Farrell on the hot seat

[Rovin Romine]

I think it's premature to call for Farrell's head at right now, but damn if today's bullpen usage won't ramp up the talk.

Well, as the man says, you can't really argue with results. Like all but one of the teams Farrell has managed, the big ambition is to get to .500. I mean, it's not his fault of course - because his boneheaded decisions don't have any real bad effect. His coaches and their prep work couldn't have any effect. How could they?

I will say I was heartened to see him use some pinch hitters. And I think it's great he wasn't suckered into batting someone for Vazquez with Hanigan on the bench. I mean, imagine the effing disaster that could have resulted - by some miracle they could have tied the game, but if so, they'd have to continue on without a backup catcher! So smart to have avoided that. That's our John - always thinking ahead.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This game was pretty much all on Price. They were forced to use their AAAA guys from the 4th inning.on with three of their guys still unavailable. Replacement level guys - 4 runs in 5 innings. David Price, 8 against the shittiest non-Braves lineup in baseball.

Not sure why Layne didn't come in, or Chris Young didn't hit for JBJ with the bases loaded against the lefty, but meh. That's not why they lost by 4.

I think that one was defensible since the Rays had a RHP ready to go had Young been sent to the plate. I know I'm a bit more confident in JBJ against a LHP than Young against an RHP.

 

[Pilgrim]

This game was pretty much all on Price. They were forced to use their AAAA guys from the 4th inning.on with three of their guys still unavailable. Replacement level guys - 4 runs in 5 innings. David Price, 8 against the shittiest non-Braves lineup in baseball.

Not sure why Layne didn't come in, or Chris Young didn't hit for JBJ with the bases loaded against the lefty, but meh. That's not why they lost by 4.

They had a righty warmed up for Betts anyway, so thats who Young would have faced if they pinch hit.

e: beaten

 

[Rovin Romine]

This game was pretty much all on Price. They were forced to use their AAAA guys from the 4th inning.on with three of their guys still unavailable. Replacement level guys - 4 runs in 5 innings. David Price, 8 against the shittiest non-Braves lineup in baseball.

Not sure why Layne didn't come in, or Chris Young didn't hit for JBJ with the bases loaded against the lefty, but meh. That's not why they lost by 4.

Uh. Maybe you didn't watch the game. The Sox tied the game int he bottom of the 7th. They loaded the bases with one out. JBJ and Mookie were up, facing a lefty (who had allowed the tying run, and who had loaded the bases). At that point, David Price has nothing to do with the game. Nothing is "on him." It's Farrell's job to put his team in the best position to win. Did he do that? You've identified two key ways he didn't.

 

[PapaSox]

Are we being a tad premature in our desires to fire Farrell. Yesterday seemed like the 1st game that all aspects of the game came together. We've had good offense w/o pitching, the pen has been great and terrible at times - probably a bit overworked at the moment, the offensive has been up and down - although, the most consistent thus far, defense has been there and at times it seems like no one wants to catch the ball - Vasquez had 2 pass balls in a game w/o Wright pitching. The 30 million dollar man got bombed today. Is this Farrell or the team working out the chinks.

Let's try to get a little further into the season to see about firing someone - we're only 15 games in and 2 out. Let's see where we're at in two three weeks. The replace is already there so no big rush. This is the team figuring things out.

 

[Pilgrim]

Uh. Maybe you didn't watch the game. The Sox tied the game int he bottom of the 7th. They loaded the bases with one out. JBJ and Mookie were up, facing a lefty (who had allowed the tying run, and who had loaded the bases). At that point, David Price has nothing to do with the game. Nothing is "on him." It's Farrell's job to put his team in the best position to win. Did he do that? You've identified two key ways he didn't.

He blew the game by not pinch hitting Young against a righty? I'm confused because people have been on his case all year for using Young too much.

I don't think the guy is a tactical genius but so much of the criticism I've seen contradicts itself.

 

[grimshaw]

Uh. Maybe you didn't watch the game. The Sox tied the game int he bottom of the 7th. They loaded the bases with one out. JBJ and Mookie were up, facing a lefty (who had allowed the tying run, and who had loaded the bases). At that point, David Price has nothing to do with the game. Nothing is "on him." It's Farrell's job to put his team in the best position to win. Did he do that? You've identified two key ways he didn't.

