Hire Farrell? (12/5: 2018 Option Exercised)

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
12/5: Abraham has the exercise as optioned
_________________________________________________

It's August 23rd, and the Red Sox sit tied atop the AL East with the Jays. For all the fussing and fighting that has been the 2016 season (and pre-season), the Sox look to have good odds of making the playoffs for the first time since 2013. The "anti" Farrell thread has been locked. These are the state of affairs.

John Farrell is under contract for 2017, with a 2018 option. Do the Sox exercise that option before (or right after) the post-season, and remove any uncertainty about his job security going into the new season, no matter how deep a playoff push? Do you wait to see 2017's results? What do the Sox need to see from Farrell to give him that security?

I may be in the minority (and there are too many options for a poll), but if the Sox make the playoffs, I believe Farrell is 100% a lock to get his option exercised before spring training next year. I'm also assuming Torey Lovullo won't be on that bench with him next year either...
 
Last edited:

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
Given that Farrell's salary is a drop in the bucket relative to signing even a middle-relief arm or a bench player, my guess is they'll pick up the 2018 option if retaining him for 2017. It keeps him locked into Boston for another year in the event he's good, and there's really no $$$ downside in just eating the contract if they can him. Plus all that "happy employee" crap.

I guess it's possible they don't pick it up if they promise/d Lovullo the managing gig at the end of his 2-year deal (2016-2017) but then I'm not sure why they'd stick with JF for a year as a lame duck.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
John Farrell is under contract for 2017, with a 2018 option. Do the Sox exercise that option before (or right after) the post-season, and remove any uncertainty about his job security going into the new season, no matter how deep a playoff push? Do you wait to see 2017's results? What do the Sox need to see from Farrell to give him that security?
I think well-run teams always prefer to eat a year of a fired manager's salary rather than have a manager who doesn't have a contract in place for "next year." If he's the manager on 4/1/17, the option will be picked up.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
I think well-run teams always prefer to eat a year of a fired manager's salary rather than have a manager who doesn't have a contract in place for "next year." If he's the manager on 4/1/17, the option will be picked up.
Given some wiggle room for the remaining 38 regular season games, I agree.

Other than the two recent last place finishes, I think one of the big reasons the anti-Farrell crowd is so vehement is that this hasn't been a great team. It's been a team that has been just a little bit better than mediocre. The team's best month was immediately followed by it's worst. For all the high powered offense, there have been only two walkoff wins compared to three walkoff losses. All season there has been something clearly wrong with this team. Early on it was the starting pitching. Now it's the bullpen. In between, the offense has had stretches where it was decidedly mediocre. The biggest lead the team had was 3 games and the longest winning streak was 6.

For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
That's an interesting thought. What would qualify as exceptional this season?

- Sandy Leon
- Papi at 40
- Steven Wright
- JBJ fulfilling the promise?
- Porcello?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Given some wiggle room for the remaining 38 regular season games, I agree.

Other than the two recent last place finishes, I think one of the big reasons the anti-Farrell crowd is so vehement is that this hasn't been a great team. It's been a team that has been just a little bit better than mediocre. The team's best month was immediately followed by it's worst. For all the high powered offense, there have been only two walkoff wins compared to three walkoff losses. All season there has been something clearly wrong with this team. Early on it was the starting pitching. Now it's the bullpen. In between, the offense has had stretches where it was decidedly mediocre. The biggest lead the team had was 3 games and the longest winning streak was 6.

For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
I'm trying to avoid the issue of whether in the short term he *should* be fired. That's just a dead end. I tend to think that the option year is less a function of how good a job they think he is doing and more a function of general management sensibilities about a guy who, according to the hypothetical, *hasn't* been fired. I'm no dope, but I think the world is a better place if the discussion stays there.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Given some wiggle room for the remaining 38 regular season games, I agree.

