Farrell

[devildavid]

Here's what Kimmi said yesterday: "As far as in game decisions go, managers do not have as big an effect as most people think they do."

I'll have to let her elaborate on the exact meaning of that, but it does leaves some 'wiggle room'.

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

[Maxbialystock]

Lead article on espn's mlb site reads "Don't count on Red Sox Firing John Farrell--at least not yet." I think that probably captures the consensus of talksox--plenty of people are not happy with him, but see no alternative and do see some of the issues as outside his control.

I continue to believe the won-loss record is the key stat for a manager, and that won-lost record seems to depend more on the hitting than the pitching. Thus can Sale go 7 while giving up 2 in Oakland and the Sox still lose the game in the 10th, 3-2. Thus can the Sox now win 2 in a row by scoring 12 and 11 runs respectively.

[Bellhorn04]

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

I largely agree, but some of the in-game moves are important to both small picture and big picture. For example if you have a one-run lead in the 8th inning, do you use Kimbrel for 6 outs. It might greatly enhance your chances for that game. It might also make him unavailable for the next game at least. And if you do this too often you might burn him out early in the season. That's where the whole balancing act thing comes in IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

Lead article on espn's mlb site reads "Don't count on Red Sox Firing John Farrell--at least not yet." I think that probably captures the consensus of talksox--plenty of people are not happy with him, but see no alternative and do see some of the issues as outside his control.

I continue to believe the won-loss record is the key stat for a manager, and that won-lost record seems to depend more on the hitting than the pitching. Thus can Sale go 7 while giving up 2 in Oakland and the Sox still lose the game in the 10th, 3-2. Thus can the Sox now win 2 in a row by scoring 12 and 11 runs respectively.

Yes, and I have to admit my opinion of Farrell can change depending on how the team's going. If they were to go on a hot streak now, the cries to fire him would dwindle to whispers.

[cp176]

And I fully agree with Kimmi and will back this view.

The manager's most important job is pre-game preparation and overall strategy, not specific little moves within the game. He has to think of the future as much as the present when utilizing players. He has to put them in a position to best utilize their skills. This means knowing who hits well against certain pitchers and in certain situations. It means putting out the best lineup for the next game, but not down to the exact batting order. The fine details in baseball are much less important than the big picture. Strategy is about the game at hand and the long term season balanced against each other. Baseball is not a strategic game for the most part when it comes to the details of game moves. It is strategic in the larger picture.

I don't know exactly where this discussion is coming from but i would simply say that it is impossible for most of us who have not been in a managers shoes inside the dugout to imagine what it must be like. He obviously has to be concerned about the future the bigger picture so to speak. At the same time he is directly responsible for all of the little things that go into game to game preparation- including the daily lineup. Now we could debate what an ideal lineup looks like forever as we have but personally i am going to go with what the players and coaches on the field deem is the right way to go. Being successful everyday with respect to all the little things without any doubt at all leads to big picture success. Now it is possible that the manager's effect might not be as big as some think (I would not know) but it is a managers job to have as big an effect on each game as he can by putting the best team on the field daily.

[notin]

You really think our front office started making personnel decisions with help from Ken Rosenthal? That's kind of a scary thought.

I would say it open their eyes and they started taking it into consideration.I think they got more open-minded and started realizing they needed to be a little more racially diverse and get paid extra attention to African American athletes.

[devildavid]

I don't know exactly where this discussion is coming from but i would simply say that it is impossible for most of us who have not been in a managers shoes inside the dugout to imagine what it must be like. He obviously has to be concerned about the future the bigger picture so to speak. At the same time he is directly responsible for all of the little things that go into game to game preparation- including the daily lineup. Now we could debate what an ideal lineup looks like forever as we have but personally i am going to go with what the players and coaches on the field deem is the right way to go. Being successful everyday with respect to all the little things without any doubt at all leads to big picture success. Now it is possible that the manager's effect might not be as big as some think (I would not know) but it is a managers job to have as big an effect on each game as he can by putting the best team on the field daily.

I'm talking about in game strategies such as bunting, hit and run, base stealing, pickoffs, pinch hitting, relief pitching. These so-called strategic moves have a very large element of luck and randomness. A manager can't call for a home run to be hit or a strikeout to be thrown. But he can try to instill certain general philosophies such as: running approach on the basepaths, getting the sure out, proper positioning in the field, trying to minimize walks given up, how often to sacrifice, etc. These general approaches to the game contribute more to overall team success than individual in game moves.

[a700hitter]

Here's what Kimmi said yesterday: "As far as in game decisions go, managers do not have as big an effect as most people think they do."

I'll have to let her elaborate on the exact meaning of that, but it does leaves some 'wiggle room'.

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

[mvp 78]

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

You wouldn't pay a babysitter that much?

[Bellhorn04]

I'm talking about in game strategies such as bunting, hit and run, base stealing, pickoffs, pinch hitting, relief pitching. These so-called strategic moves have a very large element of luck and randomness.

I think that out of those things you mentioned there is one that is crucial, and that is bullpen management, especially in this modern game where relievers on average pitch the final third of every game.

[Bellhorn04]

The wiggle room has to be significant enough to justify $5 million in salaries and benefits.

According to FanGraphs one win is worth about $7.5 million now (based on free agent salaries.)

[mvp 78]

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/...g-john-farrell

Media is trying to rally around Farrell and save his job. It's obvious where some people get their info.

Fun quote:

Where’s the guy in the clubhouse standing up to the media with any consistency? There’s no voice that regularly shields the younger, less experienced guys in the room from tough but expected questions after losses. Dustin Pedroia gets dressed and leaves the clubhouse faster than Chris Sale will get the ball back and throw it Wednesday.

I agree that the players are at fault too, but isn't it Farrell's job to make sure that veterans are being the leaders they need to be? If it isn't, then what are they paying Farrell for? Pitching changes and setting the lineup? I thought the Sox always said there is more to managing than just on field stuff?

[mvp 78]

According to FanGraphs one win is worth about $7.5 million now (based on free agent salaries.)

That's based on player salaries, not manager salaries who are generally paid far less than the players.

[Bellhorn04]

That's based on player salaries, not manager salaries who are generally paid far less than the players.

Agreed, but I think you could make a case that a manager who is one win above average is worth a lot of money too.

[mvp 78]

Agreed, but I think you could make a case that a manager who is one win above average is worth a lot of money too.

I think there are managers deserving of a lot of money (Madden, Bochy, Francona, Showalter). Farrell is not one of them. I'm sure his pay is adequate enough.