Farrell on the hot seat

[Rovin Romine]

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?

Ultimately it's the manager, since they supervise the pitching coach, and, in most cases, can ask the GM to replace the pitching coach if needed.

Not that there can't be flukey pitchers or problem players.

In the end, the manager must do the best with what he has. It's putting the cart before the horse to argue that the team ought to be radically revamped to suit the manager's strengths and weaknesses (I realize you aren't saying that), although individual problem players can and should be shipped out of town.

 

[whatittakes]

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).

How has Farrell's management made our pitchers pitch worse?

 

[whatittakes]

Ultimately it's the manager, since they supervise the pitching coach, and, in most cases, can ask the GM to replace the pitching coach if needed.

That's a convenient copout, Rovin Romine, you're better than that.

I have yet to see anything any of you actually expect the manager to have literally done to solve any or the problems you're blaming him for. You're blaming Farrell for the results rather than his own actions, when health, front office decisions, and just plain luck seem to have far more to do with his success than any action or decision he's made to this point, at least by my reading.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

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.

This is such a chicken-and-egg statement, though.

The Red Sox were predicted to be division contenders in each of the last two seasons. Maybe not consensus winners, but at least contenders, based on the predicted strength of the teams' constituent parts. His Jays also were predicted to be competitive and generally to post winning seasons.

No roster is perfect, but it is the manager's job to make the pieces fit together to the greatest extent possible, and to get the most from his players. And his teams are competing against teams with imperfect rosters, too.

Yet Farrell has led his team to not-winning seasons 4 times out of 5 chances. His teams finished 4th, 4th, 1st, 5th, 5th in the AL East. There's an aberration, and it's his one glorious winning season.

But IMO, the 2013 team was united and motivated around "Boston Strong" and not by playing for Farrell. And it was Papi, not Farrell, who rallied the team in the ALCS against Detroit's amazing starters with his speech in the dugout.

From a team performance standpoint, what does Farrell do so well that he shouldn't be replaced in an effort to get better? Is there any indication that players truly enjoy playing for him and would react poorly to him being replaced by Lovullo for non-medical reasons?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

That's a convenient copout, Rovin Romine, you're better than that.

I have yet to see anything any of you actually expect the manager to have literally done to solve any or the problems you're blaming him for. You're blaming Farrell for the results rather than his own actions, when health, front office decisions, and just plain luck seem to have far more to do with his success than any action or decision he's made to this point, at least by my reading.

How can you not see anything? It's his in-game decision making, and yes, we're blaming the results that occur as a direct result of his decisions. It has nothing to do with the FO or "just plain luck", it's single-handedly Farrell not using the pieces provided to him in the most efficient manner to consistently set up the team to win.

 

[glennhoffmania]

This is such a chicken-and-egg statement, though.

The Red Sox were predicted to be division contenders in each of the last two seasons. Maybe not consensus winners, but at least contenders, based on the predicted strength of the teams' constituent parts. His Jays also were predicted to be competitive and generally to post winning seasons.

No roster is perfect, but it is the manager's job to make the pieces fit together to the greatest extent possible, and to get the most from his players. And his teams are competing against teams with imperfect rosters, too.

Yet Farrell has led his team's to not-winning seasons 4 times out of 5 chances. His teams finished 4th, 4th, 1st, 5th, 5th in the AL East.

IMO, in 2013, the team was united around "Boston Strong" not Farrell. And it was Papi, not Farrell, who rallied the team in the ALCS against Detroit's amazing starters with his speech in the dugout.

From a team performance standpoint, what does Farrell do so well that he shouldn't be replaced in an effort to get better?

This is where I'm at, and I'm still pretty much on the fence about whether they should make a managerial change. But the pro-Farrell contingent keeps asking people to provide evidence that he's a bad manager and seems to blindly blame everything but the manager for the poor performance of the team over the last two plus seasons. Don't people have to produce good results to keep their jobs?

There have clearly been several personnel moves over the last three seasons that were questionable at best. But there is no way that the teams since 2013 were so bad that last place finishes should be acceptable. What exactly has to happen for people to concede that Farrell isn't a good manager? Would last place finishes this year and next year be sufficient? At some point the guy in charge has to be held accountable for what has actually happened.

That being said, I'm not sure that firing him right now would be the best decision. I think it would be viewed as a desperation move. But I really don't think Farrell is a good manager, and I was a big fan of his as a pitching coach and I was very happy when they got him in 2013. He just hasn't done anything since then to give me much confidence in his game management abilities.

 

[tims4wins]

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.

By this logic, couldn't you also say that Farrell had nothing to do with 2013? Sure, the Bobby team finished last in 2012, and then they switched managers in 2013 and won it all, but maybe it had nothing to do with Farrell.

You can't simultaneously give him credit for the 2013 title but no blame for all his 4th and 5th place finishes in every other season he has managed,

 

[phenweigh]

Since Farrell was acquired by trade, maybe rather than firing Farrell the Sox should look to trade him. Is there another team out there that has a manager we'd like that may also be on the hot seat due to his team's lackluster start? The Indians are 6-7, would Tito come back? For the "change for the sake of change" crowd, this would be a win-win scenario.

I'm only half-kidding.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

That's a convenient copout, Rovin Romine, you're better than that.

I have yet to see anything any of you actually expect the manager to have literally done to solve any or the problems you're blaming him for. You're blaming Farrell for the results rather than his own actions, when health, front office decisions, and just plain luck seem to have far more to do with his success than any action or decision he's made to this point, at least by my reading.

