Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[LookinUp]

I don't think there are that many Crowley supporters. There are people who support Bucks's judgement, and don't give a lot of weight to the simplistic statistical extrapaltions some are making. I doubt there are any hitting coaches who are game changers. If you want game changers get a few players who hit better.

So, aside from advocating for better players (which everyone agrees with), what you're basically saying it's that it's not worth trying to get a better hitting coach because you don't think there are real game changers out there. Right?

So do you think Crowley is about as good as we could get, or do you just think the hitting coach is basically a meaningless job?

[DrungoHazewood]

There are a lot more solid/good hitting coaches out there than there are outstanding hitting coaches.

For those supporting Crowley, I'd ask whether it's worth trying to find an outstanding hitting coach or not? I don't see evidence that Crowley is a game changer -- some players have improved, but I don't really see anyone that has gone from good to amazing, or seen a particular part of his offensive game truly blossom. Roberts could be one but I'm not willing to overlook the steroid shadow and completely throw the growth over to Crowley. Even if Roberts is a Crowley success story, I don't think one player is evidence of anything spectacular. So, again, I'd ask Crowley supporters whether or not they feel losing Crowley to shoot for a real game changer is something that should be considered.

For those opposed to Crowley, I'd ask whether the upgrade from a solid/good hitting coach to a potential game changer at hitting coach is worth the risk of bringing in someone that doesn't mesh as well with the players. What if your replacement isn't as well liked and doesn't connect with the players and organization as well as Crowley has? Are you better off with someone that everyone seems comfortable with, even if the results are simply helping to assure that the player's natural progressions are generally coming through? Is it worth trying to hire that guy with the potential to turn Nick Markakis or Matt Wieters into an offensive force if the risk is that the chemistry ends up being light to the point that even the minimal growth under Crowley is lost?

I don't see there being a right and wrong answer to keeping Crowley. I think it's safe to say he isn't a miracle worker (as LookingUp, I believe, stated). I tend to be aggressive by nature with issues like management, so my personal vote would PROBABLY be to lose Crowley and grab a potential miracle-maker IF I had reason to believe that guy was out there. But I completely see the merit in holding onto someone who knows his stuff and works well with everyone, even if he isn't likely to spark any kind of breakout.

I think the obvious answer is yes, if there's an opportunity you go get a game-changer.

But it's like with a player. If you already have Nick Markakis playing right field, you better be pretty sure you're getting an MVP if you plan on replacing him.

And even then, there's always the chance your game-changer is Leo Mazzone.

[LookinUp]

I think the obvious answer is yes, if there's an opportunity you go get a game-changer.

But it's like with a player. If you already have Nick Markakis playing right field, you better be pretty sure you're getting an MVP if you plan on replacing him.

And even then, there's always the chance your game-changer is Leo Mazzone.

Do you consider Terry Crowley the Nick Markakis of hitting coaches?

[Stotle]

Isn't Buck's MO that players DON'T like him? Isn't years of letting the players get comfortable what lead to the "inmates running the asylum" 2010 spring training? The batting coach just needs to get results, and being everyone's friend doesn't necessarily make you a good batting coach. I would absolutely risk the chemistry between the players and the Crow if it meant getting a new perspective on the problem at hand.

Fear, or dislike, or whatever you want to call it, is fine as long as it is accompanied by respect. Disliking a boss and not respecting his methods will lead to unmotivated malcontents. I think it's possible to have a respected and well-liked authority figure without "inmates running the asylum." I also think that discipline is ultimately the responsibility of the manager, and not the secondary coaches.

But I understand your general point and thanks for your response to the question I posed.

[El Gordo]

A step in the right direction.

Of course this would help. We'd still have no evidence that our hitting coach is making us better though, and there's certainly not evidence that a new coach would hurt us badly.

There's no evidence period. I know for sure that two guys hitting for a .350 OBP will improve the team's offense. I don't know whether Crowley staying or being replaced would have any positive or negative effect. I doubt it would have much either way.

To me it seems like a silly debate. Nobody knows enough about what actually consitutes a good hitting coach, to have an informed opinion. Everyone agrees the offense can be improved significantly by adding a couple of decent hitters.

[Stotle]

I think the obvious answer is yes, if there's an opportunity you go get a game-changer.

But it's like with a player. If you already have Nick Markakis playing right field, you better be pretty sure you're getting an MVP if you plan on replacing him.

And even then, there's always the chance your game-changer is Leo Mazzone.

Well, yeah, I think that is the risk I was describing. I guess the question is if you think Crowley is the equivalent of NM (approx a 3.7 WAR/year player over the last four years) or Jason Kubel (approx a 2.0 WAR/year player over the last four years).

You are phrasing your example as if it's a given that Crowley is a well above-average hitting coach. I'm not sure that's true or untrue, but it wouldn't be my baseline assumption given historical data. A well above-average hitting coach should have more breakout success stories.

[El Gordo]

So, aside from advocating for better players (which everyone agrees with), what you're basically saying it's that it's not worth trying to get a better hitting coach because you don't think there are real game changers out there. Right?

So do you think Crowley is about as good as we could get, or do you just think the hitting coach is basically a meaningless job?

