FtfyNot to be "that guy" but the dugout meeting was in St. Louis, Game 4.
Against Detroit he merely hit a life-altering grand slam.
The point totally stands, regardless.
FtfyNot to be "that guy" but the dugout meeting was in St. Louis, Game 4.
Against Detroit he merely hit a life-altering grand slam.
The point totally stands, regardless.
The team just got done playing ten games against some of the coldest teams in baseball. They looked mediocre earlier against tougher competition.The team is playing hard.
The team is playing smart.
He isn't making insane lineup decisions.
He has the Boston Red Sox being the most appropriately aggressive baserunning team this town has ever seen.
He manages the media well.
He doesn't let players rot on the bench.
There isn't a manager alive that doesn't make questionable decisions from time to time, You know, because you have been watching this game for more than four and a half minutes that as fans, we don't have perfect information and that as far as tactical decisions go, quite a lot of them are completely irrelevant. This fixation you have with the horribleness of John Farrell is absurd. List the managers this team has had in the last thirty years. John MacNamara, Joe Morgan, Butch Hobson, Kevin Kennedy, Jimy Williams, Grady Little, Terry Francona, Bobby Valentine, John Farrell. I exclude Joe Kerrigan for the obvious reason that his tenure was way too short to draw anything resembling a conclusion. Rank them from the best to the worst. If you come to any conclusion other than that John Farrell is the second best manager we've had in a generation, you're lying to yourself.The team just got done playing ten games against some of the coldest teams in baseball. They looked mediocre earlier against tougher competition.
This lineup basically writes itself on most given days, still, he's made some questionable decisions to this point. If a pro is "he doesn't screw up the lineup most days," that's not exactly a shining endorsement.
Yes, they're running the bases well. How much of that attributes to him, we don't know. A known characteristic of many of his former teams is overly aggressive and crappy baserunning...perhaps he finally has a team that's smart and fast enough to catch up to this philosophy of his.
Yes, he manages the media well. I don't believe that's particularly difficult.
Yes, he doesn't let players rot on the bench, but he often doesn't utilize them to their strengths, either.
We could go back and forth for days on this. I'm as happy as anyone the team has done their job against weak competition the past couple weeks, but singing praise for Farrell over it is jumping the gun big time.
The bolded deserves some comment. I've always been convinced that if the infallible Joe Maddon were the manager of the Red Sox, the board would light up from time to time as a result of some of his moves. Probably just as often as they do now.There isn't a manager alive that doesn't make questionable decisions from time to time, You know, because you have been watching this game for more than four and a half minutes that as fans, we don't have perfect information and that as far as tactical decisions go, quite a lot of them are completely irrelevant. This fixation you have with the horribleness of John Farrell is absurd. List the managers this team has had in the last thirty years. John MacNamara, Joe Morgan, Butch Hobson, Kevin Kennedy, Jimy Williams, Grady Little, Terry Francona, Bobby Valentine, John Farrell. I exclude Joe Kerrigan for the obvious reason that his tenure was way too short to draw anything resembling a conclusion. Rank them from the best to the worst. If you come to any conclusion other than that John Farrell is the second best manager we've had in a generation, you're lying to yourself.
We could replace John Farrell with a manager who is better, but the last time we replaced a manager who didn't completely suck, we replaced him with Bobby Fucking Valentine. Replacing John Farrell is no guarantee of getting a better manager. That's just reality.
I would appreciate it if someone could move this to the appropriate thread so I can continue to ignore it.
Also, iayork animated the pitches from the Price/ARod at-bat.Boston has won seven of the last ten and has a +21 run differential through the first 24 games. They lead the AL in runs scored with 126 for an average of 5.25 per game. They also lead the AL in stolen bases (21), RBI (119), BABIP (.340), BA (.281), OBP (.343), wOBA (.342), doubles (66), and triples (9), and are tied for first in bases on balls (79). On the other hand, they are last in home runs with 19; the Orioles lead the league with 34.
Yeah, except Farrell makes questionable decisions all the time, and has been doing so for years. He looks decent when everything rolls right (which, to this point this year, it basically has,) and looks terrible with the team is mediocre or worse. This board has been shrugging over his management for years because the teams have either won outright (which I personally believe was a fluke in 2013) or been outright bad (which I believe he contributed to.)There isn't a manager alive that doesn't make questionable decisions from time to time, You know, because you have been watching this game for more than four and a half minutes that as fans, we don't have perfect information and that as far as tactical decisions go, quite a lot of them are completely irrelevant. This fixation you have with the horribleness of John Farrell is absurd. List the managers this team has had in the last thirty years. John MacNamara, Joe Morgan, Butch Hobson, Kevin Kennedy, Jimy Williams, Grady Little, Terry Francona, Bobby Valentine, John Farrell. I exclude Joe Kerrigan for the obvious reason that his tenure was way too short to draw anything resembling a conclusion. Rank them from the best to the worst. If you come to any conclusion other than that John Farrell is the second best manager we've had in a generation, you're lying to yourself.
