds of winning the World Series, they were indefensible, and suggest that, were he faced with a decision that would end up meaningfully affecting those odds, he couldn't be trusted to make the right call.
Can you win a World Series even with a bad in-game manager? Of course you can. We did in 2013! But I think there has to be a change in the way our games are managed. So even if you want to keep Farrell for whatever other reasons, I think you need a commitment that he or someone on his staff will internalize better in-game strategy.
Brock Holt hit .400/.400/.800 in the ALDS.
But the Sox didn't win so we can't use this as point in Farrell's favor, ie "doing the little things to win games." It's interesting to see people recycle their meme arguments against Farrell and distort/rewrite the 2016 season to fit their narrative. Only on SoSH is a 23 year old SS who just belted 21 HRs and placed 6th in fWAR not considered a cornerstone player.
That doesn't mean it was a smart strategic decision. There is widespread consensus that you should have your best hitter bat 2nd. Brock Holt wasn't one of the seven best hitters in that lineup. It worked out in a vanishingly small sample, and that's great. But that doesn't make it strategic.
Yeah, and the proof that Brock Holt shouldn't have been hitting second was that when a key situation arose, we had Aaron Hill and then Travis Shaw replace that spot in the lineup. I think he over tinkered with the lineup down the stretch. That should have been Mookie Betts or Xander Bogaerts at the end in the 2 hole.
But, people expecting to see Farrell fired need to go back and look at the Speier piece from early September. The front office understands the pros and cons, sees a lot more behind the scenes work and daily preparation, and they think they've got a good package in Farrell.
Plus, while his poor decision making under pressure drives me insane, anyone who thinks he's one of the worst Red Sox managers must not have seen as many Red Sox managers as I have. He's above the median over the 1977 to 2017 time span. Decision making under pressure is one thing, but generally his lineups make sense (Unlike Jimy Williams), his players are not driven into the ground (hello Zim!), he is well prepared with stats and scouting (f'ing Grady), and he's not a dumpster fire personality (Hobson and Valentine and Kennedy--it's too bad, because Kennedy was a good in game manager). Basically, there's Terry Francona, Joe Morgan, and then probably Farrell.
But, people expecting to see Farrell fired need to go back and look at the Speier piece from early September. The front office understands the pros and cons, sees a lot more behind the scenes work and daily preparation, and they think they've got a good package in Farrell.
Plus, while his poor decision making under pressure drives me insane, anyone who thinks he's one of the worst Red Sox managers must not have seen as many Red Sox managers as I have. He's above the median over the 1977 to 2017 time span. Decision making under pressure is one thing, but generally his lineups make sense (Unlike Jimy Williams), his players are not driven into the ground (hello Zim!), he is well prepared with stats and scouting (f'ing Grady), and he's not a dumpster fire personality (Hobson and Valentine and Kennedy--it's too bad, because Kennedy was a good in game manager). Basically, there's Terry Francona, Joe Morgan, and then probably Farrell.
I either poorly conveyed my point or you're being purposefully obtuse.
My point is that it didn't just happen this year; the suggestion in the post I was responding to was that the kids developed into cornerstone players this year. My point is also that Boegarts tailed off somewhat this year and ended the season on a downward trend. If Farrell gets credit for Xander developing on his watch, then he should fairly get some of the blame for what happened down the stretch with Boegarts.
This is probably addressed somewhere else, but Farrell's failure to pinch run for Ortiz last night when he was the tying run on first with two out in the 8th could have been a blunder of Grady Little-esque proportions if Hanley hit a double instead of a single.
Perhaps this can be broken out into its own thread but from where I sit Xander improved on his 2015 season in just about every way you could have hoped for. Power was a huge want out of him and we saw it this year. He had a pretty terrible August, which is really commonplace in the sport, but rebounded somewhat in September. Perhaps the extra PA were too much for him down the stretch and maybe conditioning is something he'll focus on this offseason?
If we start blaming managers for players slumping occasionally then guess what - they all fucking suck.
Well, Farrell admitted at one point that he ran X into the ground and needed to get him more days off...
JBJ was awful in the second half as well. Maybe for similar reasons, or maybe because his hot first half isn't representative of his true level of offensive ability.
