Boston Red Sox

[Mustang Sally]

Once again, I need you guys to educate me about baseball, please.

What's the deal with the Red Sox from last year to this? If they finish the regular season with the same winning percentage they have now, they'll have 94 victories.

That's an incredible 25 games more than they won in 2012.

What's the deal? Their roster hasn't changed much, so was having to work under Bobby Valentine as manager such a strain on their delicate hearts that they can go from being a terrible team to a superior one in the space of one year? If they're professionals, why should it make such a difference?

In football, I can understand: the head coach makes decisions on the fly that can affect games....adjusting to what the other team is throwing at them and countering with their own moves. It makes perfect sense that the New Orleans Saints had such trouble without Sean Payton; his in-game moves could turn everything around several times a game.

But isn't baseball a whole different thing? Sure, there are a few decisions a manager can make during a game but the manager on the other team surely knows the same factors and the chess match will usually result in a stalemate, no?

But here's the main thing: Are players so devastated by the guy who's managing that they can't function in situations that essentially are handled by them as individuals, not as a team?

Batting is the most "individual" function in the world, no? No one can help you once you're in the batter's box. Does a batter say to himself: "I can't get a hit because I hate Bobby Valentine?"

Does a pitcher standing on the mound say: "How can they expect me to hit the corners when someone like Bobby Valentine is in the dugout?"

I'm serious about this. Are these guys such prima donnas that they'll use any excuse to fail? I remember reading Jim Bouton's book years ago, in which he said: "Give a ballplayer an excuse to lose, and he'll take it."

Is that what the Red Sox did last year? Or do the players take the chance of not playing as hard, in an effort to get the manager fired? Obviously, it would be a disgrace to accept millions of dollars a year in compensation for not playing as hard as you can, no? Is it possible for team management not to see what the players are doing if they're tanking?

How can a 25 game turnaround be explained if a team 's personnel hasn't changed substantially from last year to this year??

 

[LSN80]

I don't think we can throw the notion of a manager making some difference out of the equation. In any area of life, be it sports or "on the job", leadership often makes the difference between an employee's performance, or lack thereof. Here in Pittsburgh, Dan Bylsma was seen as the catalyst that helped take the Penguins from Stanley Cup Contenders to Stanley Cup Champions. Unlike Michele Therrien, who preceded him, Bylsma is a player's coach, and at times, players do, right or wrong, play hard for the coach they like, rather then the coach they don't.

I remember back when the Penguins won the Stanley Cup in 1991-92, under Scotty Bowman, repeating as Stanley Cup champions. But the Penguins stars, specifically, Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, hated Bowman. So much that, after a year in which the Penguins set team records for points and, at the time, the league record for most wins in a season, Lemieux and Jagr refused to practice for the Penguins with Bowman as coach. Not wanting to upset his stars, GM Craig Patrick fired the winningest coach in NHL history in order to placate his stars.

One thing to look back at on the Red Sox season is the incredible rash of injuries that the Sox had. Dustin Pedroia had by far the worst season of his career due to a thumb injury. Jacoby Ellsbury missed half the season, and David Ortiz played in less then half the season himself. All three have been both healthy and thus, far more productive this season, which is far more impactful then any acquistion. Sometimes, that's all that matters.

A simple acquisiton or two can make a world of difference as well. Look at my Pittsburgh Pirates, for example. They got uber-talented but under-peforming Francisco Liriano on a performance based salary, and all he's done is go 14-5 with a 2.53 ERA. He missed the first month of the season with a (*gasp*) injury, and the time off actually helped him. Add in Russell Martin at catcher who's stabilized the pitching staff and another MVP-like season from Andrew McCutcheon and Pedro Alvarez maturing into perhaps the best power hitter in the NL, and the Pirates, who were 79-83 last year, lead their division and are 22 games above .500. From 4 below to 22 above. That's a 13 game improvement, overall, to what projects to be 92-70.

Injuries, maturity, and yes, coaching can all influence a team's performance. Ellsbury, Pedroia and Ortiz, all healthy now, have been Boston's three best players. Adding John Lester and Ryan Dempster to the rotation has helped as well, as the Sox made smaller additions out of need, rather then signing the biggest name just to make a splash. Similar to the Pirates, really.

And getting rid of Valentine, whom the team threatened to mutiny against last season, is a factor as well. John Farrell, like Clint Hurdle for the Pirates, has had a calming influence on the Red Sox. Does that reflect poorly on the players? Sure it does. They'ld rather play for the Dan Bylsma's of the world who will be their friend than the Scotty Bowman's who will be their boss. But for a time, it often works as well.

Until the players, being the spoiled children they are who have been told their entire lives that they're special and better then everyone else, decide they can take advantage of their friend the coach, leading to the players coach being fired and another authoritative figure bringing brought in to turn them around. Until they tune him out, and the team hires a players coach again.

Vicious cycle, isn't it?

 

[Harthan]

There's really no big change, other than the managerial swap. Bobby Valentine isn't really a bad manager, but he definitely wasn't the right fit for the Red Sox. John Farrell is really the kind of guy they needed - smart, but not abrasive, able to lead while also managing a lot of big personalities on the team. Ultimately the reason the Red Sox are so much better is because just about everyone is living up to their potential. In 2012, Jacoby Ellsbury only played in 74 games and was disappointing overall; this year, he's been healthy and improved radically at the plate. Their free agent signings of Victorino and Drew have panned out really well; Pedroia and Ortiz have put in the usual. They've had plenty of productive bench players. Last year, the only thing they really had going offensively was Ortiz and Pedroia; now, all the people around them are doing exactly what they're capable of doing. The same is true by and large on the pitching side, at least in the rotation; their starters have all been better than they were last year. Their bullpen has actually been solid as well, it's just had a lot of turmoil at the top, and they seem to have finally figured it out now.

There really isn't some staggering change. The people that were there last year have gotten better, and the people who they brought in have all done very well. They really had all the talent to do this last year, they just didn't execute.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

I don't think Farrell taking over as a manger is the only reason the Redsox are much better this year, though it is a big reason. Bobby isn't a bad manager but he wasn't the right fit in Boston as he does things very different than the Sox players are used to.

For example, when the team had issues in the clubhouse normally it's kept in the clubhouse but Bobby would bring it up to the media which lead to multiple players coming out and saying that's not how things are done around here.

Another reason they are doing better though is Buchholtz and Lester have been MUCH better this year then last. Before he got injured Buchholtz was one of the best pitchers in baseball this year. Plus as much as I don't like the guy, John Lackey has done well this year which is a first since coming to Boston. They also have had far less injuries this year.

The free agent signings they made were good for the team because they avoided arrogant guys who were all about themselves and instead signed guys with talent who were good clubhouse guys like Dempster, Napoli and Gomes. You gotta figure team moral is gonna play at least a small role in how the team does.