And you're giving him credit for things that probably have nothing to do with him.

What has Farrel done well enough to warrant keeping his job?

And remember, the 2013 WS can be dismissed just as easily as Luvello's better record.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

One of the common arguments being made is that the team was in "last place" for 2 of Farrell's three years and that when you're .440, you get fired. Doesn't the last place thing completely cut in the opposite direction? To me, it suggests a bad team. One that presents a manager with a constant stream of shitty options and hobson's choice and rock-and-hard-place choice bullpen options all year long. Are people honest suggesting that Manager X would have made a 71 win team a 95 win team, because if not this is just angst and calls for a guy's head because you would have preferred a guy better capable of fourth place in the division.

It's really weird for me to disagree so fundamentally with something that so many legit posters on this board seem to believe so strongly, but, well, there it is. I sort of think at bottom that Kiekered's arguments are underlying an awful lot of this -- a general feeling from his demeanor that stuff is happening to Farrell, he's not making it happen, and so when the going gets tough he shrinks instead of rising to the occasion. I concede that some of that actually resonates with me. But then I think of the fact that in one of his just three seasons, Farrell actually pushed all of the right buttons, rescued wins from losing positions, managed his assets properly and pulled off something that Red Sox fans understand far better than most non-Cub fans is very very hard to do. The notion that all that happened to him, not in part because of him, seems to be pretty outside the types of arguments I am accustomed to around here.

Is it simply possible that Farrell is not a very good manager when handed a turd he has to try to polish? Maybe there are some managers that can eek out extra wins from shitty teams, but is that what we aspire to? And is that necessarily inconsistent with the premise that Farrell is a quite good manager when presented with a strong team at getting them across the finish line and pushing the right buttons? Because in the end, isn't that what we aspire to? It's been three years. One of which was very good. That Farrell looks somewhat flummoxed when trying to figure out what to do with a burnt bullpen because his starters can't pitch half a game doesn't trouble me, when I remember he's the guy that had the stones to bench Salty for David Ross when everything was on the line.

 

[Moviegoer]

Sometimes I worry that it's going to take a Grady Little level moment of stupidity for him to be finally replaced. Wasting time and cost controlled years of some great young players.

 

[TheoShmeo]

This is where I'm at, and I'm still pretty much on the fence about whether they should make a managerial change. But the pro-Farrell contingent keeps asking people to provide evidence that he's a bad manager and seems to blindly blame everything but the manager for the poor performance of the team over the last two plus seasons. Don't people have to produce good results to keep their jobs?

There have clearly been several personnel moves over the last three seasons that were questionable at best. But there is no way that the teams since 2013 were so bad that last place finishes should be acceptable. What exactly has to happen for people to concede that Farrell isn't a good manager? Would last place finishes this year and next year be sufficient? At some point the guy in charge has to be held accountable for what has actually happened.

That being said, I'm not sure that firing him right now would be the best decision. I think it would be viewed as a desperation move. But I really don't think Farrell is a good manager, and I was a big fan of his as a pitching coach and I was very happy when they got him in 2013. He just hasn't done anything since then to give me much confidence in his game management abilities.

Regarding the comment in bold, so what? Is making a move that shows the team is desperate to improve, not satisfied with treading water at around .500 and is willing to take a bold, drastic step really a negative? And why does it matter how it is viewed? How would that fact -- assuming it's true -- actually impact the Red Sox adversely?

In fairness to you, the reaction to caution against making a desperation move is not unique. We read it on SoSH frequently and writers often caution against it.

But if firing Farrell is the right thing right now in DD's eyes, I hope he does not hold back out of fear of looking desperate. To answer my own question from above, I don't think it matters all that much how some may perceive the move. Hell, I kind of want him to be desperate and am not fussed if that is how he appears. Of course, I don't want a sense of desperation to lead him to make foolhardy moves but (a) I don't think firing Farrell now would be that and (b) I am not worried that DD will somehow lose his mind and make a series of silly moves out of desperation, even if desperation in part fuels a JF firing. Dombrowski fired a manager after six games in Detroit and I don't think that move lead to a series of follow on moves that could be called desperate or detrimental to his Tigers teams.

Also, consistent with what others have written above, I think that having JF's possible execution out there is kind of a matza ball hanging over the team. So is the fact that Lovullo is, apparently, the highest paid bench coach in the game and sort of the manager in waiting. This dynamic strikes me as at least potentially negative for Farrell's authority and the team as a result. So while firing a manager in April or May is unusual, DD has in part brought this on himself by extending himself with Torey. Said differently, under these circumstances, an April or May firing would be a little more pragmatic and a little less desperate.

 

[reggiecleveland]

This is such a chicken-and-egg statement, though.

But IMO, the 2013 team was united and motivated around "Boston Strong" and not by playing for Farrell. And it was Papi, not Farrell, who rallied the team in the ALCS against Detroit's amazing starters with his speech in the dugout.

I don't think we have enough info to know what happened there, and it would be a mistake to emphasize part of the 2% or so of what happens with a team that we do see. So I am not sure about the speech being a catalyst. But, I think you are on to something with the unique atmosphere of 2013 Boston.



But, it has to be difficult to come back the next year. I would guess that players accepted whatever leadership JF had in 2013 a lot more readily than they did at any time since. A lot of things were in place for that group to respond exceptionally well. But, when that type of magic is gone it can take away as much it gave. So it is a bit too simplistic to point to 2013 as the "only year JF won" without understanding the unique circumstances that lead to the fluke win would make it much harder to win the following year.

