John Farrell: Riding The Third Rail

[Darnell's Son]

Dave McCullough wrote about John Farrell at the .com and explained quite well why people should perhaps relax a bit when thinking about in-game decisions about managers.

Ultimately, it is the management of people – the egos, the foibles, the day-to-day grind of twenty-five (to fifty) men getting paid huge amounts of money – and the management of the media responsibilities – the press conferences, the sit-down interviews with team broadcasters and PR, the fulfillment of team marketing initiatives (buy a brick!) – that determines whether or not a manager is “good” at his job.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

It's not safe to discuss John Farrell again.

 

[rembrat]

What a sensible and well written article.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

Grady Little was great with people.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The one thing that bothers me about the article is something that has bothered me in our other Farrell threads, best expressed here:

...player performance is always more meaningful than the hand than makes out the lineup card – or signals the bullpen

This is like saying, of a + b + c = z, "z is more important than a". It's either obvious or a non sequitur, depending on how you look at it. Player performance is the outcome; the question about the importance of managers isn't whether their performance is more significant than the outcome--of course it isn't--but how important their performance is in shaping the outcome. And I think the answer is "hardly at all," at least in comparison with (a) player acquisition and (b) luck. By the time the manager gets to the ballpark every night, the vast majority of what can be done to make a victory more or less likely that night has already been done; he gets to fiddle around the edges.

Maybe this is more of a quibble than a disagreement. But I think the distinction matters.

 

[mwonow]

I'm with Buzzkill - too early

 

[uncannymanny]

I don't know...if you make 30 assumptions about things you know nothing about you come up with a totally different conclusion.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

It should be safe to have a Farrell performance discussion thread that does not get closed each time the Sox win a few games. You are always free to not view or post in the thread if the topic is bothersome to you at some level.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

The threads don't get closed because the Sox win a few games. They get closed because they turn into game threads. And those are the good posts.

 

[Bigpupp]

The Sox are 27-14 this year when there is a fire John Farrell thread open on the main board and 22-24 when there isn't. The Sox need this thread to be open more than they need a new manager.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

This isn't a fire John Farrell thread, but maybe it will work the same.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Dave McCullough wrote about John Farrell at the .com and explained quite well why people should perhaps relax a bit when thinking about in-game decisions about managers.

Bernie Carbo disagrees with Dave's assessment and with a few other things about the .com in general.

With all due respect, Mr. McCullough misses the point. The reasons to give Farrell his walking papers, to kick him to the curb, to ax him, to can him, to initiate his career transition, to cull him, to fumigate him, to downsize him, and/or to utterly sack him have less to do with the “manager’s skill set” (to use McCullough’s fancy phrase) and more to do with the fact that rank-and-file-salt-of-the-earth Red Sox fans are fed up with the Farrell Era.