(OT) What if Belichick Managed the Red Sox?

[SlowGettingUp]

So I was watching my Tivo'd recording of yesterday's Red Sox debacle and I started to wonder what would happen if Belichick was the manager instead of Farrell.

Here was the situation: Bottom of the 8th, Red Sox are leading 4-2, and suddenly the bullpen can't throw a strike. Three walks, nobody out and the bases are loaded with a hard-hitting catcher up next. Farrell of course simply leaves his pitcher in, and the result is a game-winning grand slam home run.

The convention in baseball is that you don't ask your closer to get six outs. Even four outs is pushing it. But what would Belichick have done? I'm suggesting that he would have said to himself: "This is the highest leverage spot in the game. I'm going to bring my star closer in now to get us out of this jam, and if necessary I'll have someone else close the 9th inning."

I'm virtually certain that would have been the optimal way to play this, but it was never going to happen.

So are these hidebound conventions a baseball vs. football thing, or was this more a Farrell vs. Belichick thing?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

"We're on to the Cincinnati Reds."

 

[fightingirish595]

Wait. Who made the rule you can't ask your closers for 6 outs?

But yes with the bases loaded and no one out I would turn to a guy like kimbrel because in that situation you could really use a strikeout

 

[VectorPrime]

He would have been fired by John Henry within a year for not doing exactly as instructed.

 

[Deus Irae]

So I was watching my Tivo'd recording of yesterday's Red Sox debacle and I started to wonder what would happen if Belichick was the manager instead of Farrell.

Here was the situation: Bottom of the 8th, Red Sox are leading 4-2, and suddenly the bullpen can't throw a strike. Three walks, nobody out and the bases are loaded with a hard-hitting catcher up next. Farrell of course simply leaves his pitcher in, and the result is a game-winning grand slam home run.

The convention in baseball is that you don't ask your closer to get six outs. Even four outs is pushing it. But what would Belichick have done? I'm suggesting that he would have said to himself: "This is the highest leverage spot in the game. I'm going to bring my star closer in now to get us out of this jam, and if necessary I'll have someone else close the 9th inning."

I'm virtually certain that would have been the optimal way to play this, but it was never going to happen.

So are these hidebound conventions a baseball vs. football thing, or was this more a Farrell vs. Belichick thing?

A bullpen that's been the second best in the league had an off day after a long stretch of excellence. Everyone who's *****ing about that loss should have their ass kicked for being so unrealistic about their expectations.

Also:

1. Farrell's used Kimbrel for more than 3 outs multiple times this season.
   
2. Had Farrell gone to Kimbrel, and Kimbrel blown the lead, the same people *****ing that Kimbrel wasn't put in early would be *****ing that Kimbrel was put in early.

He would have been fired by John Henry within a year for not doing exactly as instructed.

Pretty much

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I still wouldn't watch baseball... as someone that grew up playing it for 9 years (at a high level), I find it insanely boring to watch unless it's in the background at a social event or you're at Fenway for the atmosphere..

But from a sitting on your couch and watching perspective, i find it borderline unwatchable

 

[signbabybrady]

5 rings instead of 3

 

[borg]

He'd want to be manager and general manager but would have no patience waiting for the $1 billion in disaster contracts to expire in the next decade.
He'd dominate with the A's though

 

[SlowGettingUp]

A bullpen that's been the second best in the league had an off day after a long stretch of excellence. Everyone who's *****ing about that loss should have their ass kicked for being so unrealistic about their expectations.

Also:

1. Farrell's used Kimbrel for more than 3 outs multiple times this season.
   
2. Had Farrell gone to Kimbrel, and Kimbrel blown the lead, the same people *****ing that Kimbrel wasn't put in early would be *****ing that Kimbrel was put in early.

I absolutely agree that stuff happens, and Farrell said he didn't want to overuse Kimbrel, which is also fine. I'm just suggesting the idea of using Kimbrel in the 8th instead of the 9th (not in addition to the 9th) in a non-close situation is something that I don't think would ever even occur to Farrell.

But from a sitting on your couch and watching perspective, i find it borderline unwatchable

That's why I Tivo it and just watch some of the action - maybe 45 minutes a game is all it takes.

 

[Tony2046]

I still wouldn't watch baseball... as someone that grew up playing it for 9 years (at a high level), I find it insanely boring to watch unless it's in the background at a social event or you're at Fenway for the atmosphere..

But from a sitting on your couch and watching perspective, i find it borderline unwatchable

I enjoy listening to the game on the radio with Joe Castiglione but watching 182+ games a season is impossible. I may watch part of all of a game once or twice a week depending who they are playing.

 

[Deus Irae]

I absolutely agree that stuff happens, and Farrell said he didn't want to overuse Kimbrel, which is also fine. I'm just suggesting the idea of using Kimbrel in the 8th instead of the 9th (not in addition to the 9th) in a non-close situation is something that I don't think would ever even occur to Farrell.

