Referendum on John Farrell

[Maxbialystock]

This isn't really about Farrell as much as it is about all MLB managers. My thesis is simple: yes, some managers are better than others, but by and large we give MLB managers way too much credit for wins and losses. Unlike NFL coaches, for example, they only have to manage a few players, and in a solid start perhaps just 9 or 10 or 11 of a 25 man roster is used.

Good NFL coaches, I've heard, virtually live in the practice facility or at least spend endless hours going over film and preparing the next game. MLB managers have a lot more games, but could easily show up 3 hours before game time and miss nothing of importance. They show up earlier, of course, because that is their office. And during a game there is ample time to review all kinds of statistics and tendencies before any move is made. Even the lineup card is a piece of cake because, guess what, the manager only has 13 position players for the 9 lineup slots. Casey Stengal was known for platooning, especially in the outfield, but what could be simpler than starting a righty bat against a lefty starter or vice versa?

Now I happen to think Joe Maddon is a pretty good manager. Right now his Cubs are 15-5, so he must be good, right? But guess what? The Cubs are second in MLB in runs scored (and way ahead of the Sox) and 2d in MLB in ERA. How many smarts does it take to win with that kind of talent?
I happen to think the Yankees Girardi is pretty good too, but his team is mired in last place because their hitting is so-so and their pitching is almost as bad as ours.

Which brings me to Farrell. Last year I would have been fine with firing him even though I thought he had a wretched rotation and some lineup players--Sandoval, Napoli, Ramirez, and one or more of the outfielder--who were dragging the team down. Moreover, I thought he did a great job two years before taking the team to a WS win after a losing season under Bobby V. This year I have no problem with the thesis that the FO has given Farrell fair warning: win or else.

That said, it is also apparent to me that Farrell, while he does enjoy a terrific run-scoring lineup, once again is struggling with the world's worst rotation and a closer with a high era. 11-9 is about right for this team, whoever is managing it. PIck your manager, bring him in, and I am confident he would manage about as well, but not better. Why? Because managers don't make that much difference.

[Slasher9]

IMO A HoF manager is worth +5 to +10 wins in a season. so in reality he is only about 4-5% better than a crappy skipper.
football is more impact because: 16 game season.

[SoxnCycles]

IMO A HoF manager is worth +5 to +10 wins in a season. so in reality he is only about 4-5% better than a crappy skipper.
football is more impact because: 16 game season.

Yup, and while both are team sports, baseball is more individual against individual (pitcher/batter), until the ball is in play anyway.

Football coaches have a much bigger impact on game planning and play execution than baseball managers.
Other than the lineup, baserunning directions and pulling pitchers, managers pretty much just send them out there.

[CliffKlowers]

Well said. I totally concurr.

[User Name?]

A bad manager can cost his team a significant amount of games. Leaving a starter in too long, leaving a reliever in too long, sub-optimal lineup construction.

The impact a crappy manager has on his team is way more significant than the impact a good manager that doesn't get in his own way.

[Maxbialystock]

If you are talking about the clubhouse climate, I might agree. But then I would say the climate had to be fantastic in the clubhouse in 2013 because the Sox won it all after a losing season under Bobby V. Almost all of the same players came back in 2014 and finished in last place. Sox were lousy last year, then Lovullo took over, and many of use thought he was a change for the better. But right now, back under Farrell, they are playing better--I think because Sandoval is gone (for now) and Ramirez is happy if not hitting. Napoli is gone too. Right now six the of the Sox hitters have between 10 and 14 rbi's--the proverbial balanced lineup. I give the players credit for that and for the fact that the Sox lead the AL in doubles and runs scored. My point is that Farrell isn't hurting this team on the hitting side. As for the pitching side, he has little control over the fact that right now the Sox have the worst rotation in MLB. Could he manage the bullpen better? Maybe, but I have to note that three different times Kimbrel, the $9M closer, went into tough situations in late innings and screwed the pooch leading two losses and one blown save (that became a 12th inning win).

[Maxbialystock]

A bad manager can cost his team a significant amount of games. Leaving a starter in too long, leaving a reliever in too long, sub-optimal lineup construction.

The impact a crappy manager has on his team is way more significant than the impact a good manager that doesn't get in his own way.

Baloney. The only difference between a good manager and a bad one is a good bullpen, and the Sox right now have a lousy bullpen, which leaves Farrell with a choice of picking his poison. All managers without exception have access to all kinds of useful stats and trends, have pretty good game experience themselves, have at least two good coaches (pitching and bench) immediately available for additional insights, and usually have plenty of time to make real time decisions. This doesn't mean every decision will prove to be successful because that is not the nature of baseball, but it does mean every decision is reasonable.

