Managing with Farrell

Torey Lovullo was introduced as the new manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks today. That officially puts an end to his tenure as bench coach for the Red Sox under John Farrell. This news seems to have lots of people aghast, or upset, or both. Many people thought that Lovullo was the next Red Sox manager in waiting. After the Sox gave him a huge contract last season to bench coach, many people assumed it was because he would become manager when (not if) Farrell was fired. Obviously, not only was Farrell not fired, he was given a vote of confidence from Dave Dombrowski almost immediately following the season. He is coming back. It seems clear that Lovullo was being kept not as a safety net in case the Sox no longer wanted Farrell to manage, but in case Farrell’s health no longer allowed him to manage. Once that seemed to not be an issue, Lovullo was allowed to move on.

Which, of course, drives people who think Farrell is a bad manager nuts. They pick apart his in-game managing. They point to all the games that they claim Farrell cost them. They get all prickly when they hear Dombrowski say that in-game managing might not be the most important part of the job. “See! Even he thinks Farrell is a bad manager…he’s just touchy-feely so the players like him!” But, of course, that’s not the case at all. And I would have thought that this most recent playoffs would have proven it.

First, let’s explore the need for an in-game manager, and its importance. Think of all the decisions a manager needs to make. How many of them involve strategy within the game? Batting line-ups? No. Pitching rotations? No. Stealing a base? Yes. Bunting? Yes. But, those decisions are just a small fraction of what a manager has to do. Being good at that, or not, is not what you need to make a team successful. Just ask Bobby Valentine. I’m pretty sure he was considered one of the best in-game managers around. But, his team went no-where. People (incorrectly) shudder when they hear his name. All the correct decisions he made when it came to using a bullpen suddenly aren’t that important. He blew all the other stuff.

Obviously Farrell is pretty good at all the other stuff. But, can he do the in-game managing at all? Is he costing them game after game? 

The biggest complaint I hear about Farrell is his bullpen use. He doesn’t know how to use his closers. He keeps bringing them in at the wrong times. He doesn’t know how to use the rest of his pen. He’ll bring a guy in too early. Or too late. He falls in love with a guy, and overworks him while letting another option rot from underuse. But, then we saw these playoffs. Buck Showalter was roundly criticized for using his closer exactly the way everyone thinks a closer should be used. He didn’t bring him into a tie game on the road, and saved him for a save situation. Just like everyone keeps insisting that Farrell needs to learn how to do. The fact that Showalter is getting crushed is further proof that the decisions aren’t important…the results are.

Did you see the World Series? Managed by two of the great in-game managers, Joe Maddon and Terry Francona. I seem to remember Francona being faulted for not going to his pen earlier in game seven. He should have pulled the starter sooner, but waited a batter too long, and it cost him. Of course, Maddon got the opposite complaint. He pulled a starter that was moving right along too soon. He paid the price, and it almost cost him the series.

What about that problem with falling in love with guys? Did either of them fall in love with guys? I’d say they did. Did they both fall in love with a guy? Yup. Did they fall in love with them to the point that they overused them? Yup. Did that decision cost them? Yup. The fact that Maddon went to Chapman in a blowout because he didn’t trust anyone else almost cost him the World Series. Should have cost him the World Series. While Francona had less choice when it came to overusing Miller, he did end up allowing runs the Indians sure needed to stay off the board. So, maybe Farrell isn’t the only manager who loses trust in some of his players every once in a while.

Maybe it’s just that we see Farrell manage more. Maybe it’s because we’re so vested in all of his decisions. Maybe it’s because we only remember the bad decisions. Because I just saw three of the best managers in the game (Showalter, Francona, and Maddon) make the exact mistakes that people complain about Farrell making. And then some. I saw Joe Maddon call for a bunt with two strikes and a runner on third. I saw Francona call for a bunt to move along a runner already in scoring position. Those were just the mistakes in a single postseason. Imagine if we watched those three managers all year. Maybe once we had to live with those decisions every game, we’d think they were just as bad. Maybe we’d give them nicknames like Fran-coma. Maybe that’s just how managers are thought about. Maybe Farrell’s really just as good as those other three. We just pick on him more. Or, maybe results matter more than decisions.

Either way, perhaps people who have been relentlessly calling for the dismissal of Farrell haven’t been fair. It certainly looks like we just notice his flaws more than the managers in the other dugouts. After watching this postseason, I didn’t see anything that made me say “Farrell couldn’t have done that.” 

