Sure, Boston had a payroll advantage on 3 divisional foes (I notice you don't address the other one ), but those have also been pretty good teams at times. And Farrell beat them all, plus the Yankees, for 3 out of 5 years. (And Boston's high payroll is probably more evidence of GM missteps than managerial under-performance -- Pablo Sandoval, for example.) I could see the last 2 years in totality as a bit of an underachievement, but not much. They lost to a great Cleveland squad last year, and what looks like a good Astros team this year. Would have liked them to be a little more competitive in those series, but their SP struggled which was largely out of Farrell's control. And while he inherited a talented club, they finished in last place with 69 wins the year before. Farrell had to do something right to get them to 97 wins (and HFA) plus 11 more in the postseason. He's nowhere near Gardenhire playoff disappointment territory yet, even adjusting for market. Ultimately I don't think managers make a huge difference, but without any glaring errors, it seems hard to justify at the moment.