Jump to content

Crowley Stats OPS+ with Age Seasons


hoosiers

Recommended Posts

if Crowley was given the Yankees lineup, do you think his coaching makes those players perform worse and why?

If he was given the Yankees lineup, I'd bet they perform worse. I haven't done the research, but they seemed to thrive when they got a new manager and hitting coach. Some of the player mix changed, so that could just be an observation, but it seems like they currently have above average people on the job there in NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The Pro Crowley people are basically making the case that he hasn't had the talent and that he's done ok.
Not entirely (and I'm not pro-Crowley). The argument for Crowley is essentially that he's widely regarded as a very good swing technician, that he can identify and solve problems with a guy's swing better than most coaches.
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.
This is what I think Lucky Jim is contesting the most. Your argument here implies that there is a coach that is "the answer". I, and I think LJ, would argue that there really is no such thing as "an answer" in terms of a hitting coach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think Lucky Jim is contesting the most. Your argument here implies that there is a coach that is "the answer". I, and I think LJ, would argue that there really is no such thing as "an answer" in terms of a hitting coach.

So does this mean that should keep the same voice that has watched over the last 12 years of below average offense?

This is just another example of someone showing why he shouldn't be fired...But no one is showing why he should be kept and just sitting there and saying, we don't know what he does isn't a reason why he should be kept..at least not one that has any validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely (and I'm not pro-Crowley). The argument for Crowley is essentially that he's widely regarded as a very good swing technician, that he can identify and solve problems with a guy's swing better than most coaches.

They're not presenting any evidence that this conventional wisdom is correct though. That evidence thingy goes both ways. IMO, the evidence points to him being average at best, and the conventional wisdom is either flawed or missing key portions of what a coach can do.

This is what I think Lucky Jim is contesting the most. Your argument here implies that there is a coach that is "the answer". I, and I think LJ, would argue that there really is no such thing as "an answer" in terms of a hitting coach.

I've already answered the "answer" question, but I think your response here is weak. You're basically claiming that all coaches are the same.

Where's the downside risk in terminating Crowley?

Isn't there at least some chance that a new voice, new perspective and maybe someone with a more modern philosophy (e.g., extreme focus on OBP) could better maximize the performance of this player mix on the O's?

If you admit that there's a chance, I come back to the first question. Where's the downside risk in making that change?

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.

This is he the answer thing is almost as bad as the other points. Like Drungo said, hitting coaches generally don't make that big of a difference, especially in terms of what people are mainly harping on, which is discipline.

So the answer to what? The solution to what? Who would be fit the bill? Sure maybe a new person would help somewhat, but I wouldn't call that person "a solution" or "the answer."

As far as he being the answer or whatever, well he does do have positives as have been shown by stats of players who have been with other hitting coaches as well, the players seem to like him, he fixed the swing of Pie recently, and there's no evidence that he hurts players discipline even though people like to harp on that. So he very well may be a positive.

But maybe someone else will post how the Yanks and Sox win by working the count while seemingly ignoring that they target players who do that while the O's generally haven't.

A change in the entire coaching staff would likely be a good thing by this off-season assuming things don't greatly improve. I'll support that and I'm fine with replacing the hitting coach now to see if that creates a spark, but ultimately I doubt it will have much of a long-term positive effect.

So I can see both sides of the argument, although some of the individual points are weak imo. However, I don't see why this should be such a big rallying cry. It probably doesn't matter all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just another example of someone showing why he shouldn't be fired...But no one is showing why he should be kept

Hammer this point home a million times. If there's no case for him, or if that case is weak or empty, then it's actually a case against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's the downside risk in terminating Crowley?

Isn't there at least some chance that a new voice, new perspective and maybe someone with a more modern philosophy (e.g., extreme focus on OBP) could better maximize the performance of this player mix on the O's?

If you admit that there's a chance, I come back to the first question. Where's the downside risk in making that change?

There is neither great risk in firing him nor great potential for reward in doing so. I do think we could perform better under a new hitting coach. I also think we could perform worse. The degree of better or worse is pretty tiny though.

I'm fine with getting rid of the guy, I'd make the move myself and I hope he's not here next year, think it's justifiable to can a coach after a decade when you are consistently having problems scoring, even if its not necessarily his fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is he the answer thing is almost as bad as the other points. Like Drungo said, hitting coaches generally don't make that big of a difference, especially in terms of what people are mainly harping on, which is discipline.

So the answer to what? The solution to what? Who would be fit the bill? Sure maybe a new person would help somewhat, but I wouldn't call that person "a solution" or "the answer."

