The Liverpool FC Forum > Opinion

The John W Henry Interview - Part Two

<< < (43/46) > >>

1918:
To chime in with what Rip is saying and to clarify my last post, I would think Henry is leery of keeping Hodgson around. It was evident from the start with Little that he had no intention of even looking at, much less using, the information Epstein was giving him. He should have been fired a few months into 2002. He was not. It cost Henry and the Red Sox dearly. Not to get too technical and boring about baseball (but I think its appropriate given Henry's history, the hiring of Comolli, and Hodgson) but this is best illustrated by looking at something that has been used in sabremetrics for a long time, Pythagorean record. Its based on runs scored and allowed. The Red Sox's Pythagorean record in 2002 (i.e., what the record "should" have been) that year was 100-62. They actually won 93 games under Little. That result was no fluke. Little was abysmally terrible and went out of his way to ignore what Henry and Epstein told him. He should have been fired in 2002. He was plus 1 to Pythagorean in 2003, but managed to outdo himself by single handedly destroying the team in the playoffs. He was allowed to kill the team by ignoring Pedro's pitch count in game 7 in 2003. Contrast that to Francona (the man hired to replace Little). Francona has consistently won MORE games than predicted by the Pythagorean record:

2004 +2
2005 +5
2006 +5
2007 -5 (The drop was not on Francona, the Red Sox were the best team in baseball and won the World Series. The Red Sox blatantly rested players at the end of the season. They also stuck with players (Gagne) they thought might help in the playoffs which cost them a number of games at the end of the regular season).
2008 even
2009 +2
2010 +1

I think its safe to say that the lesson (painfully) was learned about the importance of having the field manager on board with the rest of management.

* Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to cheer up Baz and try to give some background on what Henry might be thinking regarding Roy. As I said before, but didn't elaborate on why, I would be shocked if they kept Roy past this season. I'm new to this footy thing, but Roy reminds me of Little. Liverpool has suffered some truly brutal defeats under his watch that should not happen. Not everyone can be the Special One, but there is a reason Jose loses a home game a decade while Roy is busy losing to Northampton and Blackpool. Henry's not dumb but he's probably wary of making too many changes too soon. Probably better to wait until a suitable candidate is available. Maybe Henry will shock me and keep Hodgson past this year, but I would not bet anything of value on it.

Banquo's Ghost:
Excellent post, 1918, thank you.

Gives me more insight into the way Mr Henry may be thinking - and encouragement too.

redandwhitesox:

--- Quote from: tubby on November 15, 2010, 01:30:46 pm ---I wonder if [renaming NESV] was done to placate all the Red Sox fans who were worrying that their involvement in Liverpool may detract from the work they're doing over there.

--- End quote ---

I doubt it. As a Red Sox fan first and foremost, I think there is very little concern among my compatriots about this. Most Sox fans trust Mr. Henry completely at this stage. Obviously he and his group have their critics, but for the most part everyone feels lucky to have Henry as the owner of their club. I imagine the change to "Fenway" was less about being Red Sox oriented and more about being less geographically specific.

I certainly do not believe it was meant to make it sound like Liverpool or anyone else is a subsidiary of a baseball park. "Fenway" evokes very strong feelings among baseball fans, even those who are not supporters of the Red Sox. By almost all (not by Yankee fans, surely) it is seen as one of the most hallowed grounds in the sport, along with Wrigley Field in Chicago. After those two stadia, both built almost a hundred years ago, all the other parks are relatively new. Nowadays most date from the 80's and 90's, or are even more recent. So certainly Henry et al did not see it as 'just' a baseball park, but as an institution that means something. I can imagine why it could seem odd, but believe me I am sure they meant no slight by it.

redandwhitesox:

--- Quote from: Rip on November 22, 2010, 08:33:50 pm ---If you're referring to whether Henry publicly backed Little after the 2003 ALCS fiasco, no, he did not. In fact, he's been quoted as saying he wanted to fire Little during the bottom of the 8th inning of Game 7 of that series (when Little's poor-decision making was rearing its ugly head). Not just, "This guy is so gone after this," Henry literally wanted to walk on the field and go into the dugout to fire Little in the middle of game, in front of 55,000 Yankee fans.

