That you think this has been "proved" is odd. The argument for Farrell being good, bad or in between is inherently subjective. Managers cannot be graded with tools like batting average, ERA or other stats that measure actual performance because there are so many variables at play. As to "anecdotal evidence," we can, at least, look at certain decisions he made and decide whether we agree with those decisions on a "before the fact" basis. Of course, we have to acknowledge that the Manager had more facts at his disposal than we ever do but decisions like whether to start Marrero over Devers or leave Sale in the game are things that we can evaluate. Maybe you mean something else when you say "anecdotal evidence."
Yes, I strongly believe that Miggy is his target, if his back checks out well at all.
It's a quibble, maybe, but supporting a signing doesn't automatically mean they're taking a "it's not my money" approach. It just means some of them thought that these players would live up to the contract.
The only thing I'm saying has been proven is that the "Farrell is a bad manager" argument has been pretty heavily deflated. The subjective arguments against it alone do significant damage to the position and the statistical evidence that we can point to when trying to suss out his value all suggest he was somewhere between average and good. I've posted some of these data and a link to a fangraphs piece with more in other threads, but we're rehashing here.
Well, it could be argued he got fired because they went 1-3 in a series against Houston in October.
I didn't see the hiring of Dave Roberts by the Dodgers coming. It took me completely by surprise, and seems to be working out beautifully. And, if one is to believe the stories, he won the job through his interviews. It would be great if such a process ended up with a surprise gem for the Sox.
The same thing is already going on with Lovullo, who managed pretty much exactly like Farrell, and got swept in the first round of the playoffs.
The Sox went 19-8 in Sep 2016 (114-win pace) and 17-10 this September (102-win pace). In 2016 they entered the month 2 games out and proceeded to go 18-5 to seize the title, only 'fading' after they reduced the Magic # to 1 with 6 games to play.
2006 Red Sox entered August first in the division and went 22-35 to close out the season
Theres got to be an issue in the clubhouse or something for that to be the case. I watched the press conference as well. Something happened that we didn't see because I honestly thought he was safe if he made the ALCS.
I mean, now I kind of feel bad for the guy.
Maybe not since Lucchino is gone. I doubt he'll be available though.
I don't understand why people say this. In this last season alone, we saw
I have to think this is related to the Jessica Moran situation, although normally HR related firings occur at a time that has some proximity to the incident or investigation. But in the course of a baseball season, maybe that line gets blurred. He may have been on some form of administrative probation where the time period was set as the end of the 2017 season. In that case, John knew this was coming. His comments from the post game press conference would seem to indicate that.
Correct. As fans, we'll never know exactly what the clubhouse dynamic is like, but what little anecdotal evidence we do have suggests it was more likely problematic rather than advantageous.
A good manager today, won't be a good manager tomorrow if he can't adapt. Baseball has changed so much in the last ten years that it takes a smart and flexible manager to change from year to year, game to game and even inning to inning. Farrell was way too slow to change and usually had to be nudged along by someone talking to him.
Agreed, but the innuendo itself is unnecessary. He could/should just say it was a decision that baseball operations reached together and leave it at that. No need to suggest any other factors, even if they existed.
That's a dick move by DD. I wanted Farrell gone, but there's no reason to influence his ability to land his next gig.
Good point, but I couldn't watch the PC. Did he volunteer it like that, or did someone press for more info and Pete Abe condensed it to 140 characters?
If I had to bet, I'd say it goes back to the handling of the Price-Eck situation.
DD said the rest of the coaching staff could stay on if the new manager desired, so the watch thing is likely not relevant.
Well if the Sox had managed to win Game 7 in 2003 and then the WS, Grady was still gonna be canned.
Right, this could just as easily be a matter of Dombrowski wanting to shift the front office's philosophy and Farrell not being on board, or maybe the two haven't gotten along (interpersonally, not professionally) well over the last two seasons and Dombrowski finally decided enough is enough. Maybe he doesn't like the in game tactical decisions. Maybe it's the Eck thing (the ownership group seems to like Eck quite a bit and Farrell backed the team in that incident). Maybe it's the Applegate thing. Maybe it's something we haven't gotten even a hint of.
Fair enough. I should've said "was liked" by the clubhouse, although that was really only based on a glossy piece on the heels of the lone LDS win. I went to search for it, and instead found a metric ton of articles from May about players being unhappy with JF. Mea Culpa.
Was this a dick move by DD or Pete Abe? Honest question because I couldn't hear the press conference.
