Jump to content

Crowley Stats OPS+ with Age Seasons


hoosiers

Recommended Posts

Because, in the end, the "results" of a hitting coach must be judged not in the abstract, but rather on the talent level of the team he is coaching, right? It wouldn't be fair to hold Crow accountable for doing a good job with sub-par talent?

You are talking AA talent...If he could be middle of the pack with a bunch of Fahey's and Montanez's, then he would be doing a great job.

That isn't really a good example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You are talking AA talent...If he could be middle of the pack with a bunch of Fahey's and Montanez's, then he would be doing a great job.

That isn't really a good example.

I'm just trying to illuminate the underlying disagreement: that "results" aren't abstract - they're based on an underlying talent level.

It may be that the Orioles have actually had, say, an "average" MLB talent level over the last eight years or so, and thus their "average" (to slightly below) performance is no kind of accomplishment.

To the extent that you agree that the Orioles have done a poor job of signing FAs and a poor job of developing prospects and a poor job of trading for good talent, however (and I think that's a pretty conservative summary of your past opinions), do you think the Orioles talent level has been average?

The real point of disagreement may be that you simply don't see evidence that the O's numbers are weighed down by that true talent level. Others want to see some numbers so that they can understand the context.

That's it. I just wanted to point out that, once you accept that it matters who he's coaching, taking some time to determine what that means in terms of performance is necessary.

Like I said, you may have already done this, internally, cocktail-napkin-style, and decided it's not a big enough difference. That's fine. But even to you, according to your response here, "results" aren't, in fact, "all that matters."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This implies that those moves were correct, though.

Incorrect decisions in the past, or institutional scapegoating of other coaches, doesn't make this the right move now.

This is exactly what I was thinking. A wrong decision in the past should not lead to future wrong decisions simply because that precedent has already been made.

Team performance and results.

It's interesting to watch this go back and forth. I think that everyone would agree that over the past 12 years, the players' talent level on the Orioles has been pretty low. Acknowledging that there is only so much a coach can do (i.e. even the best hitting coach isn't turning Larry Bigbie into Babe Ruth), then one surely has to recognize that part of the reason the team-wide results from the past 12 years have been so poor is because the true talent level of the players is so poor.

Due to this, it's a little misconceiving to simply look at the Orioles' hitting as a whole over this period and say, "See, they did poorly, clearly Crowley sucks." Instead, you need to look at individual's performance with and without Crowley. This way, instead of comparing a below-average player's performance to the rest of the league (a comparison that will surely come up lacking), you are comparing a player's performance only to himself - and therein, you can find the true effect Crowley is having on players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's certainly some interesting argument strategies going on by the fire-Crowley crowd. I don't really see the point in debating people who don't think it matters that the players haven't been good and that Crowley has generally gotten as good or better results than you'd expect with individual players who have also played with other hitting coaches. Or that young hitters who have come up with patient approaches have remained patient.

But again, I'd be fine with him getting fired, but that's not because I think he's a bad coach, it's because it may shake things up some and it would be nice if we had a coaching staff totally from the outside to change the culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the absence of anything of substance from you (basically admitted above), I'll gladly take the meaningless ones.

Good for you..glad to know actual results, in a large sample size, don't mean anything to you and glad to know that you keep dodging the questions about the other coaches and managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you..glad to know actual results, in a large sample size, don't mean anything to you and glad to know that you keep dodging the questions about the other coaches and managers.

SG: re: the other coaches and managers: A wrong decision in the past should not lead to future wrong decisions simply because that precedent has already been made.

re: "large sample size": I think that everyone would agree that over the past 12 years, the players' talent level on the Orioles has been pretty low. Acknowledging that there is only so much a coach can do (i.e. even the best hitting coach isn't turning Larry Bigbie into Babe Ruth), then one surely has to recognize that part of the reason the team-wide results from the past 12 years have been so poor is because the true talent level of the players is so poor.

Due to this, it's a little misconceiving to simply look at the Orioles' hitting as a whole over this period and say, "See, they did poorly, clearly Crowley sucks." Instead, you need to look at individual's performance with and without Crowley. This way, instead of comparing a below-average player's performance to the rest of the league (a comparison that will surely come up lacking), you are comparing a player's performance only to himself - and therein, you can find the true effect Crowley is having on players.

---

Just curious if you have a response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for you..glad to know actual results, in a large sample size, don't mean anything to you and glad to know that you keep dodging the questions about the other coaches and managers.

Not dodging any questions. I have not researched the fate of the other coaches and managers and have no issue admitting as much. This was a thread about TC.

I've only posted and attempted to defend my opinion of TC as hitting coach. In the absence of a sound and interesting discussion on that topic, I'll vacate my thread here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SG: re: the other coaches and managers: A wrong decision in the past should not lead to future wrong decisions simply because that precedent has already been made.