However, I saw plenty of cases where I thought, “That’s just what Farrell would have done.”

Wild Wild Card

My Twitter timeline was dominated by a couple different themes last night, relating to the Wild Card play-in game. Both of them, frankly, bothered me.

The first one was different variations of “What an incredible game to watch, but I’m glad the Red Sox aren’t playing in it. I’d be a mess.” While people were suggesting that the one game play-in was an exciting game to watch, they all seemed to acknowledge that it’s a downright terrible way to decide if your team gets to advance in a playoff system. I’m not sure I like the idea of having those exclusive thoughts. If you agree that it’s not something you’d want to have your team have to go through, why are you watching? Why would you endorse making another team go through a coin flip in order to advance to the playoffs? As someone who hates playoffs in general, I just can’t wrap my arms around it. If we’re looking to crown a World Champion, what are we trying to base it on? Is it based on 162 games played over the course of six months, or are we basing it on a game based almost entirely on luck? Who happens to be healthy in this one particular game? Who happens to be rested and ready? Who happens to be hot? Who happens to have an off night? Which ball happens to take a weird bounce? This is what we’re basing our champions on now? Can you imagine the Red Sox losing the game last night because a ball hits the bag? Or because it goes extra innings and who knows which pitcher is available? That would be outrageous. 

And, I know the answer I’m going to get. Don’t want to be in the play-in game? Win your division. With that, I completely agree. So, eliminate the Wild Card game altogether. Why stop there? After all, we already had that six month season. Why should anyone but the team that finished the season with the most wins be eligible to be called “World Champion”? Because they won one more game in October? Why are those games the only ones that matter? Why not select the champions based on a series in mid-May? That would be just as arbitrary. 

If everyone knows it’s a crazy way to decide a champion, why do we encourage it? If you just have to have a tournament, I’ve already told you how to do that. But, why are we so excited about throwing an entire season away over a bad bounce in the one game we decide to count? I don’t get it.

The other theme that dominated Twitter was Zach Britton. The Orioles didn’t bring in their all-star closer at any point in the game, and they lost. Um…so? 

Let me start out by saying that I’m one of the people who hates the “closer” role. I don’t understand ever saving your best pitcher for a situation that might be less intense later. Why you would throw your third best pitcher with a one run lead in the seventh, but your best pitcher with a three run lead in the ninth is simply mind boggling to me. 

I also understand that other people don’t feel that way. They like the idea of having that shut-down closer come out and seal the victory. Give that lead to him, and the game is over. That’s the way they feel. So, while I disagreed with them, I understood when they complained over and over that John Farrell kept bringing Craig Kimbrel into games when they weren’t save situations. They had the closer role in their head, and the manager needed to stick to the plan. They would even complain when Kimbrel was brought into a tie game at home. Even though there would never be a save situation in that game, Kimbrel wasn’t supposed to be used. My goodness they would complain.

Then came last night. “How can Buck not pitch his best pitcher?!?!?!?!” People were incredulous. What was he thinking? It was a must-win game. Why on earth would he have his best pitcher on the bench in a tie game?

Umm…because it wasn’t a save situation? He was saving him for a hopeful save situation the next inning?

Isn’t that what everyone wants? Wasn’t that the kicking and screaming I heard all season? Don’t you dare bring your closer into a tie game?  Now, suddenly, they’re kicking and screaming for the exact opposite reason? Why doesn’t it make sense to people that Britton was being held for a save situation that, unfortunately, never materialized? 

So, if the Sox are tied in the ninth inning of game five in Cleveland next week…what is John Farrell supposed to do? Bring in Kimbrel like he’s done all year, and has gotten screamed at over all year, or save him for the save situation that might come along, like Buck did last night and got screamed at over? Do people know? Or is it another case of complaining about whichever move doesn’t work. 

Sometimes I don’t understand people.

Why is Farrell lying about Shaw?

John Farrell keeps pinch hitting for Travis Shaw. That on its own isn’t exactly shocking. But, the fact that’s he’s doing it so early is.

For some reason, Farrell named Shaw his starting third baseman out of Spring Training. It’s was the wrong move, but he made it anyway. He also has Shaw batting sixth in the order. 

So, why on earth are you pinch hitting for your number six hitter in the sixth inning?

I mean, is he one of your best hitters, or not? 

Like I said, bringing in a pinch hitter is fine. If it’s a tight game in the eighth inning, and the match-up isn’t great. That’s a time to use your bench to your advantage. But, the sixth inning? At that point the substitute is seeing as much action as the starter. What gives?

