Markakis speaks out

[LookinUp]

Probably a combination of better hitters who have a better idea of what's coming early in the count. That's my guess...a combination of better coaching and better players.

[Stotle]

I'm sure this is apparent to everyone, but I'll say it anyway. "Aggressive" and "swinging at the first pitch" are not synonymous. Preaching aggression doesn't mean preaching swing first pitch and swinging first pitch is not limited to hitters with aggressive approaches.

[Frobby]

I'm sure this is apparent to everyone, but I'll say it anyway. "Aggressive" and "swinging at the first pitch" are not synonymous. Preaching aggression doesn't mean preaching swing first pitch and swinging first pitch is not limited to hitters with aggressive approaches.

Ok, but what else does it mean, exactly, in your opinion? Is "aggressive" a synonym for "impatient?" Can you be aggresssive and patient at the same time?

[Old#5fan]

Sometimes I don't think our hitters even realize that pitchers are trying to:

1. Get ahead of them in the count, so the first pitch may more often than not be grooved.

2. After getting ahead, throw balls that are close or appear to be borderline strikes and get them to chase.

It seems our hitters (other than Markakis) cannot seem to figure this out which is basic pitching strategy.

[webbrick2010]

The Orioles hitters are very very bad.

They hit first pitches badly.

They hit all pitches badly

They don't get walks and don't work the count because in general the pitchers groove every pitch. Since the lineup has close to zero power the worst outcome for the pitcher is a single (same as a walk) so in summary

Pitchers try to groove every pitch to almost every Oriole hitter which works because most of the Orioles can't hit, and with the exception of Scott and the early season Wiggington they have no power.

[Stotle]

Ok, but what else does it mean, exactly, in your opinion? Is "aggressive" a synonym for "impatient?" Can you be aggresssive and patient at the same time?

Yeah, I don't think aggressive means undisciplined. You can be an aggressive hitter looking to attack the first FB you see and not swing the bat until the third pitch.

A real world example: I was an assistant coach on a 19U and was advance scouting at a tournament. One of the arms throwing (first game for this team) had good velocity but not great secondary stuff (a lot of spinning stuff and change-up was non-existent). In my summary, I noted that our kids should be aggressive away and passive middle-in (defensive once behind). My thought was we didn't have the bat speed to handle fastballs in so make him throw strikes there. Middle-out there was a better chance hitters would get a bad breaking ball or could make contact deeper and drive opposite field.

When I hear an "aggressive" approach, I tend to think that's a good thing. Selective aggression is, in my humble opinion, the hallmark of a good ballplayer (and that extends to other areas of the game, as well). But preaching aggression is also (again just in my opinion) dependent on the profile of a particular player. What good does it do for me to preach fastball aggression to someone that struggles with pitch-ID? Or, in my example above, what good does it do to preach aggression middle-in if I know my kids don't have the bat speed to turn on the pitch?

Maybe the pitcher tends to rely on his FB when behind because he can't get his breaking ball over. If his velo is better than my kids' bat speed I'm probably telling them look fastball and get the bat head started a little early when you're ahead in the count.

Sorry if this isn't the clearest post -- there are so many variables running through my head that it's tough for me to keep it short. I guess the simplest way for me to put it would be:

1. Aggression, to me, isn't just swinging early -- there are different types of "aggression" (based on situation, pitch, location, etc.).

2. The utility of the different types of aggression is dependent on the actors and their profiles.

3. I'm not a believer that a "general" approach (hit early in the count; work late in a count; look fastball; look middle-in, etc.) works across situations or actors -- it should all be a case-by-case analysis.

4. Advance scouting is VERY important and teaching a hitter to understand his strengths and weaknesses probably even moreso.

I don't think the goal of a hitting coach should be to instruct players as to what they should be doing. Rather, I think a good hitting coach teaches a player about the variables in 1-4 above and helps the player to develop the ability to make his own assessment based on the situations when they arise.

[Frobby]

Yeah, I don't think aggressive means undisciplined. You can be an aggressive hitter looking to attack the first FB you see and not swing the bat until the third pitch.

