Markakis speaks out

[Slappy]

I've seen and heard enough to think that Crowley probably isn't a large part of the problem. However, if we do replace him, it is a good opportunity to add to some kind of organizational philosophy on hitting by choosing carefully.

[Sports Guy]

It's Zriebec, not Zriebac. But what did RShack say Zriebec made up? He's making the same point I did in my prior post -- Markakis said nothing negative about Crowley, and the statement that Crowley's approach is aggressive comes from Zriebec, not Markakis, so it is unclear why this article or Markakis's statements "prove" anything about Crowley one way or another.

Well, I never said Nick said that...I just said, there is some evidence. The fact that you read it that way doesn't mean that's what I meant or even implied.

I'm not defending Crowley here. I've been saying for at least three years now that it's fine with me if they replace him. But I just don't think this article is "evidence" against him.

Really? That has nothing to do what anything I have said. I said that was further evidence that he has an aggressive approach and with all the Crow threads on here lately, people have said this and some of the posters have complained that there is no evidence of this...So unless you feel he is making it up or lying, then that is just further evidence.

[El Gordo]

On the one hand you have players and baseball people praising Crowley for his skill as a hitting coach. Many of these people are familiar with MONEYBALL. On the other you have numbers showing that his teams consistently have lower than average OBP. There could be many reasons for this including the club's preference in selecting players. My guess is Crowley tries to do what every hitting coach does, that is maximize a players strengths and minimize their weaknesses. In many cases that may result in aggressive hitters, if their pitch recognition is poor. CPatt is a good example of this. There is only so much one can do about improving this sort of thing. I would still like to see an article wHere Crowley is interviewd about, or his hitting philosophy is discussed in depth(no stats please just theory). I think it is regularly mischaracterized around here.

[foxfield]

10+ years of the same problems every year...The one constant has been Crow.

You do the math.

BTW, pretty funny how Shack hasn't answered me...Guess we can assume he believes Zrebiac is making stuff up.

So many arguements here seem to miss the point as if to prove someone else right or wrong. 10 + years of problems.....Crow is the one constant.

For someone who posts in such detail, this is a gross oversimplification even if it is not wrong. I mean Crow being here for 10+ years......

Really, what we have is 10+ years of lying to ourselves that we were close to being good. This has covered different approaches by the owner, different GM's coaches, free agents, prospects, has beens and never were's. What has been constant is that we are not very good.

[AnythingO's]

I'm not defending Crowley here. I've been saying for at least three years now that it's fine with me if they replace him. But I just don't think this article is "evidence" against him. All it does, IMO, is show that Markakis believes what you, I and pretty much anyone else believes -- that a lot of his teammates have a lousy approach at the plate and need to get their heads screwed on straight. Nothing Markakis said suggests that it's the hitting coach's fault. Which doesn't mean that it isn't his fault, but it certainly doesn't mean that it is, either.

While I agree with everything you said, it (poor approach) is somebody's fault and it needs to be addressed. A few weeks back someone (HotSoxCorner??)said that there was a "cloud between the dugout and the ondeck circle" and "the inmates were running the asylum" based on comments he had heard. IMO that is what is happening regardless of what TC does and DT, and now JS, haven't addressed it successfully. I believe that with Nick's outburst JS has the opportunity to make this (better approach) an issue. You are not going to change Miggi or Wiggy because they have a ML track record of success. Everyone else had better clearly understand that P/PA, advancing the runner, sacrificing, and OBP are more important than HRs.

[Mackus]

I said that was further evidence that he has an aggressive approach and with all the Crow threads on here lately, people have said this and some of the posters have complained that there is no evidence of this...So unless you feel he is making it up or lying, then that is just further evidence.

This is not further evidence. And Zriebec doesn't need to be lying or making anything up for this to not be evidence.

Its essentially hearsay. Zreibec is just mentioning that Crowley has a reputation for teaching an aggressive approach. That part is true, he does have that reputation. Whether that reputation is true or not or deserved or not is a complete other question.

There is plenty of good reasons to want Crowley gone. Don't point to Nick's comments or Zreibec's editorializing as one of them. Piling on with tenuous at best reasons makes the thoroughly valid reasons that existed before them lose some significant. If someone said something really smart and insightful followed almost immediately with something stupid and ill-founded, it makes you discount the first comment a bit.

[Tony-OH]

Well, I never said Nick said that...I just said, there is some evidence. The fact that you read it that way doesn't mean that's what I meant or even implied.

Really? That has nothing to do what anything I have said. I said that was further evidence that he has an aggressive approach and with all the Crow threads on here lately, people have said this and some of the posters have complained that there is no evidence of this...So unless you feel he is making it up or lying, then that is just further evidence.

I have it on a very, very good source that Crowley has always preached aggressiveness. He's very good at helping guys out with their swings and players love him because he wants them to go after that good pitch. He's one of those guys that truly believes that first pitch strike might be the best pitch a batter sees. Although that fully could be right, the problem is it's not conducive to working starting pitchers or trying to get the pitcher out as quickly as possible. It's not a coincidence that so many opposing starting pitchers go deep into games against us.

