Jump to content

Crowley Stats OPS+ with Age Seasons


hoosiers

Recommended Posts

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.

There are things the coach can effect, I'm not debating that. I just don't think there is a solution or an answer in the general sense. Some things may change with a new hitting coach, I just doubt that it would result in much of a positive if any. Of course baseball is more about OPS, didn't imply otherwise.

Some have mentioned how the Sox and Yanks are so much better than us in terms of discipline. I'd say that has very little if anything to do with the hitting coach, rather it's a team wide philosophy that is apparent in the players they get and the coaching throughout the system. Once you get to the majors, it's unlikely that you're going to have much of a change in terms of discipline.

The point is, the question has been answered as to why to keep him, you guys just disagree. That's fine, as I would be ok with getting fired, but I think some of the reasons and arguments being put forth are poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Another oft use sentence.

Sooner or later, the light bulb will click on for many...at least I think so.

The light bulb being clicked on that Crowley is an awful hitting coach? I'm not arguing with whatever other little things you're thinking of.

Gotta love being told that my light bulb is off.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Ok, what if some new guy can get through to Jones but then Pie falls apart? I think Pie under Crowley could very well be better than Jones under someone else. The argument can be made both ways.

I'd go ahead and get rid of him, but I don't think anyone we bring in is going to turn Jones into a star or cause Pie to fall apart. Those guys will do how they will do, because of how good they are and what adjustments they can make. I think its probably fairly easy to get through to a player what exactly he needs to do when they are struggling. What is difficult, is that player being able to do those things. Jones has shown he can do it before, so hopefully he can fix whatever issues he is having. I don't think he's more likely to do that under Crowley than under anyone else, or vice versa. But if you think the simple change could shake things up and help, and I think that's possible, that's a good enough reason to make the move for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then lets not have one at all..right?

This is a real poor reason.

No, I think you can go back to a post I made in one of these threads earlier today - You have to have someone who keeps an eye on the hitters and provides a respected opinion that they're doing something wrong, or at least something different. This isn't designing moon rockets, it's not hitting 98 mph fastballs, it's not a job that you go out and sign the top free agent for $80M to do. But it's something that you want someone who has an idea what he's doing, and you know will pay attention.

Crowley has been doing this for 25 years, the hitters like him, and he's kept his job through multiple changeovers in just about every other coaching and management position in the organization.

If he really doesn't have a measurable impact on team performance, he's done good work with guys like Pie, he gets kudos from Markakis and others, and multiple iterations of management apparently love him, I think that's a pretty strong case for retaining him. At least as strong as the case for firing him based on slumps and medicore hitters not hitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, if hitting coaches mean so little, why does Crow get praise for Pie?
Same reason he gets blamed for Jones, Reimold, and Scott struggling right now. People magnify the results they can see and assign credit/blame for them to the coach, especially when we hear lots of things about how they are working together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Do you beleive over the 12 years the O's offense has played above/at/or below their talent level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think you can go back to a post I made in one of these threads earlier today - You have to have someone who keeps an eye on the hitters and provides a respected opinion that they're doing something wrong, or at least something different. This isn't designing moon rockets, it's not hitting 98 mph fastballs, it's not a job that you go out and sign the top free agent for $80M to do. But it's something that you want someone who has an idea what he's doing, and you know will pay attention.

Crowley has been doing this for 25 years, the hitters like him, and he's kept his job through multiple changeovers in just about every other coaching and management position in the organization.

If he really doesn't have a measurable impact on team performance, he's done good work with guys like Pie, he gets kudos from Markakis and others, and multiple iterations of management apparently love him, I think that's a pretty strong case for retaining him. At least as strong as the case for firing him based on slumps and medicore hitters not hitting.

He has also had a ton of players here that haven't said anything about liking him, etc...and do you really want to use Angelos as a reason for why he should be kept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, if hitting coaches mean so little, why does Crow get praise for Pie?

It's not that they don't mean anything, it's that for 95% of the players they're just there to keep them from screwing something up and not realizing it for six weeks.

Every once in a while you get a case of a guy who's very messed up, apparently like Pie, and Crowley took him aside and got him to go back to doing what he did well. It's not that nobody else could do that, maybe a lot of coaches could have.

But Crowley actually did, so he gets a little gold star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that they don't mean anything, it's that for 95% of the players they're just there to keep them from screwing something up and not realizing it for six weeks.

Every once in a while you get a case of a guy who's very messed up, apparently like Pie, and Crowley took him aside and got him to go back to doing what he did well. It's not that nobody else could do that, maybe a lot of coaches could have.

But Crowley actually did, so he gets a little gold star.

Oh, so they should only get notice(good or bad) if it is reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has also had a ton of players here that haven't said anything about liking him, etc

You could say that about 99% of all coaches who've ever coached.

...and do you really want to use Angelos as a reason for why he should be kept?

No, but you almost have to think it's a positive that he's been hitting coach for Earl Weaver, Cal Sr, Tom Kelly, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazilli, Dave Trembley, Andy MacPhail, Frank Robinson, Terry Ryan, Joe Altobelli, Carl Pohlad... and Peter Angelos, among others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so they should only get notice(good or bad) if it is reported?

All of the indirect evidence is that he does great job on the unreported stuff. Otherwise the folks that are in a position to know about that (managers, GMs) wouldn't have kept him employed for 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say that about 99% of all coaches who've ever coached.

No, but you almost have to think it's a positive that he's been hitting coach for Earl Weaver, Cal Sr, Tom Kelly, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazilli, Dave Trembley, Andy MacPhail, Frank Robinson, Terry Ryan, Joe Altobelli, Carl Pohlad... and Peter Angelos, among others.

Yes of course to both points. Good posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say that about 99% of all coaches who've ever coached.

No, but you almost have to think it's a positive that he's been hitting coach for Earl Weaver, Cal Sr, Tom Kelly, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazilli, Dave Trembley, Andy MacPhail, Frank Robinson, Terry Ryan, Joe Altobelli, Carl Pohlad... and Peter Angelos, among others.

Well, in some of those cases, he was kept because the managers were told to.

If PA hired a guy and let him have his own HC, do you think Crow would still be here? I say the chances are slim to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...