We could replace John Farrell with a manager who is better, but the last time we replaced a manager who didn't completely suck, we replaced him with Bobby Fucking Valentine. Replacing John Farrell is no guarantee of getting a better manager. That's just reality.
I would appreciate it if someone could move this to the appropriate thread so I can continue to ignore it.
I hope you realize that this could apply to practically every manager in the league.Yeah, except Farrell makes questionable decisions all the time, and has been doing so for years. He looks decent when everything rolls right (which, to this point this year, it basically has,) and looks terrible with the team is mediocre or worse. This board has been shrugging over his management for years because the teams have either won outright (which I personally believe was a fluke in 2013) or been outright bad (which I believe he contributed to.)
Secondly, your point is that just because the team has had a boatload of shitty managers, that makes Farrell not shitty? Excellent analysis. I never thought about it that way. Personally too, I don't think he's any better than Gump, sans one braindead decision in the playoffs (his incessance of starting Jonny Gomes could've been that, but he got lucky.)
Bad?I hope you realize that this could apply to practically every manager in the league.
That 2003 bullpen was awful, No holds barred, no questions asked, almost unmitigated 100% bad. I may have made exactly the same mistake in exactly the same circumstance because the last thing I want to do in a game like that is take out my best pitcher, turn the game over to the bullpen, and get Thompsoned.
It was still the wrong decision. Pedro was done and he knew it, he'd given his two fingers to the sky the previous inning and Grady ignored that or failed to notice, it should have been Timlin (despite appearing in 3 of the previous 4 games) and then the closer. I still can't quite make myself hate the guy for deciding that if he had to get beat it would be with his best pitcher on the mound.
To be clear, I was referring to the state of the Sox' rotation at the time people like Cafardo and the alleged people who write to him were starting to ask for Farrell's scalp. And to be fair, Buchholz, Price and Kelly are all over 6.00 ERA, which would lead the Cafardo-ites to consider the Sox' rotation volatile. Also spring training numbers (I know, I know) were even worse. That was the panic I was speaking of. It certainly doesn't reflect how I see the team. Smith's injury definitely has hurt, along with the stress on the bullpen that had them back on their heels, though again I personally see it as an emerging strength.The reason they didn't fire Farrell was his cancer diagnosis, nobody in the camp of wanting a change was overreacting to the slow start, and nobody in his pro camp should be bringing up a small sample of games against otherwise horrible teams. People who want a change want it because of his bad track record and questionable in-game decision-making over a 5-year sample, people who don't tend to shrug off the belief that the manager has an effect on what happens on the field.
There's a line in the sand, but this team to this point has hardly had a "volatile" rotation, more like a struggling Buchholz. The bullpen is one of the most talented and deep in the majors and is hardly "injury-weakened" just because they lost one player for a few weeks, and the young players are a big reason why the team is what it is. Let's not overreach.
This. For me, that was the fire-able offense for Grady. Not merely overworking Pedro but forgetting about how great their three-man bullpen had been for the playoffs and down the stretch.Bad?
Williamson had a 1.13 ERA, .750 WHIP
Timlin had a 0 ERA and had given up 3 runners in 9 2/3 IP
Embree had a 0 ERA and had given up 4 runners in 6 2/3 IP
The pen was lights fucking out in the playoffs.
Source? Any source *at all* from a RS official, "anonymous source" -- literally anything -- that backs that up? I'm not convinced they were ever even considering this.The reason they didn't fire Farrell was his cancer diagnosis
Absolutely. I can not believe that on SoSH, where some of the smartest fans in baseball reside, I am actually reading a defense of Grady Little's ass awful decision making in Game 7 2003. That was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in any form of organized sports. The man deserved to be fired and he deserves to have his name be preceded by a "fucking" every time it is spoken by any Red Sox fanThis. For me, that was the fire-able offense for Grady. Not merely overworking Pedro but forgetting about how great their three-man bullpen had been for the playoffs and down the stretch.