I missed that the righty was warming. And yes, it is on David Price to not give up 7 runs per start when your bullpen is shot. This is precisely what he is being paid for. If he even goes 6, you have Barnes and Koji to piece together the last three innings, and not option 8 and 11 in AAA.

The only reason Cuevas was up is because he was stretched out as a starter and they could abuse him over one game if it meant saving the rest of the pen.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Uh. Maybe you didn't watch the game. The Sox tied the game int he bottom of the 7th. They loaded the bases with one out. JBJ and Mookie were up, facing a lefty (who had allowed the tying run, and who had loaded the bases). At that point, David Price has nothing to do with the game. Nothing is "on him." It's Farrell's job to put his team in the best position to win. Did he do that? You've identified two key ways he didn't.

The other day, you made the point that a loss in April could have an effect on Boston's playoff chances come October. The basic premise being that what happens in the early part of the season can come back and bite you when all is said and done.

Now you seem to be arguing that what Price did in the early part of the game does not have an effect on what happened later on ... when, in fact, his early struggles came back and bit them in the end.

If the April loss is important to missing the playoffs by the game, then why aren't the runs Price allowed important to to a game the Sox scored enough to when if Price had pitched better?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Uh. Maybe you didn't watch the game. The Sox tied the game int he bottom of the 7th. They loaded the bases with one out. JBJ and Mookie were up, facing a lefty (who had allowed the tying run, and who had loaded the bases). At that point, David Price has nothing to do with the game. Nothing is "on him." It's Farrell's job to put his team in the best position to win. Did he do that? You've identified two key ways he didn't.

He is the ace of the team, he was staked to a 5-1 lead after one and he not only couldn't hold the lead, he left the game down 2 (and eventually 3) in the fourth inning. Yes, they had a chance to win even after his departure, but if he does his job, there is no concern over bases loaded in the 7th situations.

 

[Marbleheader]

As a former pitching coach, my biggest beef with Farrell is how few pitchers have succeeded under his watch.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The other day, you made the point that a loss in April could have an effect on Boston's playoff chances come October. The basic premise being that what happens in the early part of the season can come back and bite you when all is said and done.

Now you seem to be arguing that what Price did in the early part of the game does not have an effect on what happened later on ... when, in fact, his early struggles came back and bit them in the end.

If the April loss is important to missing the playoffs by the game, then why aren't the runs Price allowed important to to a game the Sox scored enough to when if Price had pitched better?

The point is that despite the fact that Price sucked today they were still in a position to win. Whether it was tied at 7 because of crappy pitching or tied at 1 because of great pitching, at that point in the game the situations are identical. Price sucking is not an excuse for Farrell once again not making logistical in game moves.

 

[williams_482]

I think that one was defensible since the Rays had a RHP ready to go had Young been sent to the plate. I know I'm a bit more confident in JBJ against a LHP than Young against an RHP.

Throw in the pinch hitter penalty (which should absolutely come up more in these sorts of discussions) and this specific non-move was a slam dunk good call.

 

[YTF]

I was in and out of the game today. Can you elaborate a little on this?

Again I'm not calling for Farrell's head, but let me give it a shot. I get that it's pretty slim pickings in the pen at the moment and the reason given for bringing Cuevas up was because he was stretched out as a starter and could give innings if needed, but the offense got the team back into the game at 8-8. Koji has been over used for sure, but in what I consider a winnable game going into the 8th (even mid 8th) Farrell elected not to use him. He's pitched 1/3inning in the past 4 games. I think he should have been considered. Layne as well. I think he had been warmed up, but left unused. Once TB scored the final 3 runs it really didn't matter, but there was a window there for other (limited) options.

 

[twibnotes]

I feel for Farrell because it seems like post 2013 he's been snakebitten and everything has blown up in his face especially things outside of his control like player performance. Every time NESN cameras pick him up I'm honestly surprised he isn't throwing his arms up in disbelief and shaking his head.

This gets to the crux of it for me...if you believe a manager has no impact on player performance, you have to look at in game decisions. By that measure, does anyone think Farrell is a good manager?

If Farrell isn't around for his in game decisions, then I would hope he's around bc he does get a lot out of his players. Does anyone think that is happening either?

I'm reading tons of reasons why Farrell shouldn't be fired, but I've yet to see a compelling reasons to keep him. What does he do well?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Trying to understand the bullpen situation (on a day the starter would have been expected to go 8 innings).