So perhaps for a perhaps different reason than others here, I am in the "short leash" camp. JF deserves credit for an inspiring championship made more difficult, by unique circumstances. But, those circumstances hopefully never come back, and fairly or otherwise he has been unable to do much since.

 

[glennhoffmania]

One of the common arguments being made is that the team was in "last place" for 2 of Farrell's three years and that when you're .440, you get fired. Doesn't the last place thing completely cut in the opposite direction? To me, it suggests a bad team. One that presents a manager with a constant stream of shitty options and hobson's choice and rock-and-hard-place choice bullpen options all year long. Are people honest suggesting that Manager X would have made a 71 win team a 95 win team, because if not this is just angst and calls for a guy's head because you would have preferred a guy better capable of fourth place in the division.

What if they were an 85 win team talent-wise and he was one of the main reasons they only won 71? Even though 85 doesn't get you into the playoffs does consistently under-performing warrant losing your job?

Regarding the comment in bold, so what? Is making a move that shows the team is desperate to improve, not satisfied with treading water at around .500 and is willing to take a bold, drastic step really a negative? And why does it matter how it is viewed? How would that fact -- assuming it's true -- actually impact the Red Sox adversely?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't make a change because it'll look desperate. I'm simply saying that if they do it will in fact look desperate. How it looks shouldn't impact the decision. I was only making a prediction of how firing him would be viewed by fans and the media.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

For this thread to be more professional, critics need to expand beyond their judgment of a single team and manager to compare performance in the context of a larger sample. Who else sucks and why? Who doesn't suck and why? If it all comes down to W/L or wins above/below expectation that will demonstrate something.

Who are the good managers? How do their skills compare to Farrell? Or is this just a "hot seat" thread to promote whining? SoSH is supposed to be a fact-based board. A lot of critiques seem incomplete.

 

[Saints Rest]

(quote shortened)
The Red Sox were predicted to be division contenders in each of the last two seasons. Maybe not consensus winners, but at least contenders, based on the predicted strength of the teams' constituent parts. His Jays also were predicted to be competitive and generally to post winning seasons.

No roster is perfect, but it is the manager's job to make the pieces fit together to the greatest extent possible, and to get the most from his players. And his teams are competing against teams with imperfect rosters, too.

Yet Farrell has led his team to not-winning seasons 4 times out of 5 chances. His teams finished 4th, 4th, 1st, 5th, 5th in the AL East. There's an aberration, and it's his one glorious winning season.

Compare that to Francona: 2nd*, 2nd#, 3rd, 1st*, 2nd#, 2nd#, 3rd, 3rd (fired). (NB: * = WS Champions; # = made playoffs) So Francona, with a better history, gets dumped after two 3rd place finishes in a row (the only time his 8 years where he missed the playoffs in two consecutive years), yet Farrell is being supported here based on his one playoff season against two last-place finishes????

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

What if they were an 85 win team talent-wise and he was one of the main reasons they only won 71?

I'm skeptical there is such a thing as a +-14 win manager in the first place, but if I were convinced he were a -14 win manager on a team for which a replacement manager would win 85 games, then of course I'd want to make a change if there were a suitable replacement.

If that's what you believe Farrell is, then I can see why you'd want him fired. At least then we know where we're disagreeing.

 

[rembrat]

Compare that to Francona: 2nd*, 2nd#, 3rd, 1st*, 2nd#, 2nd#, 3rd, 3rd (fired). (NB: * = WS Champions; # = made playoffs) So Francona, with a better history, gets dumped after two 3rd place finishes in a row (the only time his 8 years where he missed the playoffs in two consecutive years), yet Farrell is being supported here based on his one playoff season against two last-place finishes????

There's something else that happened under Tito's reign that culminated in 2011. It had a catchy name too. Gosh, what was it?

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Compare that to Francona: 2nd*, 2nd#, 3rd, 1st*, 2nd#, 2nd#, 3rd, 3rd (fired). (NB: * = WS Champions; # = made playoffs) So Francona, with a better history, gets dumped after two 3rd place finishes in a row (the only time his 8 years where he missed the playoffs in two consecutive years), yet Farrell is being supported here based on his one playoff season against two last-place finishes????

Chicken and beer and drugs.

 

[grimshaw]

Regarding the talent level relative to expectations - this is part of why I want a little more time this year to see if what DD has done has actually upgraded the roster. The free agents and trades have been such swings and misses in general since 2013, it would give me a clearer idea of whether JF has had true .440 winning percentage slop with rookies sprinkled in to deal with or not.

I will concede that I would love to focus my slow building but still rational rage on someone by late May, though.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I'm skeptical there is such a thing as a +-14 win manager in the first place, but if I were convinced he were a -14 win manager on a team for which a replacement manager would win 85 games, then of course I'd want to make a change if there were a suitable replacement.

If that's what you believe Farrell is, then I can see why you'd want him fired. At least then we know where we're disagreeing.

I was exaggerating to make the point since I don't believe that Farrell is a -14 manager. The general point is that if his teams are consistently winning fewer games than it seems like they should, that seems to be decent evidence that he's not getting the most out of the roster he's given and shouldn't be managing.

This isn't the Marlins we're talking about here. A lot has to go wrong for a team that isn't poorly run and isn't in rebuilding mode to finish last two years in a row. I'm surprised that so many people place all of the blame on the FO and the players and little to none of it on the guy managing the team on a daily basis.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I was exaggerating to make the point since I don't believe that Farrell is a -14 manager. The general point is that if his teams are consistently winning fewer games than it seems like they should, that seems to be decent evidence that he's not getting the most out of the roster he's given and shouldn't be managing.

