Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[El Gordo]

I don't necesssarily agree with that. I think we should hire the best available hitting coach in the nation. What is "available"? I would say anyone not currently a coach with a major league organization (I assume that any move from a minor league position to major league HC is a promotion and other teams would give permission to speak to anyone in their minors).

That's how Buck should be framing the question, with an opportunity to get the coaching staff he's going to go forward with for several years.

Framing the question as "should change be made" is shortsighted IMO. I said the same thing a year ago at this time, when we had no manager under contract, as Trembley's contract had ended at the end of the season. People were arguing about whether Trembley "deserved to be fired" or "had been given a fair chance". I said the ONLY question we should be asking is, since we currently have no manager under contract, who is the best available person for the managerial job. Period. Yes, of course, factoring in salary, demeands for organizational control, etc.

But framing the question as "should there be change or not", to me, is a formula that will lead to mediocrity. Buck should be looking for the best available man for the job. If he has decided that is Crowley, so be it. I just hope that he really did frame the question that way and really did come to that conclusion without any pressure from above.

I have a feeling the best available manager last year wouldn't have been Buck, more likely Eric Wedge. How do you know the best HC currently available isn't Terry Crowley?

[Stotle]

I kind of alluded to this in one of my earlier posts with SG - that a hitting coach who could take a 650-run team and turn them into a 750-run team should be worth tens of millions of dollars a year. That's a 10-win difference. Picking up that level of production in free agency would cost you about $45M.

I also mentioned this in some of the fire the manager threads over the past year. Tony LaRussa is the highest-paid manager in history. And his annual salary is about what the O's have paid a guy in the Baez/Payton/Atkins range. The best hitting coaches of all time are paid less than mediocre pitchers coming off labrum surgery.

Baseball clearly thinks that almost all managers and coaches are fungible assets - above a fairly low minimum standard there's not much difference between any of them.

Sorry, I missed you saying this. I agree, it's a compelling argument. The same, we have to take into account the fact that the pool of potential coaches is much, much larger than the pool of potential ML average players. Maybe this issue is, as comp coach mentions, an inability to quantify exactly what coaches DO contribute. I honestly don't know, and think it's an interesting topic to try and unravel.

The compensation argument is one I have a tough time moving past. At the same time, I find it hard to conceptualize that the worst coach and the best coach are basically interchangeable. I also think the responsibilities/contributions balance with coaches and managers is not necessarily properly reflected in their salaries. That is, while a manager certainly has more accountability and responsibility, I'm not sure coaches don't have a stronger impact on the on-field performance of the team.

Of course, ideally the manager is selecting and managing his coaches...shrug.

[SteveA]

My stance is that the evidence of OBP and P/PA is not enough to justify his dismissal. If I could see enough evidence to convince me that he is the problem, then I would more than consider firing him. I never said there is no logic to it, just that it is insufficient. My position is no different than Drungo's. If I were looking at that balance sheet I would find out why the dept., is under performing before I fired anyone. Just what do you believe my "agenda" to be?:laughlol:

I really object to it being put in terms of "firing someone". Crowley's contract was up at the end of the year. We do not have a hitting coach right now. Unless you believe he has some divine lifetime right to the job, right now we have a vacancy and that should be filled with the best person we can find. If that's Crow, so be it. And it appears Buck has made that decision. But if you continually frame the question in terms of "firing someone" or "should we make a change" then you are basically endorsing hte idea of a lifetime right to a job until you somehow screw it up, rather than trying to find the best person available for the job.

Why do we treat coaches & managers differently tha players? There have been plenty of discussions about whether to bring Izturis back to play SS next year or to get someone better. And not a single person brought up whether Izturis should be "fired", or whether we needed a "change" at shortstop. Everyone expressed their opnion in terms of who would be the best player (factoring in production, cost, age, etc) we could get at shortstop in 2011.

Yet when we have a coaching vacancy, all of a suddent we worry about "firing" someone or "should we make a change". The ONLY question we should be asking is who is the best HC we can get for next year, given whatever parameters of salary, availability, etc., there are.