Kimbrel - not available
Tazawa - not available
Hembree - I assume not available
Uehara - available, but hopefully not needed
Barnes
Cuevas
Layne
Ramirez
Ross

9 man bullpen, with 6 available (+ starting 9 + Hanigan + Young + Rutledge + 4 pitchers)

So, I guess Uehara was the "closer" if the Red Sox had a save situation.

4th inning Barnes in: Sox down 7-5
7th inning Cuevas in: Sox down 8-7
9th inning Ramirez in: Sox down 9-8

Leaving Layne, Ross and Koji unused.

8th inning: Longoria Fly Out (1 out), Pearce walked by Cuevas (1 out), Jennings FC (2 outs), RHH Souza up...do you bring in Ramirez or Layne in a tie game to face the RHH? Or try to squeeze 1 more out from Cuevas...

9th inning: LHH Kiermaier doubles (maybe this is when Layne should have been pitching...probably would have if the game was still tied, how long could Layne go? Forsyth (RHH), Casali (RHH), Guyer (RHH) and Longoria (RHH) coming up.) Ramirez comes in, not one of the LHRP's.

Dickerson PH with the Rays up 10-8, no Layne (2 RHH coming up). Already kind of a lost cause, but may have kept things to 2 runs, leaving Koji and Ross in the pen.

Why wasn't Layne used to pitch to the light hitting Kiermaier with the Sox down 1 run in the 9th? It's possible that a combination of him and Ramirez could have held the lead to 1 run. Then you have to hope for a rally. If the Sox tie, then the choice is either Ramirez continuing or Uehara pitching the 10th with Ross the last man standing.

I assume Uehara would have pitched the 9th in a tie game.

Shitty situation. Worth a discussion.

 

[benhogan]

As a former pitching coach, my biggest beef with Farrell is how few pitchers have succeeded under his watch.

Good point.

In addition to that the # of dependable starters or bullpen arms developed by our farm has been dreadful over the last 5 seasons. Ben & Co are quick to get plenty of kudos for player development, but where are the arms?

 

[Harry Hooper]

Ross went 3 innings on Tuesday night, so had limited availability at best today.

As for Liermeier's leadoff double in the ninth. it was off a nice changeup that moved down and away (off the plate) from the lefty. He put a lunging, almost one-handed swing on the pitch and somehow ladled it over Hanley into short RF for a double.

 

[Ed Hillel]

He is the ace of the team, he was staked to a 5-1 lead after one and he not only couldn't hold the lead, he left the game down 2 (and eventually 3) in the fourth inning. Yes, they had a chance to win even after his departure, but if he does his job, there is no concern over bases loaded in the 7th situations.

You are correct that Price was most at fault, but Farrell's actions over the past two days independent of Price shitting the bed are still quite relevant. Had he not used Taz in low leverage situation last night, he'd have had him available today in a much more important situation. Given the overusage of Taz in general the past few seasons, I think it's pretty inexcusable to be trotting him-one of the team's best relievers-out there this early in the season with a 4-run lead.

Farrell needs to maximize Taz's, and the rest of the bullpen's, value. I know the pen has been overused and that is beyond his control, but with a 4-run lead I'd rather he risk blowing out a less important pitcher's arm. Early in the season, I'm not sure Taz should be pitching in any game that is more than +/- 3 on the scoreboard unless he needs the work. Not only was it a poor decision to use him last night independent of anything else, it also ended up biting them in the ass today.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Understand, but the non-Taz alternatives certainly blew it today (leading to 5 runs, 4 earned). This board would have gone nuclear yesterday if Tazawa had remained sitting (alongside the unusable Kimbrel and Koji) while the pen-dregs served up a carton of runs. The point's valid though, assuming Farrell doesn't hang out on SoSH.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

My biggest problem was with Farrell's sequencing through his available pitchers today.

Cuevas was only called up because he was able to throw 80+ pitches as a piggyback starter. But Farrell didn't use him that way when his starter faltered early, instead calling for Barnes first, who at 42 pitches threw only 2 fewer than Cuevas and therefore both are now probably unavailable for the next two days. Which means, the two of them are likely only going to be ready when the A-squad relievers need another rest. Regardless of how the next two games develop.

