Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[KAZ97]

I mainly asked because I wanted to see if I could detect any pattern in who these players were that might play into the issues raised by SG. Obviously, these are 10 very experienced players. Do I understand that the data you collected from them is their entire careers pre/post Crowley and with Crowley? Or were you only looking at what they did during 2006-09? And how many of the PA's did this group represent pre/post and during Crowley? I'm not sure my questions lead anywhere specific, I'm just probing.

I only looked at the data from 2006-2009, not their entire career.

[TiredofLosing20]

Only for you Frobby.

There were 42 players total. I don't know who the "best" players were, but these are the ten players who contributed the most data:

Miguel Tejada, Aubrey Huff, Kevin Millar, Ty Wiggington, Ramon Hernandez, Luke Scott, Corey Patterson, Jay Payton, Cesar Izturis, Gregg Zaun.

Those ten contributed 60% of the data.

I see no reason why we should throw out 40% of the data in this scenario, but regardless, because you asked, here is the comparison between coaches.

Under Terry Crowley: .271/.334/.431

Under other coaches: .269/.328/.425

This is all very good stuff. With that said (don't you hate it when people do that) I don't know how much of this you can really use as proof of anything. I would think that a bigger sample size maybe would show more tho would be a pretty big undertaking. I mean I would think you would even need to weigh certain guys differently based on an estimated influence factor meaning Tejada would weigh less than someone who spent their more formative years under Crowley. Yeah I can't even imagine that project.

I definitely would say that this is the kind of info one would need to put together an argument to dispel my belief that Crowley's approach has not worked and that he needs to go.

As I (and others) have said, the vast majority of the blame goes on the hitters but I just can't absolve Crowley of all responsibility. His hitters on both the Twins and the Orioles have not put together great (and in most cases even good) results.

I just don't understand why we can think nothing of firing pitching coaches and managers with poor players but that excuse seems to keep Crowley employed.

[Frobby]

I only looked at the data from 2006-2009, not their entire career.

I think that is relevant, because most of these players are older and should be on the declining part of the age curve. Everything else being equal, you'd expect an older player who was in Baltimore in 2006 to be better in Baltimore than he was after he left, whereas you'd expect an older player who was elsewhere in 2006 to be worse in Baltimore than he was before.

Hernandez, Millar, Tejada and Patterson were on the O's in 2006, and would be expected to be a little worse after leaving. Wigginton, Izturis, and Scott were elsewhere first and would be expected to be worse in Baltimore (though Scott was relatively inexperienced when he arrived so less so for him). Payton, Zaun and Huff were elsewhere in 2006 but also played somewhere else after leaving Baltimore (though Payton played nowhere in 2009 and I gather you didn't use his 2010 numbers). So overall, I don't see much of a bias one way or the other based on this.

[Frobby]

This is all very good stuff. With that said (don't you hate it when people do that) I don't know how much of this you can really use as proof of anything. I would think that a bigger sample size maybe would show more tho would be a pretty big undertaking. I mean I would think you would even need to weigh certain guys differently based on an estimated influence factor meaning Tejada would weigh less than someone who spent their more formative years under Crowley. Yeah I can't even imagine that project.

I definitely would say that this is the kind of info one would need to put together an argument to dispel my belief that Crowley's approach has not worked and that he needs to go.

As I (and others) have said, the vast majority of the blame goes on the hitters but I just can't absolve Crowley of all responsibility. His hitters on both the Twins and the Orioles have not put together great (and in most cases even good) results.

I just don't understand why we can think nothing of firing pitching coaches and managers with poor players but that excuse seems to keep Crowley employed.

In my opinion, while the data KAZ has assembled isn't perfect by any means, it is more relevant than just looking at the team's overall numbers. And, I don't think the "look at the talent" excuse is what has kept Crowley employed. What keeps him employed is that the GM's and managers who have worked with him on a daily basis and observe what he does up close hold the opinion that he's good at his job.

Like I've said, it would be fine with me if the Orioles changed the hitting coach. But this data supports the idea that Crowley is solid at his job.

[Sports Guy]

I haven't looked at the numbers but I would assume 2006 Miggy was better than 2010 Miggy by a large margin.

Crow had both of them. Should he get penalized for older Miggy being worse?

[Frobby]

I haven't looked at the numbers but I would assume 2006 Miggy was better than 2010 Miggy by a large margin.

Crow had both of them. Should he get penalized for older Miggy being worse?

2010 wasn't used. Only 2006-09 data. In Tejada's case, yes he was older in 2008-09 but he also was playing in a more hitter-friendly environment in an inferior league/division after he left. Also, see my post above about the top 10 players and the age bias issue.

[TiredofLosing20]

In my opinion, while the data KAZ has assembled isn't perfect by any means, it is more relevant than just looking at the team's overall numbers. And, I don't think the "look at the talent" excuse is what has kept Crowley employed. What keeps him employed is that the GM's and managers who have worked with him on a daily basis and observe what he does up close hold the opinion that he's good at his job.