Last October, there was all this talk about whether Trembley "deserved to be fired" or had been "given a fair chance". We SHOULD have been asking, that, since his contract was up, we didn't have a manager in place. Who is the best person we can get for the job.

Now we (at least the folks in this discussion) seem to be making that mistake again.

[Sports Guy]

Guys like Mazzone and Duncan have turned mediocre pitchers into good ones.

Is it not fair to expect a hitting coach to do the same?

[Moose Milligan]

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.

Didn't want you to think I ignored this, I had to run earlier.

Hell if I know. Why does something have to be in it for PA? Because based on the little info I know about the guy, he seems to be the kind of guy who would say what's in it for me.

And say what you want about the past 12 years or whatever, while the results have stayed the same, the faces have always been changing. No one stays for long from the GM on down. But why on earth has the hitting coach been the singular mainstay on the coaching staff?

Honestly dude, I think it something we'll never really know the answer to. And I know that never flies on the OH, we feel like we have to know everything...or at least act like we do. However the fact that Crowley has been around this long will be a mystery forever, IMO. No one will ever know why he's been kept around this long.

Guys like Mazzone and Duncan have turned mediocre pitchers into good ones.

Is it not fair to expect a hitting coach to do the same?

I dunno man, I think Mazzone and Duncan were able to tap into guys that weren't realizing their potential...there's a big difference there than turning mediocre pitchers into good ones.

We all expected Mazzone to show up here, wave his magic wand and turn our guys into good pitchers and we saw what happened. So I think you're confusing turning mediocre pitchers into good ones with being able to tap into potential and helping some guys realize it.

IMO, it obviously doesn't work across the board like that...some guys they're going to be able to help, some guys they aren't. It's not painting with broad strokes, it's almost a case by case basis.

[SteveA]

I have a feeling the best available manager last year wouldn't have been Buck, more likely Eric Wedge. How do you know the best HC currently available isn't Terry Crowley?

I don't. I hope that Buck made the decision that Crowley was the best HC available, and I hope he is right. I hope that was how he framed the question also... that he wanted the best available HC and that was Crowley. I hope he didn't ask the question you have been asking multiple times in this thread... whether Crowley should be "fired" or whether we should make a "change" at hitting coach. Phrasing the question that way, instead of looking for the best, will bias the answer you get towards mediocrity. Absent solid evidence that "change" is needed, you won't go looking for the best. We don't ask that question about shortstop, why should we ask it about hitting coach (assuming Crow doesn't have a multi-year contract)?

Asking the question the way you do biases the answer towards mediocrity. Looking for the best we can get is the way to go. And, I would say that a team that has had 13 straight losing season, we should make decisions with a bias towards change rather than a bias against change.

[mweb]

1) Find the results of the Frobby study - do the historical PECOTA comps, and see how his players have done compared to what they "should" have done. Won't be perfect, but better than the complete absence of data we have now.

But barring that, we don't have anything. So we can't have an independent judgment that's based on anything besides subjective evidence. In some sense we are rubes - we don't know, we can't know without somebody doing some work. And even then we'll only kind of know.

I have to keep stressing - bad data is often worse than none at all.

Great post as usual.

Some seem to think we have better data than we really do and are of course forming strong opinions off it.

[El Gordo]

I really object to it being put in terms of "firing someone". Crowley's contract was up at the end of the year. We do not have a hitting coach right now. Unless you believe he has some divine lifetime right to the job, right now we have a vacancy and that should be filled with the best person we can find. If that's Crow, so be it. And it appears Buck has made that decision. But if you continually frame the question in terms of "firing someone" or "should we make a change" then you are basically endorsing hte idea of a lifetime right to a job until you somehow screw it up, rather than trying to find the best person available for the job.