As far as he being the answer or whatever, well he does do have positives as have been shown by stats of players who have been with other hitting coaches as well, the players seem to like him, he fixed the swing of Pie recently, and there's no evidence that he hurts players discipline even though people like to harp on that. So he very well may be a positive.

But maybe someone else will post how the Yanks and Sox win by working the count while seemingly ignoring that they target players who do that while the O's generally haven't.

A change in the entire coaching staff would likely be a good thing by this off-season assuming things don't greatly improve. I'll support that and I'm fine with replacing the hitting coach now to see if that creates a spark, but ultimately I doubt it will have much of a long-term positive effect.

So I can see both sides of the argument, although some of the individual points are weak imo. However, I don't see why this should be such a big rallying cry. It probably doesn't matter all that much.

Its funny how over the years, this sentence has been written so many times about this organization....and yet, despite these little things not mattering much at all, we still are the laughing stock of the sport.

Perhaps if we stopped saying that and actually took care of the little things, we wouldn't be such a pathetic organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is he the answer thing is almost as bad as the other points. Like Drungo said, hitting coaches generally don't make that big of a difference, especially in terms of what people are mainly harping on, which is discipline.

So the answer to what? The solution to what? Who would be fit the bill? Sure maybe a new person would help somewhat, but I wouldn't call that person "a solution" or "the answer."

As far as he being the answer or whatever, well he does do have positives as have been shown by stats of players who have been with other hitting coaches as well, the players seem to like him, he fixed the swing of Pie recently, and there's no evidence that he hurts players discipline even though people like to harp on that. So he very well may be a positive.

But maybe someone else will post how the Yanks and Sox win by working the count while seemingly ignoring that they target players who do that while the O's generally haven't.

A change in the entire coaching staff would likely be a good thing by this off-season assuming things don't greatly improve. I'll support that and I'm fine with replacing the hitting coach now to see if that creates a spark, but ultimately I doubt it will have much of a long-term positive effect.

So I can see both sides of the argument, although some of the individual points are weak imo. However, I don't see why this should be such a big rallying cry. It probably doesn't matter all that much.

1. How about the answer to 2-strike hitting, or advancing runners, or in-game strategies, or forcing yourself to take more pitches against young pitchers that you haven't seen before? There are a ton of things that a hitting coach can effect, and not all of them show up with big swings in the stat sheet. Baseball is about more than OPS.

2. Nobody's defending the O's players, or suggesting that Crowley's turning the 27 Yankees into the little sisters of the poor. It's a straw man, so hopefully people won't use that any more.

3. The timing of a change is another discussion altogether. I'm generally debating whether he should have the job, but I'm not sure how much would be gained by hiring a new hitting coach now as opposed to after the season. In that respect, I actually don't mind him staying on until the offseason, assuming AM isn't able to put together his staff of the future mid-season. Either way, as SG has said numerous times, nobody's expecting to fire Trembley and suddenly watch our little sisters of the poor become the 27 Yankees either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this mean that should keep the same voice that has watched over the last 12 years of below average offense?

This is just another example of someone showing why he shouldn't be fired...But no one is showing why he should be kept and just sitting there and saying, we don't know what he does isn't a reason why he should be kept..at least not one that has any validity.

Sure they have.

Stats have been shown that show he does a solid job with players who have also been with other coaches.

Quotes have been shown praising him.

It has been said that the players like him.

Specific success stories have been mentioned.

He's apparently a good swing technician.

Many baseball people seem to think he is good at his job.

I guess you don't think any of those are valid, so oh well, but the question has been answered.

There are reasons to get rid of him as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how over the years, this sentence has been written so many times about this organization....and yet, despite these little things not mattering much at all, we still are the laughing stock of the sport.

Perhaps if we stopped saying that and actually took care of the little things, we wouldn't be such a pathetic organization?

Well I doubt we're really losing out on this particular little thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is neither great risk in firing him nor great potential for reward in doing so. I do think we could perform better under a new hitting coach. I also think we could perform worse. The degree of better or worse is pretty tiny though.

I'm fine with getting rid of the guy, I'd make the move myself and I hope he's not here next year, think it's justifiable to can a coach after a decade when you are consistently having problems scoring, even if its not necessarily his fault.

I understand the point about degrees, but I think the O's could actually be the exception. I'm not saying it's VERY likely, but even if a new guy just got through to Jones where Crowley somehow couldn't, it would be a huge upgrade.

We also have to consider that possibility that Crowley's simply stronger at points 1,2,3, or personality type A/B whereas another coach might be stronger at points 4,5,6 and personality types C/D. If we go by the posts of many in the other threads, players don't exactly lose their skills over night, so it's entirely possible that Crowley's already done what he can with this group and a new voice could effectively supplement his knowledge in other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...