This isn't the Marlins we're talking about here. A lot has to go wrong for a team that isn't poorly run and isn't in rebuilding mode to finish last two years in a row. I'm surprised that so many people place all of the blame on the FO and the players and little to none of it on the guy managing the team on a daily basis.

Well, my premise is that he's not a guy who is good a polishing a turd, which would suggest that in fact he may have been the difference between, say, 77 and 71 wins. But an equal part of my point was that I think it's a mistake to suggest that just because a guy does not do well presented with shit, it doesn't mean he wouldn't do well when presented with a good team. That you're a -6 win manager with a 77-win team does not mean you can't be a +4 manager with a 90 win team, or whatever.

And I'm not making this point in the abstract. 33 percent of the time, he has in fact made good with a good Red Sox team and correctly pressed some hard to press buttons. Same guy.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Compare that to Francona: 2nd*, 2nd#, 3rd, 1st*, 2nd#, 2nd#, 3rd, 3rd (fired). (NB: * = WS Champions; # = made playoffs) So Francona, with a better history, gets dumped after two 3rd place finishes in a row (the only time his 8 years where he missed the playoffs in two consecutive years), yet Farrell is being supported here based on his one playoff season against two last-place finishes????

There are some important other factors and differences.

Farrell's cancer. Had he not been so diagnosed and just taken a leave of absence last year for personal reasons, he would probably already be gone.

I say this next part gingerly because I know how beloved Tito is and am mindful of the stink surrounding the Hohler article, but there may have been some objective markers supporting his dismissal that don't apply in JF's case such as: the 2011 team's collapse, the possibility that some of the things that Hohler reported on could have played a role in Tito's loss of control of the team, and Tito had been around since 2004 and a new voice might have been helpful after 7 seasons.

I well know that there are answers to those points and that a good argument could be made that the Sox would have been better off keeping Francona. And Bobby V was certainly horrific. My only point is that there were some factors at play other than the ones you noted.

 

[Rovin Romine]

That's a convenient copout, Rovin Romine, you're better than that.

I have yet to see anything any of you actually expect the manager to have literally done to solve any or the problems you're blaming him for. You're blaming Farrell for the results rather than his own actions, when health, front office decisions, and just plain luck seem to have far more to do with his success than any action or decision he's made to this point, at least by my reading.

Hey, I'm not saying that I've presented an exceptionally detailed fact-bolstered argument. And I agree that, ordinarily, we ought to judge competence by the decisions made at the time, rather than on outcomes attributable to luck, chance, or other factors which are not in control of the decision maker.

I do think my general point is perfect valid and stands. To restate it, the field manager and the GM are ultimately responsible for any team's performance. Well, to the extent the field manager manages and the GM decides staffing - obviously some field managers and GMs have greater or lesser authority in their respective areas.

To criticize the people in charge, we can judge results. We don't need to be able to personally and minutely replicate the functions being critiqued (although that can be insightful and lead to better judgments.) If my MD consistently misdiagnoses me, fails to address my issues, but has successfully treated my cousin in the past, there's no requirement that I lay out the proper diagnostic methods and tests to validly conclude he's not the right MD for me and my current situation. Perhaps he hires shitty technicians, or is the world's best doctor for 9 of the problems I don't have. None of that changes his ultimate responsibly or the results. (Totally random example from a professional field.)

Farrell isn't delivering the goods. He underperforms his pythags, He seems to have a problem with managing bullpens, pinch hitting, and general game strategy to the extent that it's commonly and routinely noticeable to lay persons. His starters have been woeful, with the exception of the one that circumstance forced on him, and there is a history of players not transitioning well to Boston. For whatever reasons, Farrell-influenced or not, we haven't had a winning team for a few years. That's the starting point - not, "all is well."

I don't think he's personally responsible (in a causative sense) for a good chunk of this; meaning he hasn't single-handedly held the team down. I also think he's done certain things well. But the results that happen under his watch are what they are, and for those, as a manager, he is responsible. If he's dealing with young players, inconsistent pitching (some of which only happens to pitchers after they arrive in Boston), and or fragile players, he needs to adapt to that reality, to up/change his game. He's needed to for 2+ years now. I don't expect him to be perfect, or a robot, but I do expect him to be better than he's been.

 

[Saints Rest]

There are some important other factors and differences.

Farrell's cancer. Had he not been so diagnosed and just taken a leave of absence last year for personal reasons, he would probably already be gone.

I say this next part gingerly because I know how beloved Tito is and am mindful of the stink surrounding the Hohler article, but there may have been some objective markers supporting his dismissal that don't apply in JF's case such as: the 2011 team's collapse, the possibility that some of the things that Hohler reported on could have played a role in Tito's loss of control of the team, and Tito had been around since 2004 and a new voice might have been helpful after 7 seasons.

I well know that there are answers to those points and that a good argument could be made that the Sox would have been better off keeping Francona. And Bobby V was certainly horrific. My only point is that there were some factors at play other than the ones you noted.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to take note of the records in a vacuum. But to look at Farrell, as others upthread have noted, there were a couple big factors in 2013 that are not necessarily reflective of his managerial abilities: one being the change from Bobby V; the other being the Marathon bombing.