So, then you think Hargrove should still be the manager or Wiley should still be the pitching coach? Correct?

re: "large sample size": I think that everyone would agree that over the past

12 years, the players' talent level on the Orioles has been pretty low. Acknowledging that there is only so much a coach can do (i.e. even the best hitting coach isn't turning Larry Bigbie into Babe Ruth), then one surely has to recognize that part of the reason the team-wide results from the past 12 years have been so poor is because the true talent level of the players is so poor.
Why is it ok to use this excuse for Crow but not the other coaches/managers? And I am even talking from an organizational perspective..Not neccassarily just a fan's perspective.
Due to this, it's a little misconceiving to simply look at the Orioles' hitting as a whole over this period and say, "See, they did poorly, clearly Crowley sucks." Instead, you need to look at individual's performance with and without Crowley. This way, instead of comparing a below-average player's performance to the rest of the league (a comparison that will surely come up lacking), you are comparing a player's performance only to himself - and therein, you can find the true effect Crowley is having on players.
The problem is, when are these players here...Where did they come from? Did Crow actually fix something or did those players happen to come here and have a good year in our park? Were any of the guys hurt before they came here and got healthy in baltimore? Did anyone have a Markakis-like problem before they came here?(ie just had a baby, big contract, more responsibilities, etc...) That is what I mean about the proper context.

What is kind of amusing in all of this debate are the Crow supporters are throwing every excuse in the book at you...But yet they don't apply those same excuses the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, then you think Hargrove should still be the manager or Wiley should still be the pitching coach? Correct?

There are lots of reasons to fire a coach. Results are among them. I'm not sure if Wiley was a good communicator, if he worked well with other coaches, or any of that. I also don't assume that he should have been fired. Which isn't the same as saying that he should still be the coach, because we have no idea what might have happened in those intervening hypothetical years.

re: "large sample size": I think that everyone would agree that over the past Why is it ok to use this excuse for Crow but not the other coaches/managers? And I am even talking from an organizational perspective..Not neccassarily just a fan's perspective.

Why do the Orioles' decisions in the past bind them to behavior in the future? I don't see any evidence that the people arguing against you now were calling for any Orioles coaches to be fired. I'll re-iterate: a decision in the past which was incorrect should have no bearing on a decision going forward. We're not bound to keep firing people for the wrong reasons because we have a history of doing it. Nor do we have to fire them out of "fairness" to those who got jobbed before.

The problem is, when are these players here...Where did they come from? Did Crow actually fix something or did those players happen to come here and have a good year in our park?

What is kind of amusing in all of this debate are the Crow supporters are throwing every excuse in the book at you...But yet they don't apply those same excuses the other way.

What excuses are you talking about? I haven't made any excuses, nor have I run away from any arguments. I've consistently pointed out the illogic of your positions, but acknowledge that they are well-earned by 12 years of frustration.

That said, generally, when a employee is already in a job, the burden of showing he should no longer be in the job falls on the party that wants him ousted.

I think it's absolutely right that if you want to identify either good or poor performance from Crowley based on results that we need to look at whether Crowley had some causal role in the improved play of anyone who came here. This has been my fundamental point all along: that some differential or regression analysis would need to be done to isolate Crowley's effect on the team. You've got a multi-year sample, so it could be done.

That's why I haven't glommed onto the sketchy posts about before- and after- results. I don't think they're reliable enough.

Understanding that, however, and thus throwing results out the window, what do we base the argument on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of reasons to fire a coach. Results are among them. I'm not sure if Wiley was a good communicator, if he worked well with other coaches, or any of that. I also don't assume that he should have been fired. Which isn't the same as saying that he should still be the coach, because we have no idea what might have happened in those intervening hypothetical years.

They were fired because of results..or lack there of. Yes, there could have been other issues.

But my point is simple....People keep saying that Crow hasn't had the talent...Well, that has been the case for every coach and manager, right? So, why have they gotten fored and Crow been exempt?

And, as I said, take this away from your own personal perspective...Why hasn't PA allowed it? Why has every coach brought in been told they have to have Crow as their HC?

What excuses are you talking about? I haven't made any excuses, nor have I run away from any arguments. I've consistently pointed out the illogic of your positions, but acknowledge that they are well-earned by 12 years of frustration.
Quit crying..I wasn't talking about you...I know, as a lawyer, you believe everything is about YOU, but its not. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, then you think Hargrove should still be the manager or Wiley should still be the pitching coach? Correct?

What I think is that reasons for firing previous managers/coaches should have no basis for firing for Crowley. Either you think Crowley should be fired based on his merits (or because you simply need change), or you don't. Saying, "well they fired other coaches in the past even though they shouldn't have!" as a defense for firing Crowley is pretty silly, imo.

re: "large sample size": I think that everyone would agree that over the past Why is it ok to use this excuse for Crow but not the other coaches/managers? And I am even talking from an organizational perspective..Not neccassarily just a fan's perspective.

