These threads.
I'm going to guess that no one on this board fully understands what a big league manager does and how that impacts the game. I certainly don't. Let's list some of the things so that ongoing critiques might have some checkpoints:
- Input with the GM on roster moves
- Assembly and management of the coaching staff
- Design of Spring Training regime
- Player communications
- Off-season management of certain players
- Look-aheads to the upcoming schedule and positioning of players to accommodate that
- Injury/health assessments
- Liaising with statistical crew to determine what and what not to factor
- Personality management
- Discipline management
- Establishing a routine that players understand and can prepare for
- In-game strategies: putting on plays, warming up the bullpen, pinch-hitting, bullpen management, player positioning, etc.
- Establishment of rotation and adjustments as required
- Bullpen roles - long term health of bullpen
- Assessing who needs rest and when
- Assessing who needs a break and when
- Pre-deadline player assessments
- Liaising with the press
- Taking the blame for every mistake and loss
- Position on the Maddoning Scale: Level of self-attributed genius
There must be more. One thing not to discount - the roles and impact of the coaching staff. If the manager brings on inappropriate coaches (Nieves?) there is responsibility. The converse is obviously true (Butterfield).
The 2 managers I recall getting the most kudos are Bochy and Showalter. If that's a consensus, what differentiates them from the Girardi's, Gibbons' and Matheny's of the world?
Eh. I think he should be fired, but I've thought that for awhile. The buck does not quite stop with the field manager, but it's close enough.
He's not a terrible manager if one makes a laundry list of job duties - in several aspects, he's very good. Unfortunately, one of the things he's not good at is winning actual games. Farrell's teams in aggregate underperform - the exception being 2013, which was full of head scratching moves that worked out. I tend to think his skillset is best for the Torre Yankees - good with the media, keeps an even keel, deals with players in-house (mostly) and in games routinely plugs in elite players to do their elite player thing.
What he's clearly not good at is managing the Sox as currently constructed (or as they have been in the past few years.) I don't know how much of that came from Cherrington mandating that he play certain players, but my biggest problem with Farrell is that he's very weak in terms of putting the team in a position to win individual games. He's supposed to be one of the best 30 guys on the planet at doing that. And frankly, that's all I care about.
Perhaps some of his skills (minimizing drama) translate into a better working environment, and thus contribute to winning. Except, as the orange guy says - we don't do that anymore. Perhaps he's the best ever at putting together really great spring training regimens. But again - to what end? What's the result?
At this point, I think the only reason not to fire him is if his hands were truly tied by management, or if there's no replacement available. However, we've seen the same old Farrell, and we do have a replacement.
As an anticipatory rebuttal, if anyone is thinking of saying, "But if just two games had swung our way, we'd be at 8-5," well, that's pretty much my point in a nutshell. I understand there are some losses that can't be helped - and there are some meltdowns that a manager is helpless to prevent. Sometimes a manager can make all the right marginal moves, giving his team the best chance to win contested games - and the team will be snakebit and still lose all those games. I don't see Farrell routinely making those moves, and managing his roster accordingly, and that's the basic problem that plays out over the whole season.
