Jump to content

Crowley Stats OPS+ with Age Seasons


hoosiers

Recommended Posts

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?
I think its fair to say that Crow has done an ok - not great or terrible - job with getting production out of the established MLB talent he's had. Some guys have done better, some worse, but for the most part, the established hitters that we've had have hit at about the level you'd expect under Crowley.

But, I think you also have to consider whether he's done a good or poor job of helping younger players develop. Maybe guys like Bigbie, Matos, Hairston, and others never were going to develop, but maybe they could have been better with better tutelage during the early stages of their MLB career. This is a tougher area to grade, because where does the line go that points to whether the inability to harness their talent falls on the player, the coaching, or just a poor judgement of what that talent level was initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think its fair to say that Crow has done an ok - not great or terrible - job with getting production out of the established MLB talent he's had. Some guys have done better, some worse, but for the most part, the established hitters that we've had have hit at about the level you'd expect under Crowley.

But, I think you also have to consider whether he's done a good or poor job of helping younger players develop. Maybe guys like Bigbie, Matos, Hairston, and others never were going to develop, but maybe they could have been better with better tutelage during the early stages of their MLB career. This is a tougher area to grade, because where does the line go that points to whether the inability to harness their talent falls on the player, the coaching, or just a poor judgement of what that talent level was initially.

Right...What we do know is that they didn't develop...Now, the names you mentioned I happen to believe injuries played a large part in that lack of development.

But, people keep saying we don't know what Crow does...I can get behind that argument.

However, does that mean he gets a pass...just because we don't know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 we aren't arguing about the others. We're talking about Crow. He is unto himself in this situation.

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?

I don't know. Do you?

Does the fact that he has been kept around prove that he should be let go? That seems to be what you're getting at - that the fact he has been kept around for some reason that none of us are privy to is an indictment of his ability as a hitting coach. I'm not sure if that's actually what you're saying, but that's how it's coming off (I'm also not sure how that's logical, if it is what you're arguing).

Funny, neither does anyone else. At least LJ tried though with some of his quotes.

You are operating with a guilty till proven innocent attitude. I believe the other people are operating with the opposite.

Basically, you are demanding results that show he has been instrumental in improving the Orioles hitters - without said results, you think he should be fired. The other half is doing the opposite - demanding results that show he has been detrimental to the Orioles hitters' development/performance.

But, people keep saying we don't know what Crow does...I can get behind that argument.

However, does that mean he gets a pass...just because we don't know?

Should he get a pass? No.

But I could offer the same question back at you - should he get blamed ... just because we don't know?

Further ... simply because we do not know what he does, doesn't mean that people like AM, etc, also do not know what he does. Perhaps they do know what he is doing and feel that he is doing a good job? It's worth considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we aren't arguing about the others. We're talking about Crow. He is unto himself in this situation.
Yes he is...but those who are saying he hasn;t had anything to work with and thus shouldn't be fired should have had that same logic with other coaches and managers and I doubt they did.
I don't know. Do you?
Well, who else has been the constant since Crow has been here?
But I could offer the same question back at you - should he get blamed ... just because we don't know?
Results of poor hitting should fall, PARTLY, on the hitting coach.
Further ... simply because we do not know what he does, doesn't mean that people like AM, etc, also do not know what he does. Perhaps they do know what he is doing and feel that he is doing a good job? It's worth considering.
Ehh, I guess. Pardon me if I am not willing to give this team and those making the decisions a pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its fair to say that Crow has done an ok - not great or terrible - job with getting production out of the established MLB talent he's had. Some guys have done better, some worse, but for the most part, the established hitters that we've had have hit at about the level you'd expect under Crowley.

But, I think you also have to consider whether he's done a good or poor job of helping younger players develop. Maybe guys like Bigbie, Matos, Hairston, and others never were going to develop, but maybe they could have been better with better tutelage during the early stages of their MLB career. This is a tougher area to grade, because where does the line go that points to whether the inability to harness their talent falls on the player, the coaching, or just a poor judgement of what that talent level was initially.