Other than the two recent last place finishes, I think one of the big reasons the anti-Farrell crowd is so vehement is that this hasn't been a great team. It's been a team that has been just a little bit better than mediocre. The team's best month was immediately followed by it's worst. For all the high powered offense, there have been only two walkoff wins compared to three walkoff losses. All season there has been something clearly wrong with this team. Early on it was the starting pitching. Now it's the bullpen. In between, the offense has had stretches where it was decidedly mediocre. The biggest lead the team had was 3 games and the longest winning streak was 6.

For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
Yet we are tied for 1st in the division and a game and a half out of the overall 1-seed in the AL playoffs while trending 91.5 wins despite an anemic bullpen. Overall, I feel Farrell has done a good job with what he is able to control with this team. Too many of his critics point to the uncontrollables which isn't fair just as it isn't fair to credit him with them when they go in our favor. The fact that Farrell wasn't DD's hire paints an interesting picture of what his future holds here however.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
That's an interesting thought. What would qualify as exceptional this season?

- Sandy Leon
- Papi at 40
- Steven Wright
- JBJ fulfilling the promise?
- Porcello?
I wasn't thinking of individual performances, I was thinking of team-wide things. In 2013 we had what was it, eleven walkoffs? This year we have 2. In 2013, we were as many as 9.5 games ahead. This year, 3. In 2013, we spent 164 days in first place. So far this year, 36.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,473
Saskatchestan
Given some wiggle room for the remaining 38 regular season games, I agree.

Other than the two recent last place finishes, I think one of the big reasons the anti-Farrell crowd is so vehement is that this hasn't been a great team. It's been a team that has been just a little bit better than mediocre. The team's best month was immediately followed by it's worst. For all the high powered offense, there have been only two walkoff wins compared to three walkoff losses. All season there has been something clearly wrong with this team. Early on it was the starting pitching. Now it's the bullpen. In between, the offense has had stretches where it was decidedly mediocre. The biggest lead the team had was 3 games and the longest winning streak was 6.

For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
As awesome as 2013 was though, I'd look forward going into the playoffs with this team, showing they are are also consistent at not going on a long losing streak either.
Bullpen has been scary for a couple weeks now, but if that straightens out, this team has a good shot a going deep into the playoffs and winning it all.

Back to the topic at hand though, I wouldn't be surprised if Farrell's option was picked up immediately after playoffs this year, assuming the team stays on track to make the playoffs.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Agree with the consensus that Farrell will either have his 2018 option picked up or be fired after the season. No way he manages in 2017 without being under contract for the next year, especially when the extra year of control is as easy as picking up an option (as opposed to negotiating an extension).
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Given some wiggle room for the remaining 38 regular season games, I agree.

Other than the two recent last place finishes, I think one of the big reasons the anti-Farrell crowd is so vehement is that this hasn't been a great team. It's been a team that has been just a little bit better than mediocre. The team's best month was immediately followed by it's worst. For all the high powered offense, there have been only two walkoff wins compared to three walkoff losses. All season there has been something clearly wrong with this team. Early on it was the starting pitching. Now it's the bullpen. In between, the offense has had stretches where it was decidedly mediocre. The biggest lead the team had was 3 games and the longest winning streak was 6.

For a good team, this team has had relatively few exceptional things happen.
It did seem weird that, for a while, they had a knack for dropping close games, with the blame falling on all sides of the roster. But if that goes away -- and they've been better lately -- then even that failing looks more like SSS stuff and a bit of growing up among the young players than some sort of systemic failure that the manager should have fixed. And for my money the bullpen mess is less about management than injuries and talent. So I don't see why he wouldn't get extended, particularly if you believe the Globe and its reporting that management is firmly on Farrell's side.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
I wasn't thinking of individual performances, I was thinking of team-wide things. In 2013 we had what was it, eleven walkoffs? This year we have 2. In 2013, we were as many as 9.5 games ahead. This year, 3. In 2013, we spent 164 days in first place. So far this year, 36.
...against 31 teams with different roster makeups. Derek Jeter hadn't even announced his retirement in 2013.

How many blowout wins did they have?

Comparing wins between teams years apart is probably less useful than pitcher wins.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
That's an interesting thought. What would qualify as exceptional this season?