JBJ was awful in the second half as well. Maybe for similar reasons, or maybe because his hot first half isn't representative of his true level of offensive ability.
I've seen some people say things like "he should start next season on the hot seat" and I'm wondering 2 things...
1) What does that actually mean? I mean, it's probably just fodder for F&M, but in reality, organizationally, how does that happen?
and 2) Why would he be on the hot seat to start next season? Wasn't that consensus LAST offseason? "he would've been canned last off season but had the cancer diagnoses and now he will start the 2016 season on the hot seat and if he can't manage then he will be fired"? That was the dialogue we all heard, and this season we were one of the best teams in baseball and won the AL East. No small feats.
I just don't get how he can start a season on the hot seat to start this season, take his team to the playoffs, then start NEXT season on the hot seat.If that's the case, than literally the only thing that could save Farrell's job would be winning the World Series.
1) What does that actually mean? I mean, it's probably just fodder for F&M, but in reality, organizationally, how does that happen?
and 2) Why would he be on the hot seat to start next season? Wasn't that consensus LAST offseason? "he would've been canned last off season but had the cancer diagnoses and now he will start the 2016 season on the hot seat and if he can't manage then he will be fired"? That was the dialogue we all heard, and this season we were one of the best teams in baseball and won the AL East. No small feats.
I just don't get how he can start a season on the hot seat to start this season, take his team to the playoffs, then start NEXT season on the hot seat.If that's the case, than literally the only thing that could save Farrell's job would be winning the World Series.
There are two things that could have factored into both Bogaerts and JBJ wearing down. One, the lack of alternatives for big chunks of the season. Bogaerts played a ton of games without a trustworthy back-up (by which I mean someone who could start once a week and not be a net negative). Part of that was the decision to play Holt as the strong half of the LF platoon for much of the year (also due to lack of suitable alternatives), part was not thus having anything better than Hernandez and Marrero as middle infield depth. Similarly, JBJ played a ton of games because the team was hurting for outfielders more often than not (injury and ineffectiveness). Castillo being a complete flop, Young getting hurt, Swihart getting hurt, even Benintendi getting hurt...all left them no choice but to start JBJ and Mookie pretty much every day.
Second is conditioning. More an excuse for JBJ than Bogaerts given that Bogaerts played a similar schedule last year and should know what it takes. JBJ has never played that many games in a season. Chances are he hit a wall. Hopefully the experience will help him avoid it or push through it next year and beyond. Ditto for Bogaerts.
I agree that Farrell should either be the manager to start 2017 without any threat of being on the hot seat. If the team thinks he should be on the "hot seat", he should be let go now. I don't think that's the case, unless the team vastly underperforms expectations in the first half of the year.
It isn't addressed because Farrell did it by the book. The chance of your scenario occurring are less than the chances of Ortiz coming back up in a meaningful AB. Once he gets to second then the conventional wisdom is the risk is worth the downside.
I'd be curious to see a statistical breakdown of the numbers but that is the conventional wisdom so he wouldn't get killed for not running.
I would too, because down one run with four outs left and the whole lineup needing to recycle to get back to any possible meaningful Ortiz AB seems like a scenario that should be left out of that book.
"Dave Dombrowski negotiated complete control of baseball ops when he was hired 14 months ago. Obviously they owners can do whatever they want, but any decision about John Farrell will be his.
Dombrowski traveled with the team all season and was a hands-on exec. He will make his judgment based on what happened from Feb. 15 to Oct. 10, not the final three games.
Anybody who tells you that firing Farrell is automatic does not understand how Dombrowski works.
Dombrowski won’t ignore the 15-game improvement, the 878 runs scored and 3.50 ERA in the second half because he watched almost every pitch in person.
It’s easy to be hysterical about the Division Series because it surely was a disaster. But you can’t ignore the 162 games before it.
Dombrowski and Farrell will meet with the media later today. Check back for more later."
So putting your posts together that means that you think the chances of the Sox tieing the game up without pinch running for Ortiz when he was on first were so remote they shouldn't even be taken into account.
Now I see why we have a disconnect.
Maybe he will be fired and they can replace him with a more cerebral and well liked guy like Buck Showalter.
Boston really is a thankless place to manage baseball.
Boston really is a thankless place to manage baseball.