When Price was pulled in the 4th, the best option for the long-term would have been to use the long guy for as long as he can remain relatively effective, hopefully providing 4.1 innings with 2-3 ER allowed. But even if Cuevas got hung up the second time through the order, Farrell could have leveraged Barnes/Layne/Ramirez/Ross for partial-inning matchups in innings 7-8. Then, hopefully, Koji-time because the offense has scored more runs.

Now, the reality is that Barnes and Cuevas are basically shot. They're not essential, so that's not terrible; but it does mean that Farrell has to either go to the A-squad, or to rely on just the two B-squad LHRP in the next game while Ramirez is also unavailable, and which bullpen inefficiency will certainly require him to continue carrying a three-man bench.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Won't Cuevas now go back down? Owens up?

 

[Back Bay]

Won't Cuevas now go back down? Owens up?

Not till Sunday. They have an immediate need for another reliever.

 

[Buckner's Boots]

Only heard the breakdown after the game; I thought I heard they got Koji up but didn't use him. At this point in his career, that seems pretty reckless to me. He doesn't have a whole lot of rounds to waste. Was there context that made it a good idea not to use him, or was this an error on Farrell's part? Again, not having seen the game, I'm willing to concede that it might have been reasonable, but it seems reckless to me.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Only heard the breakdown after the game; I thought I heard they got Koji up but didn't use him. At this point in his career, that seems pretty reckless to me. He doesn't have a whole lot of rounds to waste. Was there context that made it a good idea not to use him, or was this an error on Farrell's part? Again, not having seen the game, I'm willing to concede that it might have been reasonable, but it seems reckless to me.

He said that Koji was coming in only if the Sox took the lead.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Just a note: I did not start this thread as a place to analyze every Farrell move or non-move game by game. We have game threads for that. The questions were: is Farrell on the hot seat and if so how long does he have to be on it? I have made my opinions clear: yes and not long. Not because the Sox win or lose day to day but because he is the one symbol of 5 years of suck (barring 2013) that can be removed to create a clean(er) slate.

My biggest concern is that continued Red Sox under performance could damage the growth of our young and promising core. Sometimes change for change's sake is the only tool that a front office has, aside from firing themselves and/or the players.

Something is wrong with this franchise and has been so for a long time. Farrell is the sacrificial lamb. Will it work? I don't know. I do know that what they've been doing for too long ain't.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

My biggest concern is that continued Red Sox under performance could damage the growth of our young and promising core. Sometimes change for change's sake is the only tool that a front office has, aside from firing themselves and/or the players.

How could the team's under performance damage the growth our our young and promising core, and how could change for change's sake fix this?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Not till Sunday. They have an immediate need for another reliever.

So we call up another long reliever that's what the 25th man is for with our current bullpen usage. Farrell uses Tazawa to protect a 4-run lead against a potent offense, those same releivers he bypassed last night (in a game we won) got shelled today.......and Farrell is blamed for not using those guys to blow the 4-run lead the night before? Interesting timing for that argument.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The point is that despite the fact that Price sucked today they were still in a position to win. Whether it was tied at 7 because of crappy pitching or tied at 1 because of great pitching, at that point in the game the situations are identical. Price sucking is not an excuse for Farrell once again not making logistical in game moves.

Yep.

He blew the game by not pinch hitting Young against a righty? I'm confused because people have been on his case all year for using Young too much.

I don't think the guy is a tactical genius but so much of the criticism I've seen contradicts itself.

He does not have to be perfect at all areas of managing. He should be getting better results in the W-L area, which is the most important area of managing. He should maximize the team's chances of winning over the course of the season. Instead, he often finds ways to lose or to sit on his hands. He's so bad at this the idea that there's some hidden reason for his decisions does not fly anymore. I'd settle for tactical competence from him. Or occasionally thinking - "what a good decision."

I get that there's a reflex action to shield the manager from the knee-jerk reaction of angry fans seeking a scapegoat. This is blinding some from simply acknowledging that Farrell isn't particularly good at putting his team in a position to win.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

How could the team's under performance damage the growth our our young and promising core, and how could change for change's sake fix this?

Ok let's just wait another year and then find out.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Ok let's just wait another year and then find out.

So that's your "biggest concern" and you can't explain what you mean?