He's been asked about it before, in the context of Andrew Miller and the Indians. His response was both sensible and obvious (Warning! paraphrasing ahead):

Sure, I could do that, if I had another closer behind him, the way the Indians do.

As I already noted, the very same people crying about Kimbrel not coming in early would be hammering Farrell for bringing in Kimbrel early instead of Barnes and Scott, if Kimbrel had been brought in for the 8th and blew it. That's because their argument is really about them not liking Farrell, combined with trying to out-think the room, and not about one blown lead by what's been an excellent bullpen.

 

[50-yard-line]

I absolutely agree that stuff happens, and Farrell said he didn't want to overuse Kimbrel, which is also fine. I'm just suggesting the idea of using Kimbrel in the 8th instead of the 9th (not in addition to the 9th) in a non-close situation is something that I don't think would ever even occur to Farrell.



That's why I Tivo it and just watch some of the action - maybe 45 minutes a game is all it takes.

Kimbrel sucks in non-save opportunities.

If BB coached the Sox, not much would change - maybe they win a game or two more. Maybe.

Baseball isn't football. Coaching is way down the ladder. Seems like finding talent and hiding the steroids is more important.

 

[Ring 6]

So I was watching my Tivo'd recording of yesterday's Red Sox debacle and I started to wonder what would happen if Belichick was the manager instead of Farrell.

Here was the situation: Bottom of the 8th, Red Sox are leading 4-2, and suddenly the bullpen can't throw a strike. Three walks, nobody out and the bases are loaded with a hard-hitting catcher up next. Farrell of course simply leaves his pitcher in, and the result is a game-winning grand slam home run.

The convention in baseball is that you don't ask your closer to get six outs. Even four outs is pushing it. But what would Belichick have done? I'm suggesting that he would have said to himself: "This is the highest leverage spot in the game. I'm going to bring my star closer in now to get us out of this jam, and if necessary I'll have someone else close the 9th inning."

I'm virtually certain that would have been the optimal way to play this, but it was never going to happen.

So are these hidebound conventions a baseball vs. football thing, or was this more a Farrell vs. Belichick thing?

I think a "closer" should not be a ninth inning guy but a close the door guy and I totally agree with you that you bring him in there.
Coming in to pitch one inning with a 2 run lead is the most overrated stat in sports.

 

[Ring 6]

He's been asked about it before, in the context of Andrew Miller and the Indians. His response was both sensible and obvious (Warning! paraphrasing ahead):

Sure, I could do that, if I had another closer behind him, the way the Indians do.

As I already noted, the very same people crying about Kimbrel not coming in early would be hammering Farrell for bringing in Kimbrel early instead of Barnes and Scott, if Kimbrel had been brought in for the 8th and blew it. That's because their argument is really about them not liking Farrell, combined with trying to out-think the room, and not about one blown lead by what's been an excellent bullpen.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You either were afraid to do something risky, took a stupid chance you didn't need to or, my favorite outthought yourself

 

[VectorPrime]

Why are baseball players so delicate and borderline mental cases? It takes superhuman effort to take them out of their comfort zones whether that's playing an extra inning or maybe playing a different position when needed. Belichick, who sees players as interchangeable parts, would never ever want to coach a baseball team because he'd have the whole club house revolting for daring to ask someone to play out of position for a single game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why are baseball players so delicate and borderline mental cases? It takes superhuman effort to take them out of their comfort zones whether that's playing an extra inning or maybe playing a different position when needed. Belichick, who sees players as interchangeable parts, would never ever want to coach a baseball team because he'd have the whole club house revolting for daring to ask someone to play out of position for a single game.

When BB has Malcolm Brown drop back and play free safety, ask your question again.

 

[NormZauchin]

Why are baseball players so delicate and borderline mental cases? It takes superhuman effort to take them out of their comfort zones whether that's playing an extra inning or maybe playing a different position when needed. Belichick, who sees players as interchangeable parts, would never ever want to coach a baseball team because he'd have the whole club house revolting for daring to ask someone to play out of position for a single game.

It goes beyond that. The baseball players' union has a lot more power than the football players' union. I just read an article in the Washington Post about MLB wanting to limit the time between pitches to shorten the ever lengthening time it takes to play a game. But the players' union is opposed. Another reason BB would not be comfortable in the dugout at Fenway. Also, he'd have to wear a baseball uniform and hat instead of his cutoff sweatshirts and hoodies.

 

[VectorPrime]

When BB has Malcolm Brown drop back and play free safety, ask your question again.

He has had receivers playing DB on more than one occasion.

 

[Deus Irae]

He has had receivers playing DB on more than one occasion.

And Farrell's had games where starters have pitched out of the bullpen. Hell, Farrell just had a catcher playing 3rd base. Both Farrell and Belichick try to avoid such situations.

 

[PrairiePat]

Baseball isn't football. There are 162 games. You can't bring in your closer every time you're in a tight game; you'll burn him out before the playoffs.

Farrell's bullpen has been lights out recently, and at some point you have to lean on other guys to pitch some high leverage innings.