My point was addressed more to those people arguing that 2013 is the reason to keep Farrell, and I just don't buy it, not when taken in the larger view of his overall record.

 

[phenweigh]

I well know that there are answers to those points and that a good argument could be made that the Sox would have been better off keeping Francona. And Bobby V was certainly horrific. My only point is that there were some factors at play other than the ones you noted.

And there are other factors at play now, most that we don't know about. One we do know something about is Jessica Moran, which doesn't scream that Farrell has great judgment. (By that I mean Jackie MacMullan's opinion, which I share, is that a manager having a relationship with a reporter is unprofessional.)

 

[glennhoffmania]

Well, my premise is that he's not a guy who is good a polishing a turd, which would suggest that in fact he may have been the difference between, say, 77 and 71 wins. But an equal part of my point was that I think it's a mistake to suggest that just because a guy does not do well presented with shit, it doesn't mean he wouldn't do well when presented with a good team. That you're a -6 win manager with a 77-win team does not mean you can't be a +4 manager with a 90 win team, or whatever.

And I'm not making this point in the abstract. 33 percent of the time, he has in fact made good with a good Red Sox team and correctly pressed some hard to press buttons. Same guy.

That's a very fair point. And it's why I'm willing to give him a little rope. When Rodriguez and Smith come back I'm assuming that the pitching staff will improve, and I'm hoping he does better managing a better staff. I don't think this roster is a turd, so if Farrell bombs again I'd like to see the team move on.

 

[johnnywayback]

For this thread to be more professional, critics need to expand beyond their judgment of a single team and manager to compare performance in the context of a larger sample. Who else sucks and why? Who doesn't suck and why? If it all comes down to W/L or wins above/below expectation that will demonstrate something.

Who are the good managers? How do their skills compare to Farrell? Or is this just a "hot seat" thread to promote whining? SoSH is supposed to be a fact-based board. A lot of critiques seem incomplete.

As you yourself have pointed out in this thread, much of what a manager does, we don't see. So it's impossible to make an informed overall judgment on how good a manager is or isn't. I happen to think Bruce Bochy is a genius, but maybe Buster Posey runs that locker room. I happen to think Mike Scioscia is terrible, but maybe he's a brilliant motivator. You could absolutely reduce this entire question to: "None of us can tell how good a manager is, so we shouldn't have an opinion."

But some things, we can see. A team that hasn't just been bad the last two years, but *surprisingly* bad given their level of talent. A 2016 team that was expected to come out of the gate playing with urgency, and instead has blown a bunch of leads and squandered a bunch of opportunities with men on base. Too much low-leverage use of Tazawa and Uehara, and too much high-leverage use of Ramirez and Barnes. Young players asked to take leadership roles pressing -- Bogaerts forgetting not to chase sliders, Mookie struggling to control any part of the plate that isn't the inside corner. Weird and awkward bench management, from Castillo being swept aside to the PH stuff we've noticed with Shaw and Young.

I agree that, if you actually want to make a case that Farrell should be fired, you should address more than just the W/L record. And I could absolutely be wrong about my impressions of how and why players are falling short of expectations. But I don't think it's whining to point out that, by the metrics laid out by ownership and the new front office, the team needs to show improvement very soon for Farrell's job to remain secure. And while it may be incomplete to critique what we've seen on the field, it supports the conclusion that a change in leadership might not be the worst idea.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

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

I think it's obvious. Winning is fun. Losing sucks. It sucks more if you're unproven, but hyped and scuffling especially under the pressure that comes from the Boston fans and media. Yesterday JBJ didn't bring the run in with bases loaded and one out. If they win that game and especially if they were already up 8-2 then he goes back to the dugout and eventually the clubhouse with less weight on his shoulders. Expand that scenario over a season or 2 or 3 and that could damage a player's growth especially their growth in Boston. I mean come on, the media, fans and the EEI crowd here are famous for "eating their young".

 

[Rovin Romine]

OK, here's a thing we can watch. It's being reported that Elias is coming up, with Owens later in the week for Kelly's start. Today we have Wright, Sat. we have Buchholz, Sunday we have Owens.

Farrell has leaned on his bullpen a lot. Assuming Owens is replacing Elias, you'd think Farrell would use Elias in any sort of blowout, good or bad, to rest the pen. Blowout being situational of course. Farrell should also have evaluated Elias's pitching in general and should be prepared to use him (on a short hook) in appropriate situations, given handedness, lineups, expected PH, etc.

We should aways be thinking "yeah, that makes sense" when Farrell goes to the bullpen. Any disagreement on this?

(And in the event we have two CG starts, I accept your thanks in advance.)

 

[rembrat]

Farrell should be prepared to use Elias in a blowout but also as a LOOGY or a 3 out guy? I mean, ok? Cool? I really don't know how to interpret your post.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I think it's obvious. Winning is fun. Losing sucks. It sucks more if you're unproven, but hyped and scuffling especially under the pressure that comes from the Boston fans and media. Yesterday JBJ didn't bring the run in with bases loaded and one out. If they win that game and especially if they were already up 8-2 then he goes back to the dugout and eventually the clubhouse with less weight on his shoulders. Expand that scenario over a season or 2 or 3 and that could damage a player's growth especially their growth in Boston. I mean come on, the media, fans and the EEI crowd here are famous for "eating their young".

Add to that the fact that if you scuffle, you might just be on the next shuttle bus to Rhode Island, and it becomes a huge amount of pressure. Add to that the $440,000 at stake, and there's no way to think it creates the good kind of pressure that's motivational to succeed. It's the bad kind of pressure that's motivational not to fail. And it builds. And it's no surprise to me that the team went into a mini-funk soon after Swihart -- last season's starting catcher -- was sent down after having an objectively terrible game.

