Markakis speaks out

[Mackus]

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.

Ok, so just to see how your brain works, you think that Zreibec saying that "Crowley has a reputation for teaching an aggressive approach" is evidence that Crowley does in fact do that?

Him stating what the perception of something is can be used as proof of that perception being reality?

This may be a case where perception matches reality, but you gotta be real careful with that, and you certainly can't use the statement of a perception about something as evidence that the perception is accurate. That's circular logic.

[Sports Guy]

Ok, so just to see how your brain works, you think that Zreibec saying that "Crowley has a reputation for teaching an aggressive approach" is evidence that Crowley does in fact do that?

Him stating what the perception of something is can be used as proof of that perception being reality?

This may be a case where perception matches reality, but you gotta be real careful with that, and you certainly can't use the statement of a perception about something as evidence that the perception is accurate. That's circular logic.

Yes, I think the Baltimore Sun's beat writer, who covers the Titanics on an everyday basis and has for several years, has a good idea of what kind of approach Crow preaches.

I am sure this isn't his baseless opinion. I am sure its what he sees, what he hears and what he is told..and it is also supported by what we see and what the stats say.

And I also don't think he would put it in print without having some idea of it being true.

I would hope he has more journalistic integrity than that.

[square634]

Ok, so just to see how your brain works, you think that Zreibec saying that "Crowley has a reputation for teaching an aggressive approach" is evidence that Crowley does in fact do that?

Him stating what the perception of something is can be used as proof of that perception being reality?

This may be a case where perception matches reality, but you gotta be real careful with that, and you certainly can't use the statement of a perception about something as evidence that the perception is accurate. That's circular logic.

Actually the statement in the article said "is known for advocating" not "has a reputation for teaching." You could argue that those phrases are interchangeable, but I think "is known for" indicates something stronger.

[Mackus]

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.

Zreibec isn't meaning to supply any evidence. He's simply pointing out what the perception is. I don't think anybody who has complained about the attacks against Crowley (and I'm not one of those people, I want him gone) have contended the idea that he preaches an aggressive approach. The argument seems to be that the aggressive approach isn't flawed, its just the players implementation of it or, more to the point, how good those players are, that is the problem. I don't think very many people are in denial of the idea that Crowley preaches an approach where you try and find a good pitch to hit and then hit it, whenever that pitch may occur in an at bat.

[square634]

Zreibec isn't meaning to supply any evidence. He's simply pointing out what the perception is. I don't think anybody who has complained about the attacks against Crowley (and I'm not one of those people, I want him gone) have contended the idea that he preaches an aggressive approach. The argument seems to be that the aggressive approach isn't flawed, its just the players implementation of it or, more to the point, how good those players are, that is the problem. I don't think very many people are in denial of the idea that Crowley preaches an approach where you try and find a good pitch to hit and then hit it, whenever that pitch may occur in an at bat.

I have definitely read that very argument on this board. I.E. we aren't behind the scenes, so we don't have any idea what Crowley teaches, and whether it is an aggressive approach.

[Sports Guy]

Zreibec isn't meaning to supply any evidence. He's simply pointing out what the perception is. I don't think anybody who has complained about the attacks against Crowley (and I'm not one of those people, I want him gone) have contended the idea that he preaches an aggressive approach. The argument seems to be that the aggressive approach isn't flawed, its just the players implementation of it or, more to the point, how good those players are, that is the problem. I don't think very many people are in denial of the idea that Crowley preaches an approach where you try and find a good pitch to hit and then hit it, whenever that pitch may occur in an at bat.

They absolutely have...They have said there is no evidence of that.

[LookinUp]

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.

The peeing match in this thread aside, it's nice to read a confirmation from a good source of what any casual fan of baseball can tell when watching the Orioles.

I can't understand how people can think that Crowley's a teacher of patience after his results with the Orioles over a decade. He might teach a lot of things well, but patience isn't one of them.

[Frobby]

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.

Here is some interesting data from the AL East.

Toronto -- 336 1st pitch AB (.331/.341/.652)

Baltimore -- 278 1st pitch AB (.320/.317/.460)

Tampa -- 277 1st pitch AB (.379/.378/.570)

New York -- 272 1st pitch AB (.349/.356/.526)

Boston -- 174 1st pitch AB (.391/.400/.690)

Is our problem that we swing at too many first pitches, or is our problem that we just don't hit them as well as the other teams do?

[TGO]

Guys, this is seriously one of the sillier arguments I've ever seen here. This all started because SG pulled out one quote as defense against an argument that I basically view as a strawman--that we don't know for sure if Crowley preaches aggressiveness. I think we do know that he does. The argument over Crowley, when it occurs, is generally over whether we have the hitters for him to have a chance to succeed.

[Mackus]

I have definitely read that very argument on this board. I.E. we aren't behind the scenes, so we don't have any idea what Crowley teaches, and whether it is an aggressive approach.

Well, then they are asking for too much evidence. We're never gonna get a full dissertation on the exact teachings of Terry Crowley.

