Jump to content

Doug Brocail is the Pitching Coach


interloper

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, TheOtherRipken said:

Would you consider that to mean you feel he is a poor pitching coach? I am struggling a little bit to see direct correlation.  

Honestly, looking at Rangers rotation I think it’s got to be one of the weakest in baseball. GMs fault or pitching coach’s fault?

Again not saying you are wrong, just not willing to jump to that conclusion. 

What I glean from the statistic is Doug doesn’t help pitchers miss bats — I posted the stat to show why fans in Arlington may have been frustrated. If our new pitching coach can help keep Bundy, Cobb, Scott, and Givens healthy, he’s fine by me. Elias must trust him to implement the things he wants implemented — his job will be to keep the staff engaged, keep their mechanics sound, and help Elias get his ideas into practice. 

Our staff will probably go through the 2nd year in about as bad a 2 year stretch as anyone in baseball will experience, I hope Doug is half coach, half psychologist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

We hate every pitching coach unless they're turning our guys into the '71 Orioles.  Or take some pitcher with AAAA stuff and make them an all-star.  Because that's what a good pitching coach does, turns a turd into a filet.

The last pitching coach I liked was George Bamberger.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

The last pitching coach I liked was George Bamberger.  

You didn't like Ray Miller? I thought he was good. Probably the best O's pitching coach of my lifetime. Granted '97 was one year but I remember it being night and day between the '96 team and the '97 team. The '96 team as I recall had a better offense but the '97 team was better on count of the pitching. Anyhow as for Brocail, we'll see what happens with him. I'm not expecting Cy Young winners. Just positive development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Palmoripken said:

You didn't like Ray Miller? I thought he was good. Probably the best O's pitching coach of my lifetime. Granted '97 was one year but I remember it being night and day between the '96 team and the '97 team. The '96 team as I recall had a better offense but the '97 team was better on count of the pitching. Anyhow as for Brocail, we'll see what happens with him. I'm not expecting Cy Young winners. Just positive development.

Whereas Ray as manager... maybe my least favorite ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

We hate every pitching coach unless they're turning our guys into the '71 Orioles.  Or take some pitcher with AAAA stuff and make them an all-star.  Because that's what a good pitching coach does, turns a turd into a filet.

Even then we hate him because he didn’t turn all the trash into gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Firmly convinced the pitching coach doesn't matter unless we've got the talent.  Leo Mazzone was proof of that, that guy was an absolute fraud.  

Bedard and Guthrie thrived under him.   Lopez and Chen regressed badly.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

If you want to know just how much the Rangers staff struggled, they signed Colon to anchor it, then had Lincicum and Tillman on contracts.

They did improve as a whole from 2015 (pre-Brocail) to 2016. Swing Strike% increased, K% increased, ERA-, FIP-, and xFIP- decreased. The only negative is BB% ticked up. They threw fewer FBs, which is a thing the Astros did the last few years under Lunhow/Elias as well. Although admittedly when he was a pitching coach for the Astros they threw a ton of FBs.

Season Team SwStr% ERA- FIP- xFIP- K% BB% FB%
2015 Rangers 8.40% 101 106 108 17.60% 8.20% 59.30%
2016 Rangers 9.50% 97 104 106 18.70% 8.60% 56.50%
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frobby said:

Bedard and Guthrie thrived under him.   Lopez and Chen regressed badly.   

Correct.  I'm convinced that Bedard and Guthrie would have turned out well.  Maybe Bedard doesn't turn out as good as he was for that short amount of time but I think he'd have been fine regardless of Leo or not.

But by and large I think we can agree that he was overall a failure here.  Only because the overall talent wasn't that good though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Correct.  I'm convinced that Bedard and Guthrie would have turned out well.  Maybe Bedard doesn't turn out as good as he was for that short amount of time but I think he'd have been fine regardless of Leo or not.

But by and large I think we can agree that he was overall a failure here.  Only because the overall talent wasn't that good though.

Nobody could solve DCab.    Loewen hurt his elbow.  Benson hurt his elbow.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...