Why do we treat coaches & managers differently tha players? There have been plenty of discussions about whether to bring Izturis back to play SS next year or to get someone better. And not a single person brought up whether Izturis should be "fired", or whether we needed a "change" at shortstop. Everyone expressed their opnion in terms of who would be the best player (factoring in production, cost, age, etc) we could get at shortstop in 2011.

Yet when we have a coaching vacancy, all of a suddent we worry about "firing" someone or "should we make a change". The ONLY question we should be asking is who is the best HC we can get for next year, given whatever parameters of salary, availability, etc., there are.

Last October, there was all this talk about whether Trembley "deserved to be fired" or had been "given a fair chance". We SHOULD have been asking, that, since his contract was up, we didn't have a manager in place. Who is the best person we can get for the job.

Now we (at least the folks in this discussion) seem to be making that mistake again.

OK instead of firing anyone, lets try fix the problem. The problem is low OBP and P/PA, which leads to low RS. So is Crowley the problem? If he is, fix it by replacing him with someone you think will do better. But if he is not the problem, then why replace someone whom the players like and legions of managers, coaches, players, FO people, etc. think is good?

[SteveA]

I have a feeling the best available manager last year wouldn't have been Buck, more likely Eric Wedge. How do you know the best HC currently available isn't Terry Crowley?

Well, we don't know that to be true, and if it is, it's just a coincidence. I assume you are implying that Showalter was not ready to return to managing last October?

OK, well, if true, it's an interesting random fact, that in one situation, someone better became available 9 months later so the Orioles benefited by keeping the wrong man to start the 2010 season, someone who was in over his head. If all that is true, we got lucky. But you can't possibly arguing that we should thus do the same thing with Crowley because maybe at some point in the future there will be a better pool of hitting coaches than there are now to choose from. That's taking one fluke example and generalizing it... sure seatbelts saved 10,000 lives last year but there was one person that got strangled by their seatbelt and died, therefore I won't wear one.

[El Gordo]

Well, we don't know that to be true, and if it is, it's just a coincidence. I assume you are implying that Showalter was not ready to return to managing last October?

OK, well, if true, it's an interesting random fact, that in one situation, someone better became available 9 months later so the Orioles benefited by keeping the wrong man to start the 2010 season, someone who was in over his head. If all that is true, we got lucky. But you can't possibly arguing that we should thus do the same thing with Crowley because maybe at some point in the future there will be a better pool of hitting coaches than there are now to choose from. That's taking one fluke example and generalizing it... sure seatbelts saved 10,000 lives last year but there was one person that got strangled by their seatbelt and died, therefore I won't wear one.

I'm simply saying there may not have been anyone appreciably better available than DT last fall, and there may not be anyone better than Crowley now.

[SteveA]

OK instead of firing anyone, lets try fix the problem. The problem is low OBP and P/PA, which leads to low RS. So is Crowley the problem? If he is, fix it by replacing him with someone you think will do better. But if he is not the problem, then why replace someone whom the players like and legions of managers, coaches, players, FO people, etc. think is good?

Like I said, if Buck felt Crow was the best available person for the hitting coach job, then I am behind it, as long as that decision was wholly Showalters. I admit to being a skeptic. As Lookin Up pointed out, this team FOR YEARS has had a problem with soft tossing junkballers, especially lefties. And yes, we don't "work the count" like the Yankees hitters do. We have more guys that swing at bad pitches. We typically do not appear to adjust to what pitchers are doing to get us out. Yes, selectivity is probably the one key to all this, if I had to boil it down to one word.

How do we improve? I would recommend an ORGANIZATIONAL EMPHASIS on getting more selective hitters. That involves scouting, drafting, and coaching at all levels including the majors. Crowley has consistently preached aggressiveness at the plate throughout his career. He has never preached patience. I'm not saying he dislikes patience. But it clearly has never been something he has emphasized. I believe we need an organizational emphasis on it, because that is what the Yankees and Red Sox do and that is what htey have been successful with. And if you have a 68 year old coach at the top level of your system who has never emphasized that aspect of hitting, yes, I believe it is time for a change.