And really, that question isn't even interesting.

What is interesting, is whether or not that approach is the problem. I don't think it is. The problem is players not implementing it properly. Crowley isn't telling guys to go up there hacking. He's telling them to get good pitches to drive and then drive them. If a good pitch comes by early, crush it. If not, wait for a good one then crush that one. A patient approach wouldn't be any better, because then while you're letting good pitches go by trying to be patient, you fall behind in the count and then have to chase pitcher's pitches.

[The Rick]

Here is some interesting data from the AL East.

Toronto -- 336 1st pitch AB (.331/.341/.652)

Baltimore -- 278 1st pitch AB (.320/.317/.460)

Tampa -- 277 1st pitch AB (.379/.378/.570)

New York -- 272 1st pitch AB (.349/.356/.526)

Boston -- 174 1st pitch AB (.391/.400/.690)

Is our problem that we swing at too many first pitches, or is our problem that we just don't hit them as well as the other teams do?

My guess is that we're swinging at too much first pitch junk because they're told to get after the 1st pitch because its likely to be a strike, but the problem is that many of our batters don't have a very discerning eye at the plate. Crowleys approach might work with some teams, but clearly not this one. Why not adjust that philosophy to fit your teams skillset?

[tvz1997]

Well, then they are asking for too much evidence. We're never gonna get a full dissertation on the exact teachings of Terry Crowley.

And really, that question isn't even interesting.

What is interesting, is whether or not that approach is the problem. I don't think it is. The problem is players not implementing it properly. Crowley isn't telling guys to go up there hacking. He's telling them to get good pitches to drive and then drive them. If a good pitch comes by early, crush it. If not, wait for a good one then crush that one. A patient approach wouldn't be any better, because then while you're letting good pitches go by trying to be patient, you fall behind in the count and then have to chase pitcher's pitches.

Yep. If Crowley told his players to go up to the plate and look for one pitch (usually the low-middle fastball) on the first pitch, but otherwise take, I would be all for it.

[TGO]

Well, then they are asking for too much evidence. We're never gonna get a full dissertation on the exact teachings of Terry Crowley.

And really, that question isn't even interesting.

What is interesting, is whether or not that approach is the problem. I don't think it is. The problem is players not implementing it properly. Crowley isn't telling guys to go up there hacking. He's telling them to get good pitches to drive and then drive them. If a good pitch comes by early, crush it. If not, wait for a good one then crush that one. A patient approach wouldn't be any better, because then while you're letting good pitches go by trying to be patient, you fall behind in the count and then have to chase pitcher's pitches.

Atkins epitomizes this. He's right near league average in P/PA, just below it, but it's because he watches a lot of good pitches go by. IIRC he swings at something like 8% of first pitches.

Frobby's post really stands out. If you can't put up even close to a .500 SLG on the first pitch, your team has major problems.

[square634]

Well, then they are asking for too much evidence. We're never gonna get a full dissertation on the exact teachings of Terry Crowley.

And really, that question isn't even interesting.

What is interesting, is whether or not that approach is the problem. I don't think it is. The problem is players not implementing it properly. Crowley isn't telling guys to go up there hacking. He's telling them to get good pitches to drive and then drive them. If a good pitch comes by early, crush it. If not, wait for a good one then crush that one. A patient approach wouldn't be any better, because then while you're letting good pitches go by trying to be patient, you fall behind in the count and then have to chase pitcher's pitches.

Oh, I definitely agree with the first part, but I was just backing SG in that I have seen that line of reasoning on the board. As for the second part, I think an eight-year-old could tell guys to essentially "find a good pitch to hit and then hit it." And that might be enough if the hitters are talented enough (but in that case who needs a hitting coach). Is that really a prudent or specific enough plan for players who, for example, have below average pitch recognition?

[Frobby]

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?

There are lots of things I can figure out, but there are also things I can't. We put the ball in play on the 1st pitch about as often as the Yankees and Rays do, but they get better results - why? The Jays are even more aggressive on the first pitch, and yet they do better than we do - why? Is there something they do differently when choosing to swing at the first pitch, or are they just flat out better hitters?

From my end, Zriebec's statement adds almost nothing. I can read the stats, and I can watch the games, and conclude that the O's have too many impatient at bats and swing at too many pitches that aren't strikes. But I can't tell whether that's because Crowley is preaching being aggressive without regard to game situation or overall strategy, or whether some of our hitters simply aren't very smart, or whether some of our hitters have pitch recognition problems that aren't coachable.

Let me give an example. Watching Adam Jones recently, I see he is striving mightily not to swing at those low and away breaking pitches. But even when he is able to lay off them, a lot of times he start going into his swing motion before laying off at the last split second. On a lot of those same pitches, Markakis would never even move. He literally sees that the pitch is a bad one, before Jones can see it. Is that something that can be coached? I don't know -- I don't have enough experience playing and being around baseball to know the answer to that question. But it affects things. Jones may want to lay off bad pitches, but it is simply much harder for him to do it than it is for Markakis.