- Sandy Leon
- Papi at 40
- Steven Wright
- JBJ fulfilling the promise?
- Porcello?
You could also add:

- Pedroia bouncing back from two years of decline and injury to have his best all-around season in five years;
- Betts graduating from promising talent to legit superstar;
- Benintendi making an Ellsbury 2007-like splash;
- the miracle of Hanley turning himself into a respectable, if undistinguished, contributor after an epically horrible season;
- the even greater miracle of Pablo's magical disappearance.

Now, whether any of this qualifies as "exceptional" or not depends on where you set the bar, of course. But it's all interesting, and at least some of it was unexpected, and it's all good.

I think all the references to 2013 just highlight how much that year spoiled us. Most years aren't like that. Even most championship years aren't like that. This year, so far, has been more like a cross between 2004 (in terms of the W/L story arc) and 2007 (in terms of how much the story revolves around kids).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
If the Red Sox go past the ALDS, the question might become whether Farrell has any leverage to demand a new three year deal, rather than just have his option picked up.

Maybe we'll see a manager holdout if they win it all.

I disagree that Farrell has largely gotten criticism for things out of his control.

There are personnel decisions:
It had to be Farrell's choice to go with Vazquez over Swihart, to believe otherwise is to believe Farrell is not really the manager.

It has to be Farrell's choice to have Heath Hembree in the bullpen right now rather than Joe Kelly (unless keeping Kelly down an extra month is pushing his FA back a year)

There are development questions:
How many more games would the 2014 and 2015 teams won, and how much money saved, if Steven Wright was put into the rotation for the remainder of 2014 after Lackey and Lester were traded? Or do we think that sometime in mid March Steven Wright flipped a switch from not major league quality to great? (Monbo Jumbo called it in spring 2015 that Wright could be the best starter, Farrell buried him all last year, and absent)

Does John Farrell not get a say in whether Joe Kelly is a reliever or a starter?

Does John Farrell not get a say in whether Jackie Bradley Jr is ready to be a big league CF in 2014?
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Sigh. He gets a say, for sure, but he's not the final arbiter. To suggest otherwise is to ignore how the front office has evolved over the last 3 decades. Example: Bobby Valentine correctly didn't want Bard as a starter but the FO gave it a shot anyhow.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
If the Red Sox go past the ALDS, the question might become whether Farrell has any leverage to demand a new three year deal, rather than just have his option picked up.
I could easily see a year (2019) being added on, but beyond that seems (feels?) unlikely
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Agree with the consensus that Farrell will either have his 2018 option picked up or be fired after the season. No way he manages in 2017 without being under contract for the next year, especially when the extra year of control is as easy as picking up an option (as opposed to negotiating an extension).
Agree with this, and my guess is JF needs at least an ALCS appearance to be here in 2017. There have been fewer totally boneheaded moves in the last few weeks (Taz against Detroit and leaving Price in against TB being the only ones I can immediately recall). I am hopeful that he is shifting more into "playoff mode" in his decisions and I think the biggest thing he can do to help in 2016 is get that bullpen lined up as best as possible. If that happens, given the disaster it has been so far, I think it has to temper a lot of the early and mid season criticism.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
If that happens, given the disaster it has been so far, I think it has to temper a lot of the early and mid season criticism.
It's now August 24th... and we're still tied for first. If said "disaster" had not had happened, what would our record be? How many games would we be up? It sure seems like a lot of the nonsense in the previous Farrell thread was about all the missed opportunities, but if you'd said before the season that the Sox would be in the exact position they are now, people would have been very, very happy.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
It's now August 24th... and we're still tied for first. If said "disaster" had not had happened, what would our record be? How many games would we be up? It sure seems like a lot of the nonsense in the previous Farrell thread was about all the missed opportunities, but if you'd said before the season that the Sox would be in the exact position they are now, people would have been very, very happy.
I'm not sure I totally follow here... all I'm trying to say is that the Sox bullpen has had a lot of problems, from injuries to performance and, in the minds of some people, extending to usage. No one person bears the blame for that.