A real world example: I was an assistant coach on a 19U and was advance scouting at a tournament. One of the arms throwing (first game for this team) had good velocity but not great secondary stuff (a lot of spinning stuff and change-up was non-existent). In my summary, I noted that our kids should be aggressive away and passive middle-in (defensive once behind). My thought was we didn't have the bat speed to handle fastballs in so make him throw strikes there. Middle-out there was a better chance hitters would get a bad breaking ball or could make contact deeper and drive opposite field.

When I hear an "aggressive" approach, I tend to think that's a good thing. Selective aggression is, in my humble opinion, the hallmark of a good ballplayer (and that extends to other areas of the game, as well). But preaching aggression is also (again just in my opinion) dependent on the profile of a particular player. What good does it do for me to preach fastball aggression to someone that struggles with pitch-ID? Or, in my example above, what good does it do to preach aggression middle-in if I know my kids don't have the bat speed to turn on the pitch?

Maybe the pitcher tends to rely on his FB when behind because he can't get his breaking ball over. If his velo is better than my kids' bat speed I'm probably telling them look fastball and get the bat head started a little early when you're ahead in the count.

Sorry if this isn't the clearest post -- there are so many variables running through my head that it's tough for me to keep it short. I guess the simplest way for me to put it would be:

1. Aggression, to me, isn't just swinging early -- there are different types of "aggression" (based on situation, pitch, location, etc.).

2. The utility of the different types of aggression is dependent on the actors and their profiles.

3. I'm not a believer that a "general" approach (hit early in the count; work late in a count; look fastball; look middle-in, etc.) works across situations or actors -- it should all be a case-by-case analysis.

4. Advance scouting is VERY important and teaching a hitter to understand his strengths and weaknesses probably even moreso.

I don't think the goal of a hitting coach should be to instruct players as to what they should be doing. Rather, I think a good hitting coach teaches a player about the variables in 1-4 above and helps the player to develop the ability to make his own assessment based on the situations when they arise.

Now, this is a great post, and it exemplifies why Zriebec writing that Crowley has an "aggressive" approach really doesn't tell me much. I'd add that a hitter has to make adjustments during a game as he reads the pitcher. Is the guy getting tired? Is his command getting shaky? Is his curve ball not working that day? All that has an impact on how aggressive a hitter should be.

[Stotle]

Now, this is a great post, and it exemplifies why Zriebec writing that Crowley has an "aggressive" approach really doesn't tell me much. I'd add that a hitter has to make adjustments during a game as he reads the pitcher. Is the guy getting tired? Is his command getting shaky? Is his curve ball not working that day? All that has an impact on how aggressive a hitter should be.

Right. Every AB is going to be different. Different pitcher, situation, stuff, etc. A hitter needs to understand his own game and how to apply it to a situation. When you see the player connecting those dots, you reinforce that ("That's your spot all day"). If he's not connecting those dots, you remind him ("That's not you; middle-out, let it travel and drive it"). And when his approach is good but the results are not, you go over his swing and the two of you figure it out together.

[section36]

It's about time that the best player on the team and the highest paid player, speaks out!Someone needs to take a leadership role on this bunch of morons Nick is too much of a talent to be this bad. It's a team game,BE A TEAM PLAYER AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. I'm glad he spoke up!!

[mweb]

Well this was a fun thread to read. Gotta love the reading comprehension line by SG considering the context.

Anyway, great posts by Mackus and Frobby here.

Yes, Crow does apparently teach an aggressive approach, but Zriebec's comment is not exactly strong evidence of anything as Mackus and Frobby pointed out. An aggresive approach isn't necessarily bad either as they pointed out.

So as I've said before, getting rid of Crow along with all the other coaches would likely be a good change, but I don't think Crow is a poor hitting coach, and I don't think he is the lone common denominator in terms of the poor hitting. Poor hitters has been a common denominator as well. An organizational approach that is far from moneyball has also been a common denominator.

[Goop]

Glad to see Nick speaking out...maybe this opens some eyes.