 

[Rovin Romine]

So we call up another long reliever that's what the 25th man is for with our current bullpen usage. Farrell uses Tazawa to protect a 4-run lead against a potent offense, those same releivers he bypassed last night (in a game we won) got shelled today.......and Farrell is blamed for not using those guys to blow the 4-run lead the night before? Interesting timing for that argument.

Taz was used against the heart of the BJ's lineup. So that's not so bad - except we were four runs up. Let's say Noe goes in there and gives up two runs - we're still ahead. I mean, if Farrell is competent, he can pull a reliever before they get into too much trouble. And Taz is preserved.

Today, we were tied. Putting in volatile relievers at that point isn't a great idea to keep that tie intact. Especially when Koji had been warmed up.

 

[Sprowl]

Lord Protector Farrell rescued us from the corrupt and tyrannical reign of Bobby the Fifth. Farrell survives at least five years in office, and when he goes, it's because he dies in his sleep of natural causes (though there will be rumour that he was poisoned).

Two years later, his corpse will be dug up, hung in chains, and beheaded.

 

[Harry Hooper]

My biggest problem was with Farrell's sequencing through his available pitchers today.

Cuevas was only called up because he was able to throw 80+ pitches as a piggyback starter. But Farrell didn't use him that way when his starter faltered early, instead calling for Barnes first, who at 42 pitches threw only 2 fewer than Cuevas and therefore both are now probably unavailable for the next two days. Which means, the two of them are likely only going to be ready when the A-squad relievers need another rest. Regardless of how the next two games develop.

When Price was pulled in the 4th, the best option for the long-term would have been to use the long guy for as long as he can remain relatively effective, hopefully providing 4.1 innings with 2-3 ER allowed. But even if Cuevas got hung up the second time through the order, Farrell could have leveraged Barnes/Layne/Ramirez/Ross for partial-inning matchups in innings 7-8. Then, hopefully, Koji-time because the offense has scored more runs.

Now, the reality is that Barnes and Cuevas are basically shot. They're not essential, so that's not terrible; but it does mean that Farrell has to either go to the A-squad, or to rely on just the two B-squad LHRP in the next game while Ramirez is also unavailable, and which bullpen inefficiency will certainly require him to continue carrying a three-man bench.

Cuevas normally is a starter. Having him warm up and enter mid-inning with a guy on second for his MLB debut would not be putting him in a position to succeed. Barnes made more sense there once Price couldn't finish the inning. A wobbly Price completes the 4th, and they tell Cuevas to get ready to take over for the start of the 5th.

 

[YTF]

Lord Protector Farrell rescued us from the corrupt and tyrannical reign of Bobby the Fifth. Farrell survives at least five years in office, and when he goes, it's because he dies in his sleep of natural causes (though there will be rumour that he was poisoned).

Two years later, his corpse will be dug up, hung in chains, and beheaded.

Couldn't we just let Farrell go and do the latter to Bobby pre-corpse?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Five of the eight losses have been on the bullpen. I think the angst over this team is that they've been in almost every game. A lot of the losses have felt winnable. Unfortunately, very few of Farrell's bullpen moves have made all that much sense. He's panicky when he should ease off and then the next day he slow walks it when he should accelerate. These problems compound. If you bring in your best relievers and lose on one day, it's going to be harder to bring them all back in the next day to preserve a win. He just doesn't seem to have the touch. There's no other way to put it. You can defend each and every bullpen decision he's made in isolation. Taken together - not just this year, but last year and the year before that - it's clumsy.

I think everyone who watches baseball for sufficiently long develops some internal sense of the rhythm of the game. Within an inning, across innings, and even across games. The three man NESN booth couldn't shut up about feeling like the game today wasn't over, there was more weirdness coming. So much of baseball is putting out fires. Prevent a big inning. Don't let the team get too far ahead in the game. Stop long losing streaks. I can argue projections and underperformance all day long, but my dislike of Farrell isn't just about that. He doesn't seem to have any rhythm. The teams I've watched with him at the helm give up bigger innings. They go on longer losing streaks. He doesn't know how to put out a fire.

Francona's teams never felt out of control, until the very last month of his tenure (which is why that ending was so shocking). With Farrell, the whole team feels ready to break at the first sign of trouble. Last year they ended April 12-10. Not great, but a good start. They opened May by going 1-7. They struggled for a few weeks to get back to .500, and on May 19 they'd clawed back to 19-20. Then they lost to Texas. For some reason, I knew that was the last time they'd have a chance at .500 the rest of the season (go back and find my posts, I was ridiculed for saying so at the time). It just felt like a mental block that Farrell would be unable to get the team back from.