I think a hitting coach, no matter how good, can't have nearly the impact of just upgrading at two postions, in terms of OBP, by .50 points. I think if Buck thought there were better options than Crowley available he would persue them. I don't think PA has anything to do with it. I think you really don't know enough about what this decision entails to have an informed opinion..

[LookinUp]

There's no evidence period. I know for sure that two guys hitting for a .350 OBP will improve the team's offense. I don't know whether Crowley staying or being replaced would have any positive or negative effect. I doubt it would have much either way.

To me it seems like a silly debate. Nobody knows enough about what actaully consitutes a good hitting coach to have an informed opinion. Everyone agrees the offense can be improved significantly by adding a couple of decent hitters.

If someone says to you, "I'll give you $200 if you can eat those 4 hot dogs in 2 minutes," would you do it?

Personally, I'd do it. Sure, I might have some indigestion, and if something goes terribly wrong I might even throw up, but that small downside risk is worth it for a $200 payoff.

I haven't seen one post from you where you actually make a case for Crowley. It's always about how others are stupid and barking up the wrong tree. But you've failed to articulate any indigestion associated with canning the Crow.

[Stotle]

I don't think there are that many Crowley supporters. There are people who support Bucks's judgement, and don't give a lot of weight to the simplistic statistical extrapaltions some are making. I doubt there are any hitting coaches who are game changers. If you want game changers get a few players who hit better.

Really? You don't think there are hitting coaches that bring more to the table than other hitting coaches? I look at the growth in someone like Robinson Cano and am in awe. And with that specific example, he credited the work he and Kevin Long have put in to get him to learn how to better turn on pitches and drive the ball. In fact, the entire Yankees offense is highly impressive. And this is not just all-stars brought in. Gardner made a huge and unexpected jump in production this year. I don't know if it holds up, but he went from 4th OF/black hole in the lineup to a legit, productive ML outfielder on a Tier 1 team.

[Frobby]

I think the most important question here is whether this really was Buck's decision (which I believe it was) or whether he was strongly influenced to keep Crowley by Angelos, MacPhail or others.

So long as it's Buck's decision, I'm fine with it. If it is a bad decision, Buck will realize it soon enough. He won't feel obligated to keep Crowley here for the next three years just because he made an initial decision to keep Crowley in 2011. And if it isn't a bad decision, that will become apparent, I think.

[Frobby]

Really? You don't think there are hitting coaches that bring more to the table than other hitting coaches? I look at the growth in someone like Robinson Cano and am in awe. And with that specific example, he credited the work he and Kevin Long have put in to get him to learn how to better turn on pitches and drive the ball. In fact, the entire Yankees offense is highly impressive. And this is not just all-stars brought in. Gardner made a huge and unexpected jump in production this year. I don't know if it holds up, but he went from 4th OF/black hole in the lineup to a legit, productive ML outfielder on a Tier 1 team.

If you look at the Yankees, one thing they do is make it easy for the young players to see what they need to do. It's one thing for the hitting coach to say "be patient," it's another to watch 6 current and former all-stars succeeding by being patient on a nightly basis. Guys like Cano and Gardner are put into a very good situation to learn and succeed because of the players who surround them.

The Orioles, meanwhile, go get veterans like Tejada and Izturis who set a terrible example for the younger guys.

As I said in another thread, it would behoove the Orioles to pay more attention to OBP and P/PA when they decide who to bring in from outside.

[brotherlo38]

Why does something have to be in it for PA?

One thing you can say about Angelos is that he is very loyal to those he really likes.

He's loyal, but that doesn't mean he keeps them in their job regardless of results. Two other "Angelos guys", Mike Flanagan and Rick Dempsey, were both fired/removed from their positions. So I don't see how Crowley keeps his position only because of Angelos. If a manager wanted him out and Crowley really is that tight with Angelos than I imagine Crowley would no longer be the hitting coach and he would have his role reassigned within the organization.

[brotherlo38]

Really? You don't think there are hitting coaches that bring more to the table than other hitting coaches? I look at the growth in someone like Robinson Cano and am in awe. And with that specific example, he credited the work he and Kevin Long have put in to get him to learn how to better turn on pitches and drive the ball. In fact, the entire Yankees offense is highly impressive. And this is not just all-stars brought in. Gardner made a huge and unexpected jump in production this year. I don't know if it holds up, but he went from 4th OF/black hole in the lineup to a legit, productive ML outfielder on a Tier 1 team.

Are you not in awe of the growth of Felix Pie or Brian Roberts?

[Sports Guy]

He's loyal, but that doesn't mean he keeps them in their job regardless of results. Two other "Angelos guys", Mike Flanagan and Rick Dempsey, were both fired/removed from their positions. So I don't see how Crowley keeps his position only because of Angelos. If a manager wanted him out and Crowley really is that tight with Angelos than I imagine Crowley would no longer be the hitting coach and he would have his role reassigned within the organization.

Flanny was kept around and collecting a paycheck for a few years and no one ever knew what his purpose was...he was then given a job as an announcer.

Dempsey is the best example but they still made sure he had a job and, depsite being awful at it, he is kept in that job and for some weird reason, has been given interviews for a job that he has no business getting...manager.

[Sports Guy]

Are you not in awe of the growth of Felix Pie or Brian Roberts?

Do you think Pie progressed this year?