Atkins: the ultimate litmus test

[Diehard_O's_Fan]

Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe this?

Not that it isn't possible.

I think Garrett Atkins is still a good hitter and I think last year was just a fluke. Every hitter has a season or two where they struggle and don't hit as good as they normally do.

Garrett Atkins is also only 30 years old. He is not old and still has alot of good years left in him. If the guy was 35 and struggling to hit then I would wonder why the Orioles signed him. The guy is going to turn out to be a very nice acquisition by AM. Just wait and see.

Andrew,

[SrMeowMeow]

I think Atkins will be very bad. However, I have no problem with pretty much any one year deal ever.

[Hank Scorpio]

I'm kind of torn on Atkins.

He demonstrated good pitch recognition early on in his career and I think he can get it back. That's not the typically the type of thing that just goes away, like bat speed. (Which some claim he's lost as well, but he's 30 which is a little early for drastic declines.)

I dunno, I don't think Atkins will be an abject failure and not just because I've been drinking any kool aid or anything. There are definite historical indicators that he can pull it together, and definite historical indicators that he'll continue to suck.

We'll see.

[Art Wing]

I really feel like there must be something we aren't able to see from a distance.

Maybe I have too much blind faith in AM, but this move makes little sense otherwise-- so, I will prefer to believe that AM sees and/or knows something that we don't to make this a good move.

[SteveA]

Last year, the board was pretty much unanimously opposed to the Adam Eaton move. I think it was the only move that people were that strongly against (I think there were mixed feelings on Wigginton and Freel, and fairly positive feeling on Hill, Uehara, Izturis, and Pie. But I don't recall anyone liking the Eaton move.

And in that case, it turned out we were right and Andy was wrong.

Now we have another instance where pretty much everyone is negative. Even the "positive" posts are mostly of the nature of "well, maybe Andy sees something that we don't".

I don't know about litmus test, but it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'm not sure that it's that big of a deal. Maybe AM and Trembley were watching films and found a flaw. They've both been around baseball enough to know what to look for. I would certainly have felt better if Crowley had seen some film, but I don't think it's the end of the world.

I wonder how much video MacPhail watches--or when he does watch it, how much stock he puts in his own insights, never having been a coach, manager, or a player at any significant level.

Finding technical flaws is what's coaches and scouts are paid to do.

[byrdz]

The Orioles weren't the only team after Atkins. The Red Sox and Mariners are two more teams that I know of and there were more probably. So it's not like the Orioles were the only team willing to go out on a limb for Atkins. Maybe the amount they paid him is the only difference but the Orioles are going to have to pay more for any player.

Something to consider is maybe the Don Baylor/Alan Cockrell hitting coach factor. Baylor came in prior to the 2008 season. They have two distinctive teaching styles. Baylor is more about patience and Cockrell more about aggressiveness. Although, his initial struggles came while Cockrell was there in 2007, it was still a good season for Atkins. Crowley may fit the Cockrell mold more than the Baylor mold so maybe he's the right coach for Atkins in that regard. Here's some articles I've found that talk about his mechanics and the coaching changes:

On Cockrell's aggressive style:

For players like Atkins, Matt Holliday, Chone Figgins, and to some extent Clint Barmes and Troy Tulowitzki, all players who have benefited under Cockrell, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as their swings and style of play are suited to an aggressive approach.

Cockrell on Atkin's Mechanics in 2007:

"The mechanics mirror each other," Cockrell said. "There's just not any difference. I don't think there's anything mechanically that he should work on."

Cockrell said Atkins' work in the indoor batting cage and in batting practice has been "great." And Atkins has the ability to keep the barrel of the bat in the strike zone longer than most players.

You become a little less aggressive and probably more subconsciously than anything else," Cockrell said. "Really, all I said to him just a few days ago was 'trust your swing path right now and try to stay aggressive.' "

Atkins' strength has been the ability to drive the ball to the opposite-field gap - right-center field in his case. That as been less evident this season, which he began hitting third - where Atkins became a fixture in the lineup soon after the All-Star break last year - before manager Clint Hurdle dropped Atkins to fifth May 1.