I was expecting this from Pedey through April ... maybe .280 / .330 / .730:What's gone right?
To reasonable expectations +/-
3. Pedey
Sure we can. In his 10 at bats vs. lefties he's hitting .417/.600/1.017 with an wRC+ of 182.It's hard to say anything conclusive about Chris Young after 29 plate appearances.
Good point.I was expecting this from Pedey through April ... maybe .280 / .330 / .730:
.324 ./.371 / .861
Come on. We all knew it. You really need to see it in writing?Source? Any source *at all* from a RS official, "anonymous source" -- literally anything -- that backs that up? I'm not convinced they were ever even considering this.
Uh, nobody defended that decision. Instead of seeing red at the sheer mention of Gump's name, did you see what I actually wrote? I said that I don't think Farrell is particularly a better manager than Gump was in the aggregate, Gump just made one tremendously awful decision at the worst possible time. Farrell also made one (well, several, if you count every start Gomes made against RHP in the playoffs) of those calls, but it worked out in his favor in the end. It's a game of inches, and inches can affect legacies. I'm trying to look at the bigger scale of things.Absolutely. I can not believe that on SoSH, where some of the smartest fans in baseball reside, I am actually reading a defense of Grady Little's ass awful decision making in Game 7 2003. That was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in any form of organized sports. The man deserved to be fired and he deserves to have his name be preceded by a "fucking" every time it is spoken by any Red Sox fan
If you want to present it as a fact, then yes, you need a source. Otherwise you're just guessing with the rest of us.Come on. We all knew it. You really need to see it in writing?
Sorry, let me go check double check with Henry and Cherington real quick.If you want to present it as a fact, then yes, you need a source. Otherwise you're just guessing with the rest of us.
I think the response was to this " That 2003 bullpen was awful, No holds barred, no questions asked, almost unmitigated 100% bad." from Whattitakes. PCome on. We all knew it. You really need to see it in writing?
Uh, nobody defended that decision. Instead of seeing red at the sheer mention of Gump's name, did you see what I actually wrote? I said that I don't think Farrell is particularly a better manager than Gump was in the aggregate, Gump just made one tremendously awful decision at the worst possible time. Farrell also made one (well, several, if you count every start Gomes made against RHP in the playoffs) of those calls, but it worked out in his favor in the end. It's a game of inches, and inches can affect legacies. I'm trying to look at the bigger scale of things.
I'm not sure you stated this in a fashion that supports your argument. In fact it sounds a tad more supportive to Rasputin than I think you'd have liked. Every manager looks good when his team is rolling and looks bad when they're not. He looked great in 2013 because so many individuals far exceeded peoples expectation and they all pulled together as a team. You can see that so far this season. However, in 2014 & 2015 one thing after another just went sour. Last year it was Panda & Hanley going into tail spins, Peddy being hurt. The OF taking awhile before it got situated. The rotation being DOA until the last couple months. Finally, Napoli just going over the cliff. Was that Farrell, the team or the organization?Yeah, except Farrell makes questionable decisions all the time, and has been doing so for years. He looks decent when everything rolls right (which, to this point this year, it basically has,) and looks terrible with the team is mediocre or worse. This board has been shrugging over his management for years because the teams have either won outright (which I personally believe was a fluke in 2013) or been outright bad (which I believe he contributed to.
It helps when the first two guys in the R-R-R string have such trivial platoon splits. Bogaerts is the only one of the three who has been notably vulnerable to RHP so far in his career, which makes hitting him ahead of Papi a smart move (and one that has paid off so far).Speaking of which, lineup construction has also gone better than expected. I was one of those guys lobbying for a change early on, but I was wrong. L-R-L is not as important as I thought.
False.Yeah, except Farrell makes questionable decisions all the time, and has been doing so for years.
True of every manager ever.He looks decent when everything rolls right (which, to this point this year, it basically has,) and looks terrible with the team is mediocre or worse.
Your personal belief is false.This board has been shrugging over his management for years because the teams have either won outright (which I personally believe was a fluke in 2013) or been outright bad (which I believe he contributed to.)
No, my point was that Farrell is not shitty and that someone who follows this team should recognize the difference.Secondly, your point is that just because the team has had a boatload of shitty managers, that makes Farrell not shitty? Excellent analysis. I never thought about it that way.
Both of these are indications that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. I neither know nor care whether Farrell has done something personally to you or your family to deserve your ire, but you have conclusively demonstrated that you are not capable of making anything resembling a rational or even reasonable argument about him. You simply declare all the good things he does to be either flukes or bad things because you said so.Personally too, I don't think he's any better than Gump, sans one braindead decision in the playoffs (his incessance of starting Jonny Gomes could've been that, but he got lucky.)