Couple of things here -

1) I've actually used this same reasoning as a defense of DT - is Brian Roberts or Felix Pie being hurt a reflection on DT's managerial skills? Is Mike Gonzalez blowing saves and then being placed on the DL a reflection on DT's managerial skills? Is the lack of hitting by Adam Jones, Matt Wieters, and Nolan Reimold a reflection of DT's managerial skills? Is AM's signing of Atkins a reflection on DT's managerial skills? No. To some degree, the team's poor performance cannot be placed on DT shoulders. Now, if you want to talk about what DT has done wrong you can point to bullpen management, how he sets the lineup, etc.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think that the "poor players" argument should only be used to defend Crowley, and I've made mention of it before with regard to DT. That isn't to say that I think either is the man for the job long-term, but is rather just to point out that people need to be aware of what they are working with when they judge the results.

Simply saying that Crowley is a below-average hitting coach because of the Orioles' failures over the past 12 years without acknowledging that they've had below-average players, period, is not a fair assesment, in my mind.

2) I think the ways in which a manager affects the game are a lot more obvious than the way a hitting coach does. You can see who DT brings in from the bullpen. You can see what batting order he uses. You can see how he decides who should be playing and who should be sitting.

Nobody knows exactly what Crowley is doing.

The problem is, when are these players here...Where did they come from? Did Crow actually fix something or did those players happen to come here and have a good year in our park?

Good question. I don't have the answer. Do you? Does anyone? The answer is ... no.

I know the counter to this argument is to say, "well what's the argument for keeping him?" And I don't have a great argument for keeping him. Personally, I am rather of the mind that he should be fired at the end of the season, as hiring a hitting coach for the interim won't provide better results than keeping him (and I think the new manager should be able to pick whomever they want).

What is kind of amusing in all of this debate are the Crow supporters are throwing every excuse in the book at you...But yet they don't apply those same excuses the other way.

I posted in the poll that I am undecided as to whether he should be fired, based on merit. I don't buy the "poor offense for 12 years" argument as that's based upon the fact that the Orioles have just plain stunk for the past 12 years. Nobody can prove that the Orioles hitters performed better during that period because of him, just as nobody can prove that the Orioles hitters performed worse because of him (or performed worse due to the lack of somebody else being HC). And that's why I'm questioning this line of the argument.

At the end of the year, when the Orioles hire a new manager, they should allow him to pick a new hitting coach. I hope they clean out all the managerial staff because at this point, I think they simply need a new beginning. I do think there is some merit in that argument (and I believe that's what happened with the Ravens/Billick to a degree).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think is that reasons for firing previous managers/coaches should have no basis for firing for Crowley. Either you think Crowley should be fired based on his merits (or because you simply need change), or you don't. Saying, "well they fired other coaches in the past even though they shouldn't have!" as a defense for firing Crowley is pretty silly, imo.
I agree...But you can't use the argument that Crow has had no talent to work with and not use the same argument for everyone else...Well I guess you could, but you would be a hypocrite.
But to answer your question, no, I don't think that the "poor players" argument should only be used to defend Crowley, and I've made mention of it before with regard to DT. That isn't to say that I think either is the man for the job long-term, but is rather just to point out that people need to be aware of what they are working with when they judge the results.

Simply saying that Crowley is a below-average hitting coach because of the Orioles' failures over the past 12 years without acknowledging that they've had below-average players, period, is not a fair assesment, in my mind.

But others seem to.

Also, Crow has been allowed to stay...In other words, the incoming managers have basically been told, you must keep him around...Why? Why have they allowed new pitching coaches, new bench coaches, etc...but Crow has been the guy they must keep?

Good question. I don't have the answer. Do you? Does anyone? The answer is ... no.
No I don't...but that's why the numbers Hoosiers and Slappy showed are only so relevant...Yes, they did a good job with the research of it but unless put in the proper cotnext, the value of them only means so much.

If the Orioles fired Crow today and Reimold and Scott(2 guys with unlucky BABIP) got hot and each had an 850 OPS by mid June, does that mean Crow was the problem or that these guys just had some things normalize? Some people would be jumping up and down and saying Crow was terrible and that the performance of Scott and Reimold reflect that...But, barring some big mechanical change that Crow missed, those people would be dead wrong.

Its the same thing here...if player A spent 2002(and i am making this scenario up) on and off the DL and ended up with a 680 OPS but came here in 2003, healthy, and put up an 800 OPS, is that because Crow is so great or is it because he was healthy? That's my point..The numbers shown only mean so much if you don't know the whole story.

I know the counter to this argument is to say, "well what's the argument for keeping him?" And I don't have a great argument for keeping him. Personally, I am rather of the mind that he should be fired at the end of the season, as hiring a hitting coach for the interim won't provide better results than keeping him (and I think the new manager should be able to pick whomever they want).
Funny, neither does anyone else. At least LJ tried though with some of his quotes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...