A lot of the discussion around Farrell's culpability for the bullpen issues hinges on questions about balancing short and long run considerations, and Farrell's deference to his starters, slow hook, and focus on defined roles in the pen could be interpreted, depending on your perspective, as rigid and unimaginative in-game thinking that costs games, and/or as part of a big picture usage strategy that incorporates hard-to-measure factors like player comfort, wear and tear, and peaking at the right time.

A lot of this is unknowable or unmeasurable, or involves inside info that we will never have. But a JF critic (like me) would need to concede that, if the pen does round into form in time for a deep run, it is at least possible that the meta game and long run elements of JF's usage strategy are working out.

It's also possible that the pen will work out "in spite of the manager." Or, conversely, that the players will simply underperform in spite of good coaching. Or that the offense will drag the team through October in spite of a bullpen dumpster fire, regardless of who is at fault. It won't stop the arguing either way.

At this point, there are five weeks left in the season, the biggest question mark is the bullpen, and I'm hoping that Farrell, the staff and the players can find a way to cobble it together. Whether they do or not will be a big part in how the history of the season is viewed.

Just saying "if I told you we would be in first on August 23rd, you'd take it," while relevant, is a bit reductive in this context. It bears mentioning given all the fireworks over Farrell, but it's not dispositive. If I'm misunderstanding please say so.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Agree with this, and my guess is JF needs at least an ALCS appearance to be here in 2017. There have been fewer totally boneheaded moves in the last few weeks (Taz against Detroit and leaving Price in against TB being the only ones I can immediately recall). I am hopeful that he is shifting more into "playoff mode" in his decisions and I think the biggest thing he can do to help in 2016 is get that bullpen lined up as best as possible. If that happens, given the disaster it has been so far, I think it has to temper a lot of the early and mid season criticism.
DD isn't stupid enough to let Farrell's fate rest on a best-of-5 postseason series, unless it's a Grady's Boner-type situation.

I think Farrell keeps his job if we get a postseason berth or win 90 games (18-17 the rest of the way). I suppose I could see him getting sacked if the Sox back into the second wild card with 86-87 wins and lose the play-in game, but at that point he'd be getting fired for the tepid second half, not for losing a single game.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
DD isn't stupid enough to let Farrell's fate rest on a best-of-5 postseason series, unless it's a Grady's Boner-type situation.

I think Farrell keeps his job if we get a postseason berth or win 90 games (18-17 the rest of the way). I suppose I could see him getting sacked if the Sox back into the second wild card with 86-87 wins and lose the play-in game, but at that point he'd be getting fired for the tepid second half, not for losing a single game.
I don't disagree with this necessarily, my thinking is more that DD probably doesn't particularly want to keep JF and would only be forced to do so if there is a deep playoff run. Of course there are a dozen potential exceptions or situational factors that could play in, or maybe DD actually likes him... it's just a guess.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
Just saying "if I told you we would be in first on August 23rd, you'd take it," while relevant, is a bit reductive in this context. It bears mentioning given all the fireworks over Farrell, but it's not dispositive. If I'm misunderstanding please say so.
I don't think you're misunderstanding. I think we need to realign our bullpen expectations and say that we may have got the best version of what there is - that JF & co. are working with bad parts, but have done enough to get the team to first place - like you said, that there are unknowns and they're doing all they can with them.