Someone finally asked Farrell about it. He responded that he needed to get Chris Young some at-bats. He has Shaw and Holt back to back as lefties, he thought it’d make sense to put Shaw in for one of them when a lefty reliever came in. But, if he took out Holt, then Holt couldn’t play the infield on a switch. So, he takes out Shaw.

Of course, that’s a lie. Because, if he took out Holt, he wouldn’t need Holt to play the infield. The infield would still have all the starters in it. (As a side note, I think it’s funny that’s he’s using the fact that he’s starting his utility player in the outfield as an excuse to make another bad decision.) 

So, what’s going on here?

He’s covering for Shaw.

He knows he needs Shaw to perform well. He made a huge move by starting Shaw as a way to save his job. Shaw can’t come out and hit .190. So, he needs to limit Shaw’s chances to make outs. If someone brings in a lefty reliever get him out of there. Even if it’s leading off the sixth. He needs to limit damage. After all, people are already wondering on Twitter what happened to Shaw’s supposed power. He can’t afford to have the average drop as well. Otherwise, people are really going to (correctly) wonder why Panda’s sitting there on the bench. After all, when talking about Young, Farrell points out that over his long career he's been a better hitter against lefties than Shaw. It doesn't matter that Shaw hit lefties slightly better last year. People are going to wonder why Panda didn't get the same treatment.

He made the move to try and save his job. Now he has to stick with it.

And it’s all about damage control.

Managers Decision

What makes a good manager?

No, I'm not talking about a healthy upbringing and life experiences. I'm wondering how you know if a manager is good, or not.


Today, MLB gives its answer to who they feel is the best manager this year. But, I'm not sure how you know.

The obvious choice around these parts is John Farrell. Clearly, his job taking the Sox from last place to the World Championship shows how good he was. But, how much of it was him, and how much of it was his players? After all, last year's Red Sox didn't have Victorino on it. Or Mike Napoli. Or Johnny Gomes. It was missing David Ortiz most of the year. No John Lackey. No Koji. In fact, the team was rebuilt so well from last year, that Ben Cherington won GM of the year. So, how much credit do we give to the cook, and how much to the guy who buys the groceries?

Granted, in this case, one of the moves Cherington made was to hire Farrell. So, you could say he won the award, in part, because he hired the best manager. Maybe.

Bobby Valentine said recently that he'd like to think that if he was the manager this year, they would have won the championship too. Of course he said that, and he was rightly laughed at. Another case of Valentine self-promotion. But, really, how far off would he have been? Wasn't the whole theme this year that the team really liked each other? They liked playing baseball. They were fun to watch. Would Valentine change that? Everyone loves to point at the "everyone hates each other" line from last year, and point out how that changed this year. But, weren't at least half of the players this year on the team last year? So, John Farrell made other players like Pedroia? Or Saltalamacchia? John Farrell made Johnny Gomes love to play baseball?

What, exactly, did Farrell do?

I've never been in a baseball clubhouse. (Well, I've never been in a clubhouse when there were players in it.) So, I have no idea about the "clubhouse culture." But, I do know that the manager's office is set apart from the rest of the clubhouse. Makes me wonder what influence he had. I'm also reminded of a line Terry Francona used during an interview for the 2004 World Series DVD. He said he was dying for the team to get a "team identity" and that the goofy hair thing ended up being it. He didn't say he was trying to form an identity. He didn't instruct the players to get an identity. He was just hoping it would happen. Just like it wasn't Farrell that started the "beard" thing. In fact, he flatly refused to play along and grow one of his own. It was all on the players.

Now, you could say that Farrell allowed the beard thing to take over. Maybe another manager would have insisted his players stay clean shaven. Maybe he would have forbidden players from taking extra workouts, for fear that they would wear themselves out. Maybe that's what a good manager does. Knows when to step in, and when to back off. Is that it?

Is it in-game stuff? Hard to imagine that one manager really distinguishes himself in game management. Really, how often is there a decision that comes up that's a puzzler?

Maybe it's just one of those things that can't really be measured. Maybe Farrell just didn't blow it? Maybe he got out of the way when the players were bonding, and didn't really screw up the game management? Is it just about being the right fit for the team? Valentine somehow didn't fit last year. Maybe Buck Showalter wouldn't work. I have to assume that Joe Maddon and his ridiculous themed road trips would be laughed off the bus. So, maybe it's just being the right guy in the right place. Is that what it takes to be manager of the year?

Sure hope it is.