I feel crazy writing this crap instead of giving actual data. There's plenty to look through: if I'm right, the Sox should have a disproportionate number of big innings and losing streaks given their talent level. That's quantifiable for somebody with the time to dig into the data. I guess I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who feels like the team, given its talent level, feels weirdly rudderless under Farrell? The dude, as a manager, has no duende.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Or, you know, I'm constructing a narrative out of something much easier, which is that this team just hasn't been very talented. I recognize that's what the keep Farrell crowd is saying. Mediocre teams are going to feel like they're in a lot of games and then lose by just a little bit more often than they win by a little bit. I'm not discounting the possibility, but I have watched a bunch of bad Red Sox teams and they never felt off kilter like this. They just sucked. These teams have had a considerable amount of talent and they still lose more than they win.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

On the one hand, it's unfair to harp on the 2 consecutive last-place finishes for Farrell as the FO in both seasons pretty much engineered that result by mid-season dismantling of the teams and conducting open tryouts in the latter months.

That's not really how it went down over the past two years.

The idea of "dismantling" a team to "engineer a last place result" fits the 2012 season, when Valentine had the team 2 games over .500 at the deadline, and then after they traded Punto they went into a freefall. That's not how it happened in 2014 and 2015 though.

In 2014, the Red Sox were 48-60 at the trading deadline. They were horrible before they "dismantled" the team and stayed horrible all year.

In 2015, they were 51-64 and had been horrible all year long, with a .443 winning percentage under Farrell. Then after the change of managers, they went 28-20, a .583 winning percentage. They stopped being horrible when the managers changed. There were other factors, obviously, but that is the bottom line.

At the 2015 trading deadline, there was absolutely no dismantling of a team to engineer a last place result. What actually happened is that a team with a terrible record changed managers and then went on to play much better and win a lot more games, and only finished last because they were so terrible under the original manager.

There seems to be a lot of glossing over of the last two seasons in this thread, with people talking about it being so early and they've only played 14 games, etc. For the last two years, they've actually played almost 340 games under Farrell, with about a .440 winning percentage. The Red Sox were horrible in 2014 and 2015. They were a high payroll team with high expectations in the team's own words, and fell way short of those expectations. This year they are a high payroll team with a front office that has announced that they have high expectations. If they start falling way short of those expectations again, they will change managers, because that is what teams do. Hopefully that won't happen, but they need to win games and stay in contention. Otherwise they will change managers.

It's certainly not silly to question the job security of the manager who has a .440 winning percentage over the last 2+ years. Trying to look at very single move, or at whether this guy or that guy was available or playing well for a while and maybe that other guy should have done better is irrelevant-- it's looking at the trees when the forest has been burning down for 2+ years. Either the forest fire gets put out soon, or a new fireman comes in to try.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Too early in the season to make a move, but JF has been disappointing. For me, the ongoing problems with the pitching are especially telling as that's his expertise. '13 was great but shouldn't be over-emphasized. That was a special team (and no, '14 wasn't the same team without Ellsbury and Victorino), there was the bombing, and also I suspect the change of managers and managerial styles did make a difference in the first year (an effect noted by Bill James decades ago).

 

[geoduck no quahog]

If Farrell had been able to keep Miller (instead of getting Sandoval) and picks up Kimbrel and Smith...then gets Chapman for a bag of beans, he'd be a much better manager.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

Farrell seems to always put the contact play on with a runner on third/one out and the infield in. It backfired again yesterday in the first when Holt, who isn't slow, got gunned down. Now, they likely wouldn't have scored anyway with a scuffling JBJ on deck and Odorizzi very tough on lefties but it's just simply not very hard for a Major League infielder to make a good throw to the plate with the infield in. This play rarely ever seems to work and when you're playing at Fenway with a high run environment especially, just wait for the ball to go through.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