My point was that I'm unclear what the bullpen, or the lineup or starters or whomever, were supposed to be if not this? Are there people who think that this team would be several (or more than several based on the level of complaints) games better if players (or coaches) had performed better, or better decisions made? I look at this current team and I can't say I see them "under" performing. It's not always pretty, but I think this is about the best they could do.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I don't disagree with this necessarily, my thinking is more that DD probably doesn't particularly want to keep JF and would only be forced to do so if there is a deep playoff run. Of course there are a dozen potential exceptions or situational factors that could play in, or maybe DD actually likes him... it's just a guess.
That's fair. Farrell isn't DD's guy, so even aside from Farrell's well-documented weaknesses, it's possible that DD would jump at the chance to replace him with a manager of his own choosing. My hunch, however, is that if DD was so eager to fire Farrell that he'd do so after the team makes the postseason, he probably would've done so earlier this summer when the team was struggling.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I don't disagree with this necessarily, my thinking is more that DD probably doesn't particularly want to keep JF and would only be forced to do so if there is a deep playoff run. Of course there are a dozen potential exceptions or situational factors that could play in, or maybe DD actually likes him... it's just a guess.
Spier had a great article over the weekend detailing the front office thinking on how to evaluate Farrell. It didn't have any quotes from the team or team sources, but it was written in a way that suggested to me they'd provided him access on a deep background level. There were rumblings in it of discontent with in game decisions, but the gist was that they were delighted with every other aspect of his tenure, of which they laid out 4 or 5 specific categories. This me that article was designed to say that, yes, barring a Grady moment, Farrell is the team"s manager.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
That's fair. Farrell isn't DD's guy, so even aside from Farrell's well-documented weaknesses, it's possible that DD would jump at the chance to replace him with a manager of his own choosing. My hunch, however, is that if DD was so eager to fire Farrell that he'd do so after the team makes the postseason, he probably would've done so earlier this summer when the team was struggling.
Or, you know, after last season when he had the perfect opportunity.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,072
Hingham, MA
Spier had a great article over the weekend detailing the front office thinking on how to evaluate Farrell. It didn't have any quotes from the team or team sources, but it was written in a way that suggested to me they'd provided him access on a deep background level. There were rumblings in it of discontent with in game decisions, but the gist was that they were delighted with every other aspect of his tenure, of which they laid out 4 or 5 specific categories. This me that article was designed to say that, yes, barring a Grady moment, Farrell is the team"s manager.
Link

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/08/19/why-red-sox-stick-with-john-farrell/8jfIMeUwpOVm51hLgEZPVK/story.html
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Or, you know, after last season when he had the perfect opportunity.
Farrell was on a leave of absence due to a cancer diagnosis and had led the club to a World Championship two years earlier. Firing him would have been DD's first major decision as President. If you think that's the "perfect opportunity" to make that move, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
That's fair. Farrell isn't DD's guy, so even aside from Farrell's well-documented weaknesses, it's possible that DD would jump at the chance to replace him with a manager of his own choosing. My hunch, however, is that if DD was so eager to fire Farrell that he'd do so after the team makes the postseason, he probably would've done so earlier this summer when the team was struggling.

Or maybe the FO doesn't see those "weaknesses" as being as "well-documented" either in and of themselves, as compared to other managers, or as compared to Farrell's strengths. This isn't Dombrowski's first rodeo.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Or maybe the FO doesn't see those "weaknesses" as being as "well-documented" either in and of themselves, as compared to other managers, or as compared to Farrell's strengths. This isn't Dombrowski's first rodeo.
Hey, I'm on the fence about Farrell. I was expressing a desire not to re-litigate his sometimes-questionable tactics (which I think are overstated) and his general lack of managerial success apart from 2013 and this season.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Hey, I'm on the fence about Farrell. I was expressing a desire not to re-litigate his sometimes-questionable tactics (which I think are overstated) and his general lack of managerial success apart from 2013 and this season.
Believe me, I am not looking for that battle either. You were talking about DD's rationale going forward. That's why I cast it in terms of what the FO might think (in response to the "well-documented" description). Certainly the complaints from fans are well-documented. And many in the local media treat his tactical acumen as a matter already decided and cast in stone. But we have no idea what DD thinks about those issues or how important they are in the overall calculus.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
My point was that I'm unclear what the bullpen, or the lineup or starters or whomever, were supposed to be if not this? Are there people who think that this team would be several (or more than several based on the level of complaints) games better if players (or coaches) had performed better, or better decisions made? I look at this current team and I can't say I see them "under" performing. It's not always pretty, but I think this is about the best they could do.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.

We're looking at a team that has 4 position players who will finish at or around 5 FWAR (Pedroia, Ortiz, Bradley, Bogaerts), and one who will probably put up 7 in Mookie Betts.