Farrell's teams don't play loose. I have nothing to back that up, but they don't.

Now, remember those stories of Tito playing cribbage with Pedroia while half of SoSH was calling for Alex Cora to get more playing time? Can anyone seriously imagine Farrell doing that with Xander or JBJ in 2013? Me either.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

In an attempt to do more than just whine about data, I've started a table showing all managerial changes since 2006. Before I continue - what should I include or modify for this to be useful?

Red: Mid-Season Change

(How do I get rid of all the extra space between this and the table below?)

Manager	Team	Year	Record	Replacement	Record	Delta
Mazilli	Orioles	2005	0.477	Perlozzo	0.432	(0.045)
Robinson	Nats	2006	0.438	Acta	0.451	0.013
Alou	Giants	2006	0.472	Bochy	0.438	(0.034)
Perlozzo	Orioles	2007	0.420	Trembly	0.430	0.010
Narron	Reds	2007	0.378	Mackanin	0.513	0.135
Little	Dodgers	2007	0.506	Torre	0.519	0.013
Hargrove	Mariners	2007	0.577	McLaren	0.512	(0.065)
Garner	Astors	2007	0.443	Cooper	0.484	0.041
Bell	Royals	2007	0.426	Hillman	0.463	0.037
Randolph	Mets	2008	0.493	Manuel	0.591	0.098
Cooper	Astors	2009	0.470	Mills	0.469	(0.001)
Wakamatsu	Mariners	2010	0.375	Brown	0.380	0.005
Trembly	Orioles	2010	0.278	Samuel	0.333	0.055
Samuel	Orioles	2010	0.333	Showalter	0.596	0.263
Torre	Dodgers	2010	0.494	Mattingly	0.506	0.012
Russell	Pirates	2010	0.352	Hurdle	0.444	0.092
Piniella	Cubs	2010	0.408	Quade	0.649	0.241
Manuel	Mets	2010	0.488	Collins	0.475	(0.013)
Macha	Brewers	2010	0.475	Roenicke	0.593	0.118

 

[Rovin Romine]

Farrell should be prepared to use Elias in a blowout but also as a LOOGY or a 3 out guy? I mean, ok? Cool? I really don't know how to interpret your post.

Any competent manager should be able to use Elias appropriately. Additionally, Elias should be used to absorb bullpen innings if at all possible. How is that confusing?

If you need more detail, go ahead and present me with a breakdown of Elias's splits by batter, handedness, etc. You know, all the stuff Farrell has. You can run a breakdown for early exits of the starters and who is available in the pen. Then I can tell you exactly how I think he should be used - which should mean jack-shit, since if Farrell's any good at his job, he'll outperform me, you, and everyone else on the board in terms of intelligently using Elias to a) put his team in a position to win games, and b) rest his bullpen.

You're telling me he's a good manager, right?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

We should aways be thinking "yeah, that makes sense" when Farrell goes to the bullpen. Any disagreement on this?

Wait, so a bunch of fans, with no access to the information the manager has or the strategy the team is implementing should always "get" the pitching moves? Yeah, full disagreement on this.
Some of us aren't quite as smart as we think we are.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Geoduck, I'm not going to quote your table, but what it tells me is that only 2 of 10 times did a team perform significantly worse after replacing its manager mid-season (2005-10).

20% failure rate: worst scenario is the 2007 Mariners going from a 93-win team under Hargrove to an 83-win team under McLaren (Hargrove resigned midseason because his "passion had begun to fade" -- but actually because he couldn't work with Ichiro -- so not particularly relevant).

20% hold-even rate: delta of absolute value = 0.015 or less (plus-minus 2 wins)

60% success rate: best case scenario is the 2010 Orioles, who went from a 54-win team under Samuel to a 97-win team under Showalter.

Am I reading that correctly? If so, it seems the pro-Farrell folks have some work to do.

[edit] = updated post to reflect new "mid-season change" = red font.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Have to say I am shocked you view being associated with a teachers union as a negative. And your efforts to draw a line between this discussion and teacher's unions, is pretty weak. by pretty weak, I mean total horseshit.

Also he did address the issues, indirectly, and is responding directly to one poster oversimplifying buy laying everything at the manager's feet, because the manager is nominally in charge. He was pointing out one particular post was too simple.

And I am for the record on the opposite side of this debate. I believe a former pitching coach, now the manager, should have a better track record with the staff than JF.

 

[Remagellan]

There are some important other factors and differences.

Farrell's cancer. Had he not been so diagnosed and just taken a leave of absence last year for personal reasons, he would probably already be gone.

I say this next part gingerly because I know how beloved Tito is and am mindful of the stink surrounding the Hohler article, but there may have been some objective markers supporting his dismissal that don't apply in JF's case such as: the 2011 team's collapse, the possibility that some of the things that Hohler reported on could have played a role in Tito's loss of control of the team, and Tito had been around since 2004 and a new voice might have been helpful after 7 seasons.

I well know that there are answers to those points and that a good argument could be made that the Sox would have been better off keeping Francona. And Bobby V was certainly horrific. My only point is that there were some factors at play other than the ones you noted.