As I noted earlier, if these players are actually talented, then some of them should have developed elsewhere - like Pie threatens to do here. I can't remember any castoffs rebuilding their career elsewhere over the course of Crow's career. So, it's a grey area at best, I think.

Right...What we do know is that they didn't develop...Now, the names you mentioned I happen to believe injuries played a large part in that lack of development.

But, people keep saying we don't know what Crow does...I can get behind that argument.

However, does that mean he gets a pass...just because we don't know?

I make decisions based on what I know. I also have to base decisions on incomplete information, and in doing so generally discount the evidence based on any inherent unreliability.

This has been my point all along: the causal relationship between Crow and the performance of this team is tenuous at best. While it doesn't negate the evidence and make it irrelevant, it certainly mitigates those results.

The last line seems almost comical, though. In any other situation, would we make a decision like this while admitting we have no idea of any causal relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he is...but those who are saying he hasn;t had anything to work with and thus shouldn't be fired should have had that same logic with other coaches and managers and I doubt they did.

Well, who else has been the constant since Crow has been here?

Results of poor hitting should fall, PARTLY, on the hitting coach.

Ehh, I guess. Pardon me if I am not willing to give this team and those making the decisions a pass.

I'll ask you again, have you identified any instances when the folks making this argument said that others should have been fired? I don't care what you "doubt." That's speculative at best. This is a bad line of argument.

In fact, it's those of us who don't place blame on Crowley who are dispersing blame: to the FO, and to the players. Isolating cause in Crowley is holding the least number of people accountable.

Note, too, that the knock on Crow has been one component of poor hitting: walks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask you again, have you identified any instances when the folks making this argument said that others should have been fired? I don't care what you "doubt." That's speculative at best.

No, I don't need to...I have a good memory and have been on this site for years...I know what was argued.

In fact, it's those of us who don't place blame on Crowley who are dispersing blame: to the FO, and to the players. Isolating cause in Crowley is holding the least number of people accountable.

Who in the hell is placing all blame on Crow? Give me a break...Either keep up with the argument that people have or bow out of the conversation.

I have yet to see one person say they feel if we drop Crow that all of a sudden, things will be fine..Blame is obviously all around but Crow is part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how listing former O's coaches who have been fired is an argument on the side of the fire Crow group. Ok, so they were fired while the team had underwhelming talent. However, like others have pointed out, not all those decisions were right and there's other reasons why coaches get fired than just bottomline results. It has been said that while Crowley may not be a problem, he's also not a solution, well some of those other coaches may have been problems. Or maybe they had other issues leading to their departure.

More importantly, shouldn't it be considered a positive that various people have felt highly enough of Crowley to keep him around despite mediocre at best results? Now if for some reason PA has forced him upon the various managers and GM's, that's different. But that's quite the assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he is...but those who are saying he hasn;t had anything to work with and thus shouldn't be fired should have had that same logic with other coaches and managers and I doubt they did.

You "doubt they did." That's what you're basing that line of reasoning on? That you doubt they did something in the past? Really?

Well, who else has been the constant since Crow has been here?

Clearly this proves Crowley has naked pictures of Angelos, AND proves that Crowley is not good at his job.

Ehh, I guess. Pardon me if I am not willing to give this team and those making the decisions a pass.

Who is giving anyone a pass? You'll not find anyone who swears Crowley is infallible. What you will find are people that are not willing to chalk up 12 years of poor hitting solely to Crowley.

Your arguments for firing Crowley, so far are:

1) Coaches were fired in the past for poor results, regardless of the talent level of the players they were working. Because these coaches were fired, Crowley deserves to be fired. Anyone who argues that past occurences shouldn't affect the current situation is a hypocrite because you "doubt" they held the same stance in the past. You have no proof of this, simply your assumptions.