To put that in perspective, the 2013 team had Pedroia at 5.1, Ellsbury at 5.6, Victorino at 5.9, and Ortiz and Napoli in the 3.5 range. The 2007 team had Ortiz at 6.3, and Lowell, Crisp and Youk in the 4s, and Pedroia at 3.7.

As far as the position players, this is one of the best Red Sox teams in recent memory. There's a shit-ton of talent here.

As far as the pitching goes, Price, Porcello and Wright are all putting up better (or the same) peripherals as Lester and Lackey did in 2013. None of them are as good as Beckett was in '07, but they're all significantly better than Daisuke and Wake were (who got the 2nd and 3rd most innings). There's plenty of talent there.

The bullpen clearly isn't what it was in 2013 (with Koji, Breslow, and Taz) or 2007 (Paps and Okajima), but almost everyone there is under-performing their career peripherals .

The 2007 team won 96 games, and the 2013 team won 97. This team is on pace to win 92 (coming off 8-2 over their last 10) - I'd guess 90-92 is probably the range they finish in.

Frankly, the idea that Farrell doesn't have enough talent to work with is bullshit.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
I look at this current team and I can't say I see them "under" performing. It's not always pretty, but I think this is about the best they could do.
That's because they aren't. From the Globe piece that czar linked above:

Is the team performing to expectations?

Red Sox senior analyst Tom Tippett, in a presentation at the SaberSeminar last weekend, showed a graph of the Red Sox’ season-long winning percentage relative to its projected wins total entering the year. Until last Thursday, the Red Sox consistently remained above its projected line toward 89 wins before dipping briefly about a half-game below the mark. The team’s subsequent six-game winning streak has put it on a 90 to 91 win pace, back above that projected season total.

If the Red Sox saw themselves as a projected 95-win team that was underperforming its expectations by seven or 10 wins in May, there would be urgency to the conversation about Farrell inside the walls of Fenway. That’s not the case.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
But it sounds like they are comparing actual wins to preseason win projections. Which is fine, that can be useful, but a lot of the complaints about JF hinge on the idea that the true talent level of the team seems to be higher than originally projected, but the record has not reflected that. Or, in other words, that this team has so far seemed a bit less than the sum of its parts. (Not really arguing up or down on this point here, just trying to point out that the ideas are not mutually exclusive). Of course you could also argue that the appearance of a higher talent level is influenced by coaching, which is within Farrell's portfolio... and then we would be back to square one in the argument about who gets credit or blame for what.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
I think the organization is firmly aware of where it's own players' talent levels lay.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
That's because they aren't. From the Globe piece that czar linked above:
OK, but if the players exceed their projections, shouldn't the projections be revised upward? I doubt Porcello and Wright were projected to pitch as well as they have, or for Mookie, JBJ, XB , Papi and Pedroia to have the kind of seasons they have, not to mention Hanley. Obviously, there have been disappointments, primarily Carson Smith and E-Rods injuries, and Prices erratic performance early on. Of course, does one credit JF for the players exceeding projections? . In 2013 that's what happened, so maybe they will.

I expect Farrell is in the same boat as Tito was in 2011 (Theo was leaving and a new GM was taking over) and Grady Little in 2003 (Theo was a new GM). His fate will be tied to the Red Sox post season success. DD will want his man if it does not go well.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I'm sure their proprietary projection systems are very good, but even good preseason projections are routinely off by 3-4 wins at the team level. It's an inexact science.
I believe the Standard error for such projections is accepted to be +/-6 Wins. Most are updated as the season progresses
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Frankly, the idea that Farrell doesn't have enough talent to work with is bullshit.
I'd expect this response if we were hovering around .500 instead of having one of the best records in the American League. Farrell does have some good talent to work with......and he's gotten quite a bit out of it. That's why we are 16 games over .500 and projecting 90 wins on the way to the playoffs.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
I'll be holding my breath for rembrat to walk back the snark on this one.
Dude, there's article written by a reputable columnist literally saying the team is right where it projected itself to be and you're still trying to poke holes into it. You can keep holding your breath.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Dude, there's article written by a reputable columnist literally saying the team is right where it projected itself to be and you're still trying to poke holes into it. You can keep holding your breath.
I'm saying that the team's preseason projection of its talent level has a large margin for error and that it doesn't completely negate the rest of the JF arguments, that's all. If at the end of the year we win 89 games but the peripherals and advanced stats suggest players performed at a 95 win level, should we be happy?