I know this is a common expression, but in sports today there tends to be a lot of roster turnover in seven seasons, so the idea that a new voice is needed just doesn't make sense to me when the room is likely more than half-full of new ears.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Farrell should be prepared to use Elias in a blowout but also as a LOOGY or a 3 out guy? I mean, ok? Cool? I really don't know how to interpret your post.

Congrats on beating cancer, John Farrell!

Wait, you're not him???

No seriously, Farrell has to understand that Elias' usage today and tomorrow must remain flexible. So if Wright can't get out of the early innings, Elias gets to be the long man. If Wright does get through the 5th-6th inning, then Farrell should know which of Houston's batters are prone to left-handed finesse pitchers like Elias. By which I mean, if Tucker, Valbuena, and Castro get stacked relatively closely, then maybe Elias can get a clean inning to save an appearance by one of the better RHP or Layne or Ross. And if Rasmus is protecting two of Houston's better RHH at the top of the order, maybe using Elias as a LOOGY makes sense (although I would advocate for Layne there, first).

Baseball, not rocket science. The game doesn't explode in a fiery rain if everything's not drawn up perfectly in advance.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Geoduck, I'm not going to quote your table, but what it tells me is that only 2 of 10 times did a team perform significantly worse after replacing its manager mid-season (2005-10).

20% failure rate: worst scenario is the 2007 Mariners going from a 93-win team under Hargrove to an 83-win team under McLaren (Hargrove resigned midseason because his "passion had begun to fade" -- but actually because he couldn't work with Ichiro -- so not particularly relevant).

20% hold-even rate: delta of absolute value = 0.015 or less (plus-minus 2 wins)

60% success rate: best case scenario is the 2010 Orioles, who went from a 54-win team under Samuel to a 97-win team under Showalter.

Am I reading that correctly? If so, it seems the pro-Farrell folks have some work to do.

[edit] = updated post to reflect new "mid-season change" = red font.

I'll continue adding to that table if it's useful. There are a shitload of managerial changes following on from Macha in 2010. Maybe we can continue to pull out some more of the ones that are particularly relevant to the discussion to see if there's something there.

(edit: It may be useful for me to differentiate the ones who were fired...i.e. most...versus those that retired)

 

[grimshaw]

In an attempt to do more than just whine about data, I've started a table showing all managerial changes since 2006. Before I continue - what should I include or modify for this to be useful?

I was going to suggest adding managerial records for guys who were replaced and managed elsewhere, but then it stood out that none of them are managing and I'm not even sure they got another crack either.

This tells me they weren't really fit to manage, were bridge types, or were close to the end of their careers in Torre, Robinson, Alou and Piniella's cases.

Note also, that Showalter, Hurdle, Bochy, and Collins have been long term solutions since taking over, so although there hasn't been much in the way of mid-season impact, in several of those cases it was clearly the right move.

 

[Moviegoer]

Have to say I am shocked you view being associated with a teachers union as a negative. <snip>

Really?

 

[RetractableRoof]

Having never played team sports at a high level I can't answer this question - can someone here provide any feedback for this question? We are all as fans sitting here saying I would have preferred JF do X or Y or Z in the ninth because blah blah blah. We can sit there and have an opinion and sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, sometimes there is info held back (Koji isn't available, etc). What do the players think when they are on the bench? Are they saying, down by two, no out in the ninth, why the hell is Young still batting? Are they saying, what the hell is he doing blowing out Koji after Tazawa only threw 2 pitches to close the last inning? Do they follow along and wonder why X or Y or Z is happening? Do they get pissed when Castillo sits and doesn't get playing time? I guess I'm wondering at what point do the players say JF is good or bad and it affects their confidence in his management. I guess it would be one thing for Castillo to be pissed he is sitting on the bench, but another if 5 or six players are questioning various decisions.

Any feedback on how it happens, and how it affects a team? I doubt it caused Price to give up the lead, but where does it show up - if it does happen. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Farrell might have actually bought some time yesterday (if he is on any kind of hotseat). Price is DD's boy and he was the #1 culprit in yesterday's loss.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Brought up to current.

In an attempt to do more than just whine about data, I've started a table showing all managerial changes since 2006. Before I continue - what should I include or modify for this to be useful?

Red: Mid-Season Change
Red: Less than 65 games before firing

(How do I get rid of all the extra space between this and the table below?)