So Atkins' history and Cockrell's scrutiny of Atkins' swings this year compared with the past two suggest there's no reason to believe he'll continue to muddle along. Or that his current .329 on-base percentage and .360 slugging percentage are red flags, warning signals to be heeded.

"He's just a few hard-hit balls away from getting comfortable again and getting his rhythm back and the aggressiveness back," Cockrell said. "And when he does, this'll all be a moot point."

Atkin's early days:

Garrett was now viewed as a complete hitter. He had opened up his stance and was pulling the ball with authority. He learned to use his bottom hand from coach Alan Cockrell, the same man who taught Jim Thome his power stroke when he was a minor leaguer with the Cleveland Indians. Garrett was rewarded with a September call-up and hit .357 in spot duty.

Garret has wonderful hands and a keen batting eye. His swing is smooth and natural, and he gets tremendous leverage on batted balls. He has been hitting with a major-leaguer’s approach since childhood, so when an adjustment is needed, it’s never more than a minor one. This accounts for Garrett's consistency at the plate. His greatest talent may be the way he works pitchers. Often they give Garrett exactly what he is hoping for.

Recent Mariner's article says Atkin's attributes 2009 June surge to mechanical tweak:

Both are very good, though somewhat inflated by playing half his games in Denver. Atkins is also off to a slow start at the plate this season and nearly got demoted to Class AAA until a recent surge he attributes to mechanical changes in his swing kept him in the majors.

Slow starter:

"I have never hit a lot of homers in the spring," said Atkins, "but it was good to hit a ball like that to help the confidence a little bit."

The key for Atkins, explained hitting instructor Alan Cockrell, is using the big part of the field. When Atkins lives in the gaps, he becomes an offensive monster, collecting doubles and home runs. His pedestrian spring — he hit .261 — prompted comparisons to last season when he was batting .220 on May 27.

Scouts believe Atkins was a bit too pull-conscious early on. Atkins said that's not the case this spring, dismissing the idea that he would become home-run happy because of a potential future contract bonanza.

Atkins is a line-drive hitter. In fact, he has made more hard outs than any Rockie the past three seasons. Atkins rarely shows emotion, other than his dry quips. That demeanor goes a long way in explaining his success.

He's not one of those guys that's going to be changing his stance," outfielder Matt Holliday said. "He can repeat and find the barrel on pitches as well as anybody."

Injuries before the 2009 season and team struggles:

Atkins is out of action with right hip flexor and right groin injuries, but the team is treating those aggressively, and they are not expected to be problems when the regular season begins.

Atkins turned out to be a poster child for what went wrong last year, as the Rockies posted just a 74-88 record en route to landing third in the NL West. As a team, Colorado dropped from hitting .276 with RISP in 2007 to .256 in '08.

Many run-producing regulars experienced downturns in their average with RISP. Brad Hawpe went from .315 to .259, Todd Helton from .306 to .267 and Troy Tulowitzki from .279 to .245. Even the biggest star, Matt Holliday, had a falloff, going from .333 to .287.

[Frobby]

I wonder how much video MacPhail watches--or when he does watch it, how much stock he puts in his own insights, never having been a coach, manager, or a player at any significant level.

Finding technical flaws is what's coaches and scouts are paid to do.

I would be amazed if MacPhail did not have a scouting report from his staff saying Atkins had developed a flaw in his swing. Maybe more than one. What he didn't have was detailed input from Crowley. Nevertheless, he definitely said, at the time of the signing, that he had confidence that Crowley could hep Atkins.

[Stotle]

Not necessarily. Teams sometimes get seduced into ignoring obvious faults, while convincing themselves that they're smarter than everybody else. Bad teams do it often.

"He just needs a little correction, and we have the coach to do it."

Teams do this a lot in the draft, too.

[Mackus]

I don't see how anyone can like the move once it was decided that Atkins was going to be playing 1B, and it wasn't all that great even when he was going to play 3B.

Yes, there is a chance he bounces back, but this isn't a case of a guy having one off year, he's on a 3-year decline that bottomed out as a below replacement player, especially from 1B, last season.