To address those who discount this mediocre start due to the level of competition...
If you want to be a good or great team, you have to win against good competition.
I'm down in Tar Heel country, and I think this year's basketball team provides an example of what I mean. Fairly late in the season, mid-Feb, the Heels lost up in Virginia. Talking about it with a friend, my opinion was that the loss showed that UNC wasn't good enough. But Virginia's a good team he said. Sure I said, but UNC should be better. If you want to be great - in this case, if you want to win the ACC and challenge for the national title - you have to win tiose games. A couple weeks later the Heels won at Duke, which started their run through the ACC tourney and all the way to the title game. And as they got that far, Roy Williams himself acknowledged that the team that lost to Virginia wasn't a good team. But they found a way to win down the stretch and became the great team that was in there but had yet to come out.
I think this Sox team could be a very good team - at least the AL East champion. Yes, the division is tough, and yes, the Sox have some flaws, but so does every other team in the division. The team that comes out on top will be the one that overcomes its flaws and finds a way to beat its tough division rivals.
There is still plenty of time for this team to pull it together and start to be a winning team. Right or wrong, John Farrell is going to be held responsible for that happening. Playing .500 baseball isn't going to cut it, regardless of the competition. I've said before, I think he's got to the end of June, maybe the AS break, to get this team into winning territory, and less time if the team is sinking significantly below .500. There is a very good team within this year's Red Sox roster. If JF can't get it to come out, somebody else will get the chance to do it.

 

[mwonow]

I don't really get the idea that a decision to ditch Farrell should only be taken if he's clearly proved to be out of his depth. The onus is on JF to make a positive difference, not on the rest of the world to prove that he's a net negative.

The Sox have finished last in each of the past two years. Was it Farrell's fault? Probably not, but they could have finished last with pretty well anybody on the bench - and as several posters have noted above, once you're out of contention, there are no prizes for being 8 games under 500 rather than 18.

I don't really get the schedule points, either. The Sox have played 15 games: 10 at home, 13 against the AL East. They are under .500 in both, with somewhat more than 10% of the games in the books. If they are a contender (and I think most people here believe they should be), they need to achieve better results in both areas. Again, it may not be Farrell's fault that the team isn't winning - but it isn't, and JF isn't owed a permanent lease on a job in the dugout. He needs (IMO, anyway) to show that he can pull whatever levers can produce more wins, or to be moved aside to see if results improve with someone else in charge.

 

[tims4wins]

Regarding yesterday, this all goes back to using Tazawa on Wednesday. He had pitched on both Monday and Tuesday. The bullpen has been taxed a lot lately. With a 4 run lead, and Tazawa having pitching on BOTH Monday and Tuesday, Farrell went BACK to Tazawa on Wednesday to preserve a 4 run lead in the 8th inning against a team that is basically offensively inept.

That shows two things on the part of Farrell:

1) He is feeling the pressure. He felt like he needed to lock up the game on Wednesday after the three straight losses despite the 4 run lead and Taz having been used the prior two games. I don't want a manager who is managing based on pressure.

2) He is not managing the bullpen well. He used Taz for one out in the Monday loss and then burned UE as well. So then by the time Wednesday rolled around he either had to go back to Taz or go to his B guys.

I get that the starting pitching has made his decisions more difficult with the relief pitching. But the fact that 5 of the 8 losses are by the relievers is a huge black mark against Farrell IMO.

Farrell must go ASAP.

 

[Plympton91]

I think Keikeredinthehead and GreyEagles posts above nail it. The macro view is two fold. John Farrell's. Teams have not played good baseball, except the 2013 team of veterans on short term contracts. I noted the point Kiekered did about the prevalEnce of big innings in last year's Farrell thread, and I think someone ran the numbers to show they were more frequent than normal for Farrell's teams. Likewise the long losing streaks could be checked.

I also think Tim4twins point about having Farrell literally on the hot seat is a bad situation causing him to have an extra unnecessary variable to consider. It's time to move on, not for changes sake, but because failure to commit to Farrell is already a distraction. Either give Farrell an extension now or hold a meeting, figure out who you want to commit to for the next 3 years at least, and hire that person.

 

[Remagellan]

I don't know if I'm ready to join the "Farrell must go" chorus, but I will admit it is hard not to look to our rivals to the south with some envy. Joe Girardi may be a bit of an a-hole, but I admire how his MFY teams never bottom out despite some seasons in which they've suffered injuries in degrees that always seem to sink us. And I may never get over the fact that since he renewed his managerial career after his disastrous time in Philly, Terry Francona has never had a losing season.