That's not the way I'm looking at it, no. I understand that the chances of Hanley hitting a double that would allow someone with two working legs to score from first are remote, and that of course the game could be tied without pinch running for him. The question I'm concerned with is, at that moment, what is more likely to occur - Hanley hitting a double, or, 8 more batters coming to the plate before Ortiz comes up with another chance to tie or win the game. With four outs left to go.
By leaving Ortiz at first you are relying on either Hanley hitting a homer or consecutive walks/hits to tie the game in the eighth, in a series where we had precious few chances to score. You are removing Hanley hitting a double (and with two outs and running on contact, a whole lot of doubles get a fast runner home from first) from the list of ways you can tie it up at that very late point in the game. All so you can preserve the possibility that Ortiz gets a meaningful AB later on in extra innings in a game that isn't actually tied yet.
Honestly, I had no clue that this idea would be even mildly controversial.
I understand where you are coming from but what you are proposing isn't the way it is done, ever.
There was no controversy and Farrell wasn't questioned on it because he managed it by the book and the way all managers have handled slow sluggers since there have been slow sluggers.
Check out the gamethread which in general never found a move Farrell made that someone didn't criticize, and no one was calling for a PR until Ortiz got to 2nd.
I admit I don't know for certain if the conventional wisdom is correct and maybe advanced statistics would show that pinch running for him earlier would have been better but he would have been criticized heavily if he did that.
Edit:I just noticed you are back to the four outs left to go ignoring how extra innings happen and need to be part of the calculation that is made.
Really? If Shaw gets a hit in the 9th to tie the game, then Papi is on deck, and could either be hitting in the 9th (if Mookie walks to load the bases) or leading off the bottom of the 10th. So the possibility was not at all remote that Papi could have had another meaningful AB.
In this case, I think JF did the right thing by using the PR when he did.
You mean the manager of the AL East team with the most wins since 2012? I think a lot of what was weird about the Britton thing was that Buck generally does a really good tactical job.
A lot of the frustration with Farrell is a general frustration with managers. It's 2016 and there has been a revolution in baseball front offices, which has been happening more or less for 15 years+, but managers still make save-stat driven, gut-driven, or plain old boners all the time. P91's point that he's better than every Sox manager but Tito falls short because every manager pre-2000 was in a lot of ways a flat earther (except Earl Weaver).
I basically agree with johnnywayback above; Farrell is more or less OK and I don't care a whole lot if he's retained, but he really needs to get better at the in-game decisions or ask Lovullo for advice a lot more, or something. There are probably a lot of managers for whom this is true, but Farrell seems like a smart guy who works for a supposedly progressive front office, so we expect him to be better.
Re: Farrell asking for Tory's advise more:
How do we know Torey hasn't agreed with everything?
Tito used to say about a bench coach: 'You have to have a big enough voice and strong enough personality to stand up to me and tell me when I'm wrong. BUT, you also have to know when to shut up.'
Which is it in our situation?
How do we know Torey hasn't agreed with everything?
Tito used to say about a bench coach: 'You have to have a big enough voice and strong enough personality to stand up to me and tell me when I'm wrong. BUT, you also have to know when to shut up.'
Which is it in our situation?
Further to that, did anything that happened in the 49 games that Lovullo was in charge last year that indicates he's worlds different from Farrell in knowledge and decision-making?
One could point to the change in fortunes for the team after he took over, but a good deal of what went right under his management continued to go right this year under Farrell. So was it his management style that Farrell adopted or continued, or simply that the roster improved (new players and/or better play from existing players)?
I'm not ignoring extra innings as a possibility. I will say, though, that I think it has nothing but a microscopic place in this calculation when you desperately need to tie the game first before even thinking about extras. Especially in this case where you have to get that tying run against a very good closer using a slumping lineup, and where if you can get that tying run and moved the game into extras you'll have hit the soft underbelly of their bullpen.
Basically, I'm using a lot words now to communicate that situationally speaking, I thought it was obvious that Farrell had to do everything he could to maximize our chances of getting one more run before regulation ended. Leaving Ortiz in there is sort of the flip-side example of Showalter leaving Britton on the bench. You're leaving an effective arrow in the quiver for a situation that never comes. It just didn't happen to bite Farrell on the ass, but if Hanley hit that his ball into the gap instead of at an outfielder, ugh.