2) Crowley hasn't been fired while others have been replaced. You have assumed that this is not due to his ability, but rather it is because he has naked pictures of Angelos. Crowley sticking around has somehow been turned into an indictment of his ability, rather than an endorsement of his merits. Beautiful. You have no proof of this, simply your assumptions.

3) 12 years of poor hitters producing poor results show that Crowley is a bad hitting coach with a bad approach. You agree yourself that we don't know exactly what Crowley does, and even admit that you "can get behind that argument" and that poor results from hitting should not be placed solely on the hitting coach.

Question: Working with the assumption the DT and the rest of the coaching staff is gone at the end of the year, do you think things would get better right now if Crowley was fired?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=1) Coaches were fired in the past for poor results, regardless of the talent level of the players they were working. Because these coaches were fired, Crowley deserves to be fired. Anyone who argues that past occurences shouldn't affect the current situation is a hypocrite because you "doubt" they held the same stance in the past. You have no proof of this, simply your assumptions.

2) Crowley hasn't been fired while others have been replaced. You have assumed that this is not due to his ability, but rather it is because he has naked pictures of Angelos. Crowley sticking around has somehow been turned into an indictment of his ability as a hitting coach. Beautiful. You have no proof of this, simply your assumptions.

3) 12 years of poor hitters producing poor results show that Crowley is a bad hitting coach with a bad approach. You agree yourself that we don't know exactly what Crowley does, and even admit that you "can get behind that argument" and that poor results from hitting should not be placed solely on the hitting coach.

My reasoning is simple...He has been the coach for 12 years and we have been a poor hitting team for 12 years. It is not all his fault but he does have to take some of the blame...Just as any other coach, in any other sport, has taken in the history of sports.

Its that simple...Everything else is window dressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate about Crowley has become absurd.

The Pro Crowley people are basically making the case that he hasn't had the talent and that he's done ok.

But you're failing to even answer SG's question about whether he's the answer or whether you have anything to point to that would give us confidence that he is the answer.

Is he the answer or not? I'll go ahead and assume that we can find at least another ok hitting coach. If Crowley's not the answer to this team's hitting problems, and he's really just an ok coach, then there's no reason NOT to make the change except timing/availability of the guy(s) we want to replace him with.

In other words, if you can't make an argument FOR Crowley, that is an argument against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate about Crowley has become absurd.

The Pro Crowley people are basically making the case that he hasn't had the talent and that he's done ok.

But you're failing to even answer SG's question about whether he's the answer or whether you have anything to point to that would give us confidence that he is the answer.

Is he the answer or not? I'll go ahead and assume that we can find at least another ok hitting coach. If Crowley's not the answer to this team's hitting problems, and he's really just an ok coach, then there's no reason NOT to make the change except timing/availability of the guy(s) we want to replace him with.

In other words, if you can't make an argument FOR Crowley, that is an argument against him.

Name me one hitting coach who IS an answer. Seriously, some empirical evidence.

You assume your conclusions.

I've explained at length my thinking on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said before that I don't care either way on Crowley. Keep him/fire him, whatever. Because I really don't feel like the hitting coach makes much of a difference and Crowley doesn't seem to really be doing anything bad or outstanding according to Hoosiers numbers. That said, for the "fire him" crowd I pose this question: if Crowley was given the Yankees lineup, do you think his coaching makes those players perform worse and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name me one hitting coach who IS an answer. Seriously, some empirical evidence.

You assume your conclusions.

I've explained at length my thinking on this.

The fact that it's possible that a new coach can come in and be better than our average coach is enough for me.

You seem to be willing to settle for average. Average isn't good enough for me, and if I owned or ran this organization I'd be looking for better.

That goes with player acquisition, development, etc., too, but there's no reason Crowley should get a pass. He's not a freaking school teacher who shows up and does an ok job. He's one of 30 hitting coaches in the major leagues who shows up and does an ok job (though I'd even dispute that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...