Boston was eliminated that night and their season ended, which also just happened to be when Little's 2 year contract expired (the one he signed upon being hired by Henry after Henry bought the team prior to the 2002 season). It had never been extended during those 2 seasons... I suspect he might not have been back short of winning the World Series that year*, even if he never made that Game 7 blunder; Little's managing style/philosophy was very different from Henry's and GM Theo Epstein's. So Henry was never in the position of having to give him a vote of confidence; the season was over, Little's contract expired, the Sox had no intentions of renewing it and that was that.

The Red Sox hired their current manager, Terry Francona, six weeks later and he's been with the team ever since.

*I don't recall Henry or the club commenting much on Little's contract status during the 2003 season, when speculation among fans about a possible extension would have been more prevalent (as opposed to immediately following the 2003 ALCS defeat, when it became a forgone conclusion Little wouldn't be back). Going into 2003, I think it was clear the club felt that how he would manage that year's team -- both in the regular season and in the playoffs -- would determine his future in Boston, and the fans were mostly in agreement with that. Unfortunately Little made the decision easy for Henry/Epstein.

--- End quote ---

I do remember everything you're saying here, but I believe that during the 2003 season there were some dreaded "votes of confidence" here and there for Little, much to the outrage of those fans who could see Little's ineptitude despite the winning record that year...but I might just be imagining that. I can't think of anything specific.

I think the very biggest difference between the Hodgson situation and the situation when NESV bought the Sox is that they purchased the Red Sox in the offseason. If they had purchased them during the summer, I doubt they would have canned Kerrigan as fast as they did, just because they would have wanted the team to have some stability. If they had bought LFC in the summer, I don't think we'd see Hodgson here now. It is just completely out of Henry's character to keep a manager around who he didn't hire, and who he doesn't trust is of the same mind as him. That said, there are wrinkles here based on the fact that Henry doesn't personally know football as well as he knows baseball.

On the other hand, it would also be completely out of his character (in my opinion) for him to come out and publicly condemn Hodgson during the season, that is unless the decision was absolutely made, and they replaced him the next day. Henry is a pragmatist. He isn't going to undermine his manager until the very day he's gone because there would be nothing gained in doing so (probably even then he'd praise him, if only to make the next manager feel secure that Henry isn't the type to speak out against him). In fact I speculate that he'd even go out of his way to make Roy feel safe, if Henry thought that would help win.

The upshot of my ramblings is: read nothing into Henry's statements of support for Hodgson. I think they are completely meaningless (either for or against him).

AirConGipsyRed:

--- Quote from: redandwhitesox on November 24, 2010, 09:40:04 pm ---I doubt it. As a Red Sox fan first and foremost, I think there is very little concern among my compatriots about this. Most Sox fans trust Mr. Henry completely at this stage. Obviously he and his group have their critics, but for the most part everyone feels lucky to have Henry as the owner of their club. I imagine the change to "Fenway" was less about being Red Sox oriented and more about being less geographically specific.

I certainly do not believe it was meant to make it sound like Liverpool or anyone else is a subsidiary of a baseball park. "Fenway" evokes very strong feelings among baseball fans, even those who are not supporters of the Red Sox. By almost all (not by Yankee fans, surely) it is seen as one of the most hallowed grounds in the sport, along with Wrigley Field in Chicago. After those two stadia, both built almost a hundred years ago, all the other parks are relatively new. Nowadays most date from the 80's and 90's, or are even more recent. So certainly Henry et al did not see it as 'just' a baseball park, but as an institution that means something. I can imagine why it could seem odd, but believe me I am sure they meant no slight by it.

--- End quote ---

I think tubby's response was due to me saying that I had a twinge of unhappiness in them changing the name to FSG to NESV.

I thank you for your answer and I take great comfort from it.

Thank you once again.
 ;D ;D ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page