That's Terry Francona, the guy who was fired for missing the playoffs on the last day of the season with a 90 win team that was decimated by injuries to its pitching staff.

Thank goodness the Pats were smart enough to keep Belichick after the rare seasons in which he missed the playoffs. Francona may not be as good a baseball manager as Belichick is a football coach, but he deserved similar respect for all he did while he was here.

Now I'm going to drown my sorrows in some beer and fried chicken.

 

[rembrat]

Well, give it some time, Remagellan. The Yankees are 5-9 and off to their worst start since 2005.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

If Farrell had been able to keep Miller (instead of getting Sandoval) and picks up Kimbrel and Smith...then gets Chapman for a bag of beans, he'd be a much better manager.

If Porcello and Kelly had been as effective under Farrell as they were under Torey, he'd be a much better manager as well. If our relievers got the job done that first night then they wouldn't be asked to come in the next night following a loss it would be following a win.

Is that on Farrell or the pitching coach who works directly with the pitchers? Or is it simply on the pitchers to figure things out?

Sometimes the time is right for irrational change in the managerial position for no other reason than to shake things up as it's up to the players to perform while it ultimately is the responsibility of the manager for them to perform. I don't feel that time is after 17 games. If DD was going to make a change this soon he would have done it in the winter. You can't bring a guy back only to fire him in Week 3 although I agree the rope will be relatively short.

 

[grimshaw]

If Porcello and Kelly had been as effective under Farrell as they were under Torey, he'd be a much better manager as well. If our relievers got the job done that first night then they wouldn't be asked to come in the next night following a loss it would be following a win.

Is that on Farrell or the pitching coach who works directly with the pitchers? Or is it simply on the pitchers to figure things out?

Sometimes the time is right for irrational change in the managerial position for no other reason than to shake things up as it's up to the players to perform while it ultimately is the responsibility of the manager for them to perform. I don't feel that time is after 17 games. If DD was going to make a change this soon he would have done it in the winter. You can't bring a guy back only to fire him in Week 3 although I agree the rope will be relatively short.

To be fair - there was a huge immediate improvement once Nieves was gone, and he was proactive and communicated that Juan wasn't getting his message across. Farrell took the reins on the pitching side of things with some urgency.

This is really where he belongs full time in the future IMO, which kind of sucks for him. I can only think of Joe Kerrigan who went pitching coach, manager and then pitching coach. I wonder if Farrell could do that - though likely not here. Since DD has been here and hired his guys, John may not be in the plans full time anymore in an executive position.

 

[threecy]

That's not really how it went down over the past two years.

The idea of "dismantling" a team to "engineer a last place result" fits the 2012 season, when Valentine had the team 2 games over .500 at the deadline, and then after they traded Punto they went into a freefall. That's not how it happened in 2014 and 2015 though.

In 2014, the Red Sox were 48-60 at the trading deadline. They were horrible before they "dismantled" the team and stayed horrible all year.

The floor fell out before the deadline, when much of the core of the team knew it was being shipped out. They were 5 games under 500 on July 21 after winning 8 of 9 games.

They then starting losing games as the team was torn apart (Peavy on the 26th, Doubrant on the 30th, Lester/Gomes/Lackey/Miller/Drew on the 31st).

Farrell's had some very flawed teams to work with over the past few years. The 2014 team had gaping holes in the infield and outfield, due to injury and lack of ready talent. Heck, they only had two full-season players with OPS+ of 100 or more.

 

[whatittakes]

In 2015, they were 51-64 and had been horrible all year long, with a .443 winning percentage under Farrell. Then after the change of managers, they went 28-20, a .583 winning percentage. They stopped being horrible when the managers changed. There were other factors, obviously, but that is the bottom line..

Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc is a very common logical fallacy, easy to fall into. The latin essentially translates to "it happened afterward, therefore happened because of." And yes it is a logical fallacy and is a result of poor reasoning skills.

In this case, Farrell's health meant that Lovullo started calling the shots and the team went 28-20 at that time. it's easy and tempting to say that that was BECAUSE of a different manager, but all that we actually know is that the team happened to go 28-20 and that the team simultaneously was led by a different person. Any connection between those two coincident facts would need to be proven by evidence, it should not be presumed. Any number of other factors that had nothing to do with Lovullo could have contributed significantly to that improved performance.