I'm well aware that the other side of the argument has lots of holes too, and have expressed guarded optimism about Farrell on several occasions recently. Using individual player WAR or Pythag or any number of other stats to try and diagnose or place blame for a perceived gap between talent and performance is an equally fraught process. I'm just saying that "FO thought this was an 89 win team, discussion over," is a terribly reductive argument.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
OK, but if the players exceed their projections, shouldn't the projections be revised upward?
By that argument, if the players fell below their expectations (like in 2014 and 2015) then you'd revise the projections downward, and Farrell would still be managing above the projections, right? Seems like you're arguing that Farrell is a great manager.
 

wyatt55

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 26, 2005
1,311
Miskatonic University
Speier was on ESPN's baseball podcast this morning and talked about this piece.

It's essentially a must read for everyone who believes that a FO's decision to fire a manager hinges solely on in-game decision making, particularly infrequent in-game decision making.
One criterion left out of the Globe article (which you could argue is 4a to this one) "■Does the manager have the backing of the clubhouse and relate well to players to get the most out of them?"
is the question:
*How well does the Manager handle the constant bright and hot Boston Media and Fan spotlights?
I believe the owners took for granted how excellently even keeled and adept Terry Francona was at this over his tenure. And clearly underestimated how fabulously poor the Bobby Valentine hiring was in this regard. While not the be all end all skill, being able to successfully Manage the media grind and the fan frenzy in this City is not for all Managers. And it is something John Farrell has scored well on in my estimation.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
By that argument, if the players fell below their expectations (like in 2014 and 2015) then you'd revise the projections downward, and Farrell would still be managing above the projections, right? Seems like you're arguing that Farrell is a great manager.
Quite the contrary. I said that although the Red Sox are exceeding pre-season projections, the pre-season projections were low. Some things just can't be predicted, and expectations now are higher with considerably more positives than negatives. But I can see how someone could credit Farrell for this, and maybe they are right. However, as a former pitching coach I give him more credit or blame as to how the pitching side does than the hitting, and most of the negatives have come on the pitching side, especially pre-Bannister
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Joe Kelly has 3 years and 101 days of service time right now. July 30th was the last day he appeared in a game meaning he could potentially earn an additional
Quite the contrary. I said that although the Red Sox are exceeding pre-season projections, the pre-season projections were low. Some things just can't be predicted, and expectations now are higher with considerably more positives than negatives. But I can see how someone could credit Farrell for this, and maybe they are right. However, as a former pitching coach I give him more credit or blame as to how the pitching side does than the hitting, and most of the negatives have come on the pitching side, especially pre-Bannister
So if the team plays better than projected, the projections were wrong and Farrell doesn't get the credit. If they play worse than projected, it's Farrell's fault. And of the things that have gone right this year, Farrell doesn't get credit for the offense because he used to be a pitching coach, but he doesn't get credit for the second half pitching because you've found a convenient way to wiggle out of attributing that to him as well?

Farrell's not a great manager, but this is ridiculous. The mental gymnastics you are doing here are quite impressive, though.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,317
Quite the contrary. I said that although the Red Sox are exceeding pre-season projections, the pre-season projections were low. Some things just can't be predicted, and expectations now are higher with considerably more positives than negatives. But I can see how someone could credit Farrell for this, and maybe they are right. However, as a former pitching coach I give him more credit or blame as to how the pitching side does than the hitting, and most of the negatives have come on the pitching side, especially pre-Bannister
How low were pre season expectations? We signed one of the best SPs in baseball (Price) and traded for one of the best closers (Kimbrell) and also for one of the best set up guys in baseball (Smith) Most also figured 3B, 1B and LF would be a major improvement over 2015. I'm not sure what *your* expectations were, but I think most people thought we would be right in the middle of the playoff race throughout the season, which of course we have been.