But as I said, if Showalter felt Crow was the best man for the job, better than anyone we could go out and get, then I have no choice but to back up the decision. I just hope that was the rationale that he used and that there were no external influences on his decision.

[Stotle]

The only time I can remember a hitting coach getting a relatively big money contract was when Walt Hriniak left the Red Sox to join the White Sox.

I didn't even remember that.

I do know that scout pay varies a fair amount. However, the sheer number of people who are qualified helps keep the overall number down, and it's a select few that are SO good that they demand drastically more money. A lot of those guys get job title bumps and a little more cash rather than just simply making more money than their peers.

I guess this is what I'd look for if I were replacing a hitting coach. Not necessarily another ML hitting coach, but a smart individual that shows good interpersonal skills and is able to lay out a plan for me during his interview. Former player. Current scout. Current roving instructor. Current MiL manager. College coach. Whomever.

[SrMeowMeow]

As the Orioles have shown us fans for 13 years, results just don't matter with this organization.

I know everyone thinks Buck is god and does no wrong but this is a flat out idiotic decision.

I don't care that the guy is good with mechanics..I don't care if the players like and respect him. I don't care if you want to say the hitters haven't been very good. All of that may be true.

But the results are still not there and haven't been there for THIRTEEN YEARS!!!

At some point, results have to matter....but again, with the Orioles, results mean nothing.

There's no "point" at which meaningless results start to matter just because there are a lot of them. It's like firing a manager for bad seasons. It's a stupid, knee-jerk reaction and it's scapegoating. A manager can only do so much with the teams he's given, and a hitting coach can only do so much with the hitters he's given. If we had A-Rod and Teixeira for the last 13 years, our offense would have been much much better, and nobody would be calling for Crowley's head for reasons entirely out of his control.

The end.

[El Gordo]

Like I said, if Buck felt Crow was the best available person for the hitting coach job, then I am behind it, as long as that decision was wholly Showalters. I admit to being a skeptic. As Lookin Up pointed out, this team FOR YEARS has had a problem with soft tossing junkballers, especially lefties. And yes, we don't "work the count" like the Yankees hitters do. We have more guys that swing at bad pitches. We typically do not appear to adjust to what pitchers are doing to get us out. Yes, selectivity is probably the one key to all this, if I had to boil it down to one word.

How do we improve? I would recommend an ORGANIZATIONAL EMPHASIS on getting more selective hitters. That involves scouting, drafting, and coaching at all levels including the majors. Crowley has consistently preached aggressiveness at the plate throughout his career. He has never preached patience. I'm not saying he dislikes patience. But it clearly has never been something he has emphasized. I believe we need an organizational emphasis on it, because that is what the Yankees and Red Sox do and that is what htey have been successful with. And if you have a 68 year old coach at the top level of your system who has never emphasized that aspect of hitting, yes, I believe it is time for a change.

But as I said, if Showalter felt Crow was the best man for the job, better than anyone we could go out and get, then I have no choice but to back up the decision. I just hope that was the rationale that he used and that there were no external influences on his decision.

What are you basing this on? Do you have a source for this? And don't give me the Nick is sometimes a little too patient BS.

[ledzepp8]

There's no "point" at which meaningless results start to matter just because there are a lot of them. It's like firing a manager for bad seasons. It's a stupid, knee-jerk reaction and it's scapegoating. A manager can only do so much with the teams he's given, and a hitting coach can only do so much with the hitters he's given. If we had A-Rod and Teixeira for the last 13 years, our offense would have been much much better, and nobody would be calling for Crowley's head for reasons entirely out of his control.

The end.

Exactly. What it all comes down to is that none of us have any real clue what Crow (or any HC) does or doesn't do. None of us have any idea what his (or any HC) impact is on the players performance wise. All we can go by are testimonials from the players that have played for him and the coaches that continue to employ him as a major league hitting coach.

Bottom line is that it's probably a decision that really doesn't amount to much (at least as far as we know) and it certainly isn't "flat out idiotic".