Unfortunately, Crowley has been bullet proof for sometime with cover from the top, but he may be under some heat for the first time.

[Frobby]

Really? That has nothing to do what anything I have said. I said that was further evidence that he has an aggressive approach and with all the Crow threads on here lately, people have said this and some of the posters have complained that there is no evidence of this...So unless you feel he is making it up or lying, then that is just further evidence.

So, let me see if I follow you: Zriebec said that Crowley "is known for advocating an aggressive approach at the plate." So that is evidence of what? That Crowley advocates an aggressive approach at the plate? If that is what you mean, fine. But what does it mean? I don't see how that statement, by itself, gets you anywhere. What does it mean to have an aggressive approach at the plate? Does he advocate swinging at borderline pitches on the first pitch? Does he advocate swinging at pitches that aren't strikes if the hitter thinks he can hit them? I doubt it. So you'd need to know exactly what Zriebec means.

[Sports Guy]

This is not further evidence. And Zriebec doesn't need to be lying or making anything up for this to not be evidence.

Its essentially hearsay. Zreibec is just mentioning that Crowley has a reputation for teaching an aggressive approach. That part is true, he does have that reputation. Whether that reputation is true or not or deserved or not is a complete other question.

There is plenty of good reasons to want Crowley gone. Don't point to Nick's comments or Zreibec's editorializing as one of them. Piling on with tenuous at best reasons makes the thoroughly valid reasons that existed before them lose some significant. If someone said something really smart and insightful followed almost immediately with something stupid and ill-founded, it makes you discount the first comment a bit.

I DIDN'T DO THAT!

My comments have nothing to do with what Nick said..Christ, the reading comprehension being used is idiotic.

And I am sure Jeff Z get input from people..I doubt its something he is just throwing out there for the hell of it.

[Sports Guy]

So, let me see if I follow you: Zriebec said that Crowley "is known for advocating an aggressive approach at the plate." So that is evidence of what? That Crowley advocates an aggressive approach at the plate? If that is what you mean, fine. But what does it mean? I don't see how that statement, by itself, gets you anywhere. What does it mean to have an aggressive approach at the plate? Does he advocate swinging at borderline pitches on the first pitch? Does he advocate swinging at pitches that aren't strikes if the hitter thinks he can hit them? I doubt it. So you'd need to know exactly what Zriebec means.

Really? He has to lead you the water AND drink it for you?

Can't you combine comments like that with what you see and what the stats say and figure things out?

[El Gordo]

I DIDN'T DO THAT!

My comments have nothing to do with what Nick said..Christ, the reading comprehension being used is idiotic.

And I am sure Jeff Z get input from people..I doubt its something he is just throwing out there for the hell of it.

The reading comprehension isn't idiotic. The equivocal squirming is. :laughlol:

[square634]

I DIDN'T DO THAT!

My comments have nothing to do with what Nick said..Christ, the reading comprehension being used is idiotic.

And I am sure Jeff Z get input from people..I doubt its something he is just throwing out there for the hell of it.

I agree with you. From my experience, a journalist at that level wouldn't use that kind of statement, whether quoted or paraphrased, without some sort of source or corroboration.

[Mackus]

I DIDN'T DO THAT!

My comments have nothing to do with what Nick said..Christ, the reading comprehension being used is idiotic.

Zreibec typed:

Terry Crowley, who is known for advocating an aggressive approach at the plate.

You responded:

Well there it is...So many people have said this and many people have said people are crazy for saying it..that we have nothing to back it up.

Well, here it is.

Please explain to me how that isn't you saying that Zreibec's comments are evidence of Crowley's approach to hitting being a detriment to the team. I read it just fine, as did everyone else. You're the one who seems uncomfortable with what you clearly typed.

[Sports Guy]

I DIDN'T DO THAT!

My comments have nothing to do with what Nick said..Christ, the reading comprehension being used is idiotic.

Zreibec typed:

Terry Crowley, who is known for advocating an aggressive approach at the plate.

You responded:

Well there it is...So many people have said this and many people have said people are crazy for saying it..that we have nothing to back it up.

Well, here it is.

Please explain to me how that isn't you saying that Zreibec's comments are evidence of Crowley's approach to hitting being a detriment to the team. I read it just fine, as did everyone else. You're the one who seems uncomfortable with what you clearly typed.

None of it has anything to do with Markakis though, which is my point.

I am not and never did say Markakis is the one who said this or even implied it.

Yes, Zrebiac is the one who said that...which is what I am saying the evidence is in terms of Crow and teaching his aggressive approach.

My only point is that with so many people believing this, we have seen some posters, like Rshack and Lucky Jim say that there is no proof to this.

It may be a "throw away" statement from Jeff Z but its the same thing we have heard for years and years...and since it has come up lately, this is just another statement reinforcing the point.

[square634]

I think SG's point is that there have been other threads in which people complained about Crowley's teaching an aggressive approach, but other posters responded with the claim that we don't really know what Crowley teaches. Well, Zreibec's statement seems to be either evidence or corroboration that he teaches/emphasizes an aggressive approach. If we accept that statement, then we have to judge for ourselves whether that approach is a detriment to the team.