Did you not notice all the last minute moves around August 1 by the good teams to get the best possible arms for their bullpens? I think most people would say Joe Maddon of the Cubs is pretty good, and in fact the Cubs have a terrific record this year, best in MLB. But no way was Epstein going to pass on the chance to get the Yankees' Chapman and simply say, "we don't need not stinkin' arms in the pen. Joe will figure it out by magically knowing when to pull a starter or a reliever."

As for suboptimal lineups, that too is a crock. There is zero statistical evidence that merely changing the batting order will magically produce success. Some things seem obvious, like putting the better hitters closer to the top of the order, but even that isn't sacrosanct. This year both JBJ and Benintendi have flourished batting 9th. I thought moving Betts down in the order was smart, but guess what? He led the teams in runs scored and was second in rbi's throughout the time he was batting lead off. The simple fact was/is Betts is good almost anywhere in the lineup and Shaw is not so good almost anywhere in the lineup. Platooning Holt and Young in LF seemed to me to work well, but Benintendi staying there also worked. The best way to fix a lineup is to get some good hitters.

[Bellhorn04]

Baloney. The only difference between a good manager and a bad one is a good bullpen, and the Sox right now have a lousy bullpen, which leaves Farrell with a choice of picking his poison. All managers without exception have access to all kinds of useful stats and trends, have pretty good game experience themselves, have at least two good coaches (pitching and bench) immediately available for additional insights, and usually have plenty of time to make real time decisions. This doesn't mean every decision will prove to be successful because that is not the nature of baseball, but it does mean every decision is reasonable.

I can't agree. Managers do make blunders sometimes, because they're human, and their judgment can get clouded, especially in high pressure situations.

Red Sox fans saw it in 2003 with Grady.

Then in 2004 Sox fans benefited from a horrible error by Torre in Game 5 when, needing 6 outs to wrap up the series, he brought in Tom Gordon (who he had burned out from overuse) instead of Rivera-because he didn't want Rivera to throw a ton of pitches for the second game in a row. After Gordon gave up a home run and put 2 more runners on with no outs, Torre brings in Rivera after all and Rivera shows that he was quite capable of getting those 6 outs.

2 consecutive years, 2 blunders that may have cost their team the ALCS.

[Bellhorn04]

There's no real way to quantify it. Managers do make in-game decisions that can change the outcome, but you don't know if things would have been different if they had made a different move.

Over the course of the season one of the manager's biggest tasks is utilizing his bullpen properly, especially the way the game is now.

Then there is the true X factor - the clubhouse factor, the motivation of the players.

[SinceYaz]

Howdy Max,

I think there is a solid concern here that plays to the way professional athletes are coddled these days. Since that is true, the manager is as much a manager of personalities as anything. The financial investment in the players, more so in the NBA than any other, makes it necessary to have an understanding person in the seat. We have coaches to help with personalities, life coaches, all sorts of things ... in the old days the manager was the boss, now he's a facilitator. That was Tito's magic. We know there was all sorts of screaming about his on field calls, but there isn't one player who didn't stand to benefit from his people skills. Manny being Manny, Paps, et, al, ....

Joe Madden is a deep soul who puts his players first and they respond with playing with good fundamentals and team first-ness. His depth includes having fun, building odd quirks that the guys buy into, building team .... well, I begin to repeat.

Farrell has the same "player first" heart. We don't agree with some of his calls, but he led a near miraculous WS title in 2013. If we remember correctly, many of us were in love with our kids, even in 2013. The FO was not loath to hide our kids ... we had as many as 7 rookies starting at a time in 2014. What could Farrell do with that? Had the kids played up to the hype, Farrell would not have been the target of displeasure by so many. It's true that some would never be happy. (If we happen to win the WS THIS YEAR, there will still be those who will hold the 2 last place finishes against Farrell. ) Had the five aces held up last season .... and the FO is in charge of the acquisition of players, not the field manager. Other teams speak highly of Farrell's ability to build a team, other than angry Toronto fans, that is. I listen to the feeds from the other team and hear only good things about Farrell.

Had the players performed as expected ...

I know this is flash point, but apparently Farrell even tries to make pariah like Panda comfortable enough to be a team mate.

...

Not sure how to close this but if the players don't perform, the manager can be the best guy out there ... and be a loser. Buck Showalter was a genius in Baltimore the first 10 days of the season because the O's were unbeaten. Is he a bum now that they have a losing record and we are a half game out?