Manager	Team	Year	Record	Replacement	Record	Delta
Mazilli	Orioles	2005	0.477	Perlozzo	0.432	(0.045)
Robinson	Nats	2006	0.438	Acta	0.451	0.013
Alou	Giants	2006	0.472	Bochy	0.438	(0.034)
Perlozzo	Orioles	2007	0.420	Trembly	0.430	0.010
Narron	Reds	2007	0.378	Mackanin	0.513	0.135
Little	Dodgers	2007	0.506	Torre	0.519	0.013
Hargrove	Mariners	2007	0.577	McLaren	0.512	(0.065)
Garner	Astors	2007	0.443	Cooper	0.484	0.041
Bell	Royals	2007	0.426	Hillman	0.463	0.037
Randolph	Mets	2008	0.493	Manuel	0.591	0.098
Cooper	Astors	2009	0.470	Mills	0.469	(0.001)
Acta	Nats	2009	0.299	Riggleman	0.440	0.141
Wedge	Indians	2009	0.401	Acta	0.426	0.025
Wakamatsu	Mariners	2010	0.375	Brown	0.380	0.005
Trembly	Orioles	2010	0.395	Samuel	0.333	(0.062)
Samuel	Orioles	2010	0.333	Showalter	0.596	0.263
Torre	Dodgers	2010	0.494	Mattingly	0.506	0.012
Russell	Pirates	2010	0.352	Hurdle	0.444	0.092
Piniella	Cubs	2010	0.408	Quade	0.649	0.241
Manuel	Mets	2010	0.488	Collins	0.475	(0.013)
Macha	Brewers	2010	0.475	Roenicke	0.593	0.118
Hillman	Royals	2010	0.401	Yost	0.433	0.032
Hinch	D-Backs	2010	0.392	Gibson	0.580	0.188
Gaston	Jays	2010	0.525	Farrell	0.500	(0.025)
Cox	Braves	2010	0.562	Gonzalez	0.549	(0.013)
Francona	Red Sox	2011	0.556	Valentine	0.426	(0.130)
Rodriguez	Marlins	2011	0.451	McKeon	0.444	(0.007)
Riggleman	Nats	2011	0.507	Johnson	0.482	(0.025)
Quade	Cubs	2011	0.438	Sveum	0.377	(0.061)
Guillen	White Sox	2011	0.488	Ventura	0.525	0.037
McKeon	Marlins	2011	0.444	Guillen	0.426	(0.019)
La Russa	Cardinals	2011	0.556	Matheny	0.543	(0.013)
Geren	A's	2011	0.429	Melvin	0.475	0.046
Valentine	Red Sox	2012	0.426	Farrell	0.599	0.173
Tracy	Rockies	2012	0.395	Weiss	0.457	0.062
Mills	Astors	2012	0.322	Porter	0.315	(0.007)
Guillen	Marlins	2012	0.426	Redmond	0.383	(0.043)
Acta	Indians	2012	0.417	Francona	0.568	0.151
Wedge	Mariners	2013	0.438	McClendon	0.537	0.099
Manuel	Phillies	2013	0.530	Sandberg	0.476	(0.054)
Sveum	Cubs	2013	0.407	Renteria	0.451	0.044
Leyland	Tigers	2013	0.574	Ausmus	0.556	(0.018)
Johnson	Nats	2013	0.531	Williams	0.593	0.062
Washington	Rangers	2014	0.379	Banister	0.543	0.164
Maddon	Rays	2014	0.475	Cash	0.494	0.019
Renteria	Cubs	2014	0.451	Maddon	0.599	0.148
Porter	Astors	2014	0.428	Hinch	0.531	0.103
Gibson	D-Backs	2014	0.396	Hale	0.488	0.092
Gardenhire	Twins	2014	0.432	Molitor	0.512	0.080
Sandberg	Phillies	2015	0.351	Mackanin	0.420	0.069
Roenicke	Brewers	2015	0.280	Counsell	0.445	0.165
Redmond	Marlins	2015	0.421	Jennings	0.444	0.023
Black	Padres	2015	0.492	Murphy	0.438	(0.054)
Murphy	Padres	2015	0.438	Green
McClendon	Mariners	2015	0.469	Servais
Jennings	Marlins	2015	0.444	Mattingly
Williams	Nats	2015	0.512	Baker

53 examples. Overall average is an improvement of 0.044 record when replacing manager.
25 were replaced during the season. There was an average 0.056 improvement for them

 

[Rovin Romine]

Wait, so a bunch of fans, with no access to the information the manager has or the strategy the team is implementing should always "get" the pitching moves? Yeah, full disagreement on this.
Some of us aren't quite as smart as we think we are.

OK. So if the manager's decisions are so inscrutable the average person can't figure them out, you have no opinion on Grady leaving Pedro in?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

People saying (on both sides) that nobody's bringing data to the argument are not quite right. There's a lot of data. It just sucks. There's no obvious test to determine if a manager is good or bad. If there were, this thread would be one post: "Farrell fired because he stinks." We have to make some kind of inference from a bunch of tangentially related facts. We are doing so at multiple scales (the past week has been a shitshow for the team's performance. They really should not have lost every one of the games they lost, but also four of Farrell's seasons have been awful, but also one of them was the opposite of awful). Round and round. The table of team performance is a textbook of example for "regression to the mean." A team is underperforming by chance alone, the manager gets fired, the team returns to expected performance levels, it must have been the manager's fault. Lovullo's stint is a data point. The pre-season PECOTA predictions vs. outcome are a data point. The World Series is a data point, but so is Workman batting. Is there anything meaningful left to add? We are all just constructing arguments out of fluff based on gut feelings. The pro-Farrell side is making a big deal out of absence of strong evidence that he's not good. Of course, that goes both ways. What is it about Farrell that you all like? What's driving your gut feeling that he's not what's wrong with this team?

 

[nothumb]

Farrell might have actually bought some time yesterday (if he is on any kind of hotseat). Price is DD's boy and he was the #1 culprit in yesterday's loss.

Price is certainly high on the list, but Taz being unavailable for the 8th was also very high on that list for me. I know Cuevas is there to go multiple innings if needed, but if Taz is available then it isn't needed, and you can use a more typical tied late at home bullpen strategy.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

OK. So if the manager's decisions are so inscrutable the average person can't figure them out, you have no opinion on Grady leaving Pedro in?

Nice leap.

 

[twibnotes]

It's not a great sign that the best defense of Farrell seems to be that we can't really tell if he's the main reason the team has been bad for most of his tenure.

Unless someone invents a time machine, we will never be able to measure a manager's impact perfectly. What we DO know is that Farrell has managed some very high priced teams to some very lousy results. Couple that with the sometimes befuddling in game tactics, and I think it's time for a change.