You don't get to scream that you want Farrell replaced then turn around and suggest that one of the reasons he should be replaced is that some people--i.e. you--think he should be replaced.Oh, and as an aside, firing Francona in favor of Valentine was almost a universally-hated move at the time. You can't say that'd be the case if Farrell were shipped on.
So I can't believe he's a shitty manager, but you can believe he's a good one?False.
True of every manager ever.
Your personal belief is false.
No, my point was that Farrell is not shitty and that someone who follows this team should recognize the difference.
Both of these are indications that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. I neither know nor care whether Farrell has done something personally to you or your family to deserve your ire, but you have conclusively demonstrated that you are not capable of making anything resembling a rational or even reasonable argument about him. You simply declare all the good things he does to be either flukes or bad things because you said so.
You don't get to scream that you want Farrell replaced then turn around and suggest that one of the reasons he should be replaced is that some people--i.e. you--think he should be replaced.
I've really been surprised how competent Travis Shaw has been defensively. His body doesn't scream athleticism, but he's looked a lot more nimble and coordinated than I expected. DRS says he's been positive, UZR says he's been negative (both are obviously too small a sample size to be predictive), and to my eye while not a gold-glover he's looked fine. He's flubbed a few things hit right at him but also made some plays I didn't think he'd get to, and combined with his bat he's a solid player at the position.the third base issue has worked out much better than any of us thought it might 6-8 weeks ago.
The other thing is that part of the reason the pen was bad was because Little had completely mismanaged Kim all season, first overusing him to the point of ineffectiveness, then tanking the rug out from under him in round 1.Bad?
Williamson had a 1.13 ERA, .750 WHIP
Timlin had a 0 ERA and had given up 3 runners in 9 2/3 IP
Embree had a 0 ERA and had given up 4 runners in 6 2/3 IP
The pen was lights fucking out in the playoffs.
Especially considering Kim's track record of pitching under pressure.The other thing is that part of the reason the pen was bad was because Little had completely mismanaged Kim all season, first overusing him to the point of ineffectiveness, then tanking the rug out from under him in round 1.
And I wouldn't count on that right now. Based on their RS/RA numbers, they should be a 15-11 team, which puts them in a huge clump with a bunch of other teams, including the Red Sox. They certainly aren't the Cubs.I've heard a few posters talk about the soft schedule so far.
Does anyone think the Jays, Astros (and to a lesser extent Yankees) are going to be this bad all year? Sure, we're kicking them when they are down, but those rosters haven't changed all that much from last year.
We're beating good teams going through rough patches by outplaying them. The sole exception being the O's who beat Craig Kimbrel. The White Sox are really the only AL team that has stood out as potentially dominant.
To me it is the opposite. Kim was not the right guy and Grady made the gutsy move to not use him. Grady had shown some guts in going with what he thought was right rather than "dancing with the guys that brought him". He recognized Kim wasn't getting it done and found a vet group that was dealing. Was Timlin ever throwing harder than October 03? He went to these guys and they took him to the edge of the WS. Then he went against what he (seemingly) knew was right. I am not too sure many people see Grady;s screwed up because he quit pitching Kim. I actually had confidence the fool was going to do the right thing in game 7, no small part because he had quit pitching Kim.The other thing is that part of the reason the pen was bad was because Little had completely mismanaged Kim all season, first overusing him to the point of ineffectiveness, then tanking the rug out from under him in round 1.
Wasn't Kim dropped from the roster for the ALCS then?To me it is the opposite. Kim was not the right guy and Grady made the gutsy move to not use him. Grady had shown some guts in going with what he thought was right rather than "dancing with the guys that brought him". He recognized Kim wasn't getting it done and found a vet group that was dealing. Was Timlin ever throwing harder than October 03? He went to these guys and they took him to the edge of the WS. Then he went against what he (seemingly) knew was right. I am not too sure many people see Grady;s screwed up because he quit pitching Kim. I actually had confidence the fool was going to do the right thing in game 7, no small part because he had quit pitching Kim.
Yes. Left off the roster at the start of the ALCS with a shoulder issue. A shoulder issue stemming from an injury in the spring (while he was still in AZ) and in no small part exacerbated by the way in which Grady "Proctored" him all summer.Wasn't Kim dropped from the roster for the ALCS then?