[Maxbialystock]

Howdy Max,

I think there is a solid concern here that plays to the way professional athletes are coddled these days. Since that is true, the manager is as much a manager of personalities as anything. The financial investment in the players, more so in the NBA than any other, makes it necessary to have an understanding person in the seat. We have coaches to help with personalities, life coaches, all sorts of things ... in the old days the manager was the boss, now he's a facilitator. That was Tito's magic. We know there was all sorts of screaming about his on field calls, but there isn't one player who didn't stand to benefit from his people skills. Manny being Manny, Paps, et, al, ....

Joe Madden is a deep soul who puts his players first and they respond with playing with good fundamentals and team first-ness. His depth includes having fun, building odd quirks that the guys buy into, building team .... well, I begin to repeat.

Farrell has the same "player first" heart. We don't agree with some of his calls, but he led a near miraculous WS title in 2013. If we remember correctly, many of us were in love with our kids, even in 2013. The FO was not loath to hide our kids ... we had as many as 7 rookies starting at a time in 2014. What could Farrell do with that? Had the kids played up to the hype, Farrell would not have been the target of displeasure by so many. It's true that some would never be happy. (If we happen to win the WS THIS YEAR, there will still be those who will hold the 2 last place finishes against Farrell. ) Had the five aces held up last season .... and the FO is in charge of the acquisition of players, not the field manager. Other teams speak highly of Farrell's ability to build a team, other than angry Toronto fans, that is. I listen to the feeds from the other team and hear only good things about Farrell.

Had the players performed as expected ...

I know this is flash point, but apparently Farrell even tries to make pariah like Panda comfortable enough to be a team mate.

...

Not sure how to close this but if the players don't perform, the manager can be the best guy out there ... and be a loser. Buck Showalter was a genius in Baltimore the first 10 days of the season because the O's were unbeaten. Is he a bum now that they have a losing record and we are a half game out?

Good points on Maddon because I entirely agree he provides a terrific climate--in Chicago as he did in Tampa. But the complaints on this board ain't about climate, but about specific decisions--you know, the old 20-20 hindsight trick. And, as you say, Farrell is also a player-first manager.

[User Name?]

Farrell is not a good in-game tactician. That is an undeniable fact. His teams run the bases like idiots and his BP management is head-scratching. That said, the ability to manage the big egos in the Boston pressure cooker is invaluable. Farrell has that ability.

The problem is that we may be running and inferior manager out every night with a better option staring up at him from the bench coach position. The fact that the Sox had to greatly overpay Lovullo to keep him from being stolen away by another team speaks volumes to his standing in the industry.

[Maxbialystock]

Farrell is not a good in-game tactician. That is an undeniable fact. His teams run the bases like idiots and his BP management is head-scratching. That said, the ability to manage the big egos in the Boston pressure cooker is invaluable. Farrell has that ability.

The problem is that we may be running and inferior manager out every night with a better option staring up at him from the bench coach position. The fact that the Sox had to greatly overpay Lovullo to keep him from being stolen away by another team speaks volumes to his standing in the industry.

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

[Spudboy]

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

I'm sure others can add many questionable in game decisions.

Off the top of my head, I question the whole Young for Shaw thing.

How can those moves be justified?

[User Name?]

"Not a good in-game tactician" based on what evidence? You whiners get mad every time a starter goes bad--you would take them out in the first inning if you could--or a reliever blows a lead. I agree Lovullo did a good job last August-September, but pointed out in the OP that Farrell is doing just as good a job even though the new ace and new closer have underperformed.

First off, you can take the personal BS and shove it. You don't know me, I don't know you, I haven't disrespected you, don't disrespect me. I can dish it out bro, don't mess with me. I'm no whiner. I am stating an opinion I have substantiated several times, while also acknowledging Farrell's good points. Not everyone can handle the Boston pressure cooker. However, you can make your point without coming off as a prick.

Second, it is an undeniable fact because it's not "just whiners" who are saying Farrell is not a very good in-game manager. People who have played baseball for a living and have forgotten more baseball than either of us will ever know, starting by Lou Merloni. Besides of the fact that there are several instances (leaving a dead-armed Koji to get destroyed by Toronto, one of the famous blown saves sprouted in his defense, where he set up Kimbrel to fail is one example). Another good example is Kelly's first start after he was stung by the ball in his leg. It was evident to the Spanish broadcasters he was done, but it was not evident to Farrell. Also, his teams, in general, run the bases like idiots, which has also been pointed out by fans of both Toronto and the Red Sox, as well as columnists and analysts.

Anyways, the point is that several people think Farrell has always been a bad in-game manager, and that includes his Toronto tenure. You may think differently and defend your point, just don't be an ass about it.