I don't like Michael Aubrey, but I think there is at least an even-money chance that he is the better player between him and Atkins.

I think this will go down as easily the worst move MacPhail has made in his tenure here. Of course, its only a 1-year commitment so it will be erased pretty quickly.

[wildcard]

The Orioles weren't the only team after Atkins. The Red Sox and Mariners are two more teams that I know of and there were more probably. So it's not like the Orioles were the only team willing to go out on a limb for Atkins. Maybe the amount they paid him is the only difference but the Orioles are going to have to pay more for any player.

Something to consider is maybe the Don Baylor/Alan Cockrell hitting coach factor. Baylor came in prior to the 2008 season. They have two distinctive teaching styles. Baylor is more about patience and Cockrell more about aggressiveness. Although, his initial struggles came while Cockrell was there in 2007, it was still a good season for Atkins. Crowley may fit the Cockrell mold more than the Baylor mold so maybe he's the right coach for Atkins in that regard. Here's some articles I've found that talk about his mechanics and the coaching changes:

On Cockrell's aggressive style:

Cockrell on Atkin's Mechanics in 2007:

Atkin's early days:

Recent Mariner's article says Atkin's attributes 2009 June surge to mechanical tweak:

Slow starter:

Injuries before the 2009 season and team struggles:

Great research and I think you may be on to something here. However I have couple of corrections and a comment.

Cockrell who was Atkins minor league coach at Colorado Spring was the Rockies hitting coach until he was fired after the 2008 season. Baylor because the hitting coach in 2009 along with former Dodger and Pirate manager Jim Tracy who became bench coach in 2009. Clint Hurdle, Atkins manager since he came to the majors, was on the hot seat from the beginning last year and was fired on May 29th. It had to be a distraction to the team and to Atkins to have the manager that had taken them to the 2007 World Series, be shadowed by a bench coach that was obviously the next manager in waiting.

So last year Atkins lost two baseball men that he trusted and who had faith in him - his manager Hurdle and his hitting coach Cockrell. After a bad May, Atkins lost his everyday job at 3rd and shared time at 3B and at 1B for the rest of the season.

I think we might have found why MacPhail thinks that if the O's management and coaching staff shows confidence in Atkins he may respond with a good year at the plate.

[JTrea81]

This is where MacPhail's nephew comes into play. Lee MacPhail is the Director of Professional Scouting, so he's the one who would relay to Andy the info about Atkins.

[sangar]

The more I think about it, we kind of know what to expect from Tejada, Millwood and Gonzalez. If any of them stray significantly from expectations, I don't think anyone will blame the front office.

Atkins is a whole different story. The guy's numbers have dropped significantly three years in a row, he hasn't been a good hitter away from Coors Field, and he was just downright awful last year. Yet, the O's office thinks it sees something there.

To me, this is a real litmus test of our organization. It's not like we paid him chump change, $4.5 mm guaranteed is real money. Just for example, it's $1.5 mm more than we'll be paying Wigginton, who also is right-handed and can play either corner IF spot, and who was much better in 2008 when we signed him than Atkins was in 2009. So, this is a move on which to judge the acumen of our front office. To me, even a .750-ish OPS wouldn't justify this move. The O's could get that from Wigginton without spending a dime on Atkins. This move only becomes worthwhile if Atkins puts up an .800-ish OPS and knocks in 90+ runs. If that happens, I'll be the first to congratulate the front office for seeing a guy who just needed some corrections. If he fails miserably, the front office will look stupid, and if he is just so-so, I still say the move made no sense.

If he accomplishes this do you think it will be enough to exercise his option?

My personal expectations aren't this high but the manor in which AM signed him was out of character and so has me very curious. I think you're essentially right here.

[Mackus]

I think Garrett Atkins is still a good hitter and I think last year was just a fluke. Every hitter has a season or two where they struggle and don't hit as good as they normally do.

You are aware that if he hits like he did even in 2008, without adjusting for the advantage he got from Coors Field, that he'd still be a vastly below average 1B, right? He'd have to get all the way back to near his 2007 numbers to be an average 1B offensively.

[Dr. Andrews]

Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe this?

Not that it isn't possible.

That he's done it before?