Like I've said, it would be fine with me if the Orioles changed the hitting coach. But this data supports the idea that Crowley is solid at his job.

I don't know Frobby. Crowley's teams over two organizations and many many different players provide a fairly consistent trend over a pretty significant period of time with exception of a few outliers (i.e 2004).

Well, what is keeping him employed is certainly debateable (meaning we don't really know). I suppose I should have said that the "look at the talent" excuse is used by a good number of folks here at the OH. And don't get me wrong there is validity to it, I just find it odd that this line of thinking hasn't applied across the board to other coaches by either OH posters or the organization.

I think KAZ's stuff is good and have said so. I don't think it is compelling enough to change my opinion but it certainly is on the right road.

[Sports Guy]

2010 wasn't used. Only 2006-09 data. In Tejada's case, yes he was older in 2008-09 but he also was playing in a more hitter-friendly environment in an inferior league/division after he left. Also, see my post above about the top 10 players and the age bias issue.

Even if it wasn't used, my general point is the same. If Crow has the same player, 4 years apart, should he get penalized the second time around(notice, this is an argument for him, not against).

And I agree that the sampling is likely large enough where a lot of it balances out but still, there are just so many factors involved that for this to be a truly good test, it would really need to be researched way more...and that would take too much time and effort for something that only matters so much.

[Frobby]

I don't know Frobby. Crowley's teams over two organizations and many many different players provide a fairly consistent trend over a pretty significant period of time with exception of a few outliers (i.e 2004).

Well, what is keeping him employed is certainly debateable (meaning we don't really know). I suppose I should have said that the "look at the talent" excuse is used by a good number of folks here at the OH. And don't get me wrong there is validity to it, I just find it odd that this line of thinking hasn't applied across the board to other coaches by either OH posters or the organization.

I think KAZ's stuff is good and have said so. I don't think it is compelling enough to change my opinion but it certainly is on the right road.

I do have a theory on one of the reasons why pitching coaches have been changed often while Crowley has remained on board. Simply put, I think the pitching coach has a much more personal relationship with the manager than the hitting coach does. Pitching coaches are giving the manager a lot of input during the course of a game. So, managers like to have a pitching coach who they know very well. That's part of the reason why Perlozzo hired Mazzone; and that's also why Trembley replaced him with Kranitz, for example. Hitting coaches tend to do their work in the batting cage or in the film room with the hitters, and spend a lot less time interacting with the manager.

[SrMeowMeow]

Wow, if that's the case, sign me up to be a hitting coach on a crummy team! Job security for life, baby! "Hey, sure he hit .240 with a .250 OBP. Were it not for ME, he would have literally had no hits this year. Yep... Uh, where's the pay window? And please, let's go ahead and pick up Atkins for the four-hole." (Literally, this was apparently a thought AM had when signing Atkins... that he could be a middle-of-the-order bat.)

You didn't understand me.

[hoosiers]

This is all very good stuff. With that said (don't you hate it when people do that) I don't know how much of this you can really use as proof of anything. I would think that a bigger sample size maybe would show more tho would be a pretty big undertaking. I mean I would think you would even need to weigh certain guys differently based on an estimated influence factor meaning Tejada would weigh less than someone who spent their more formative years under Crowley. Yeah I can't even imagine that project.

I definitely would say that this is the kind of info one would need to put together an argument to dispel my belief that Crowley's approach has not worked and that he needs to go.

As I (and others) have said, the vast majority of the blame goes on the hitters but I just can't absolve Crowley of all responsibility. His hitters on both the Twins and the Orioles have not put together great (and in most cases even good) results.

I just don't understand why we can think nothing of firing pitching coaches and managers with poor players but that excuse seems to keep Crowley employed.

I do not understand the ability of those to dispute statistical facts of the potential influence of TC and how players have performed better under him - while seemingly leaving the poor team statistics cited in the opening paragraph as valid analyis! The lack of real stats used by those criticizing Terry Crowley of TC's ineffectiveness is a major thorn IMO.

I started a thread on this month's ago using OPS+. TC has worked with a decades' worth of Jay Paytons, David Seguis, Larry Bigbies, etc. Very few players have gone on to multiple successful seasons after leaving TC. Several have shown noticeable improvement under TC.

[fansince71]

So , is this confirmed yet?

[ledzepp8]

I haven't looked at the numbers but I would assume 2006 Miggy was better than 2010 Miggy by a large margin.

Crow had both of them. Should he get penalized for older Miggy being worse?

Should he get credit for Tejada Pt. 1 hitting for a better average, better OBP, better SLG, etc than his previous years in Oakland?

[Sports Guy]

Should he get credit for Tejada Pt. 1 hitting for a better average, better OBP, better SLG, etc than his previous years in Oakland?

Personally, I say no....And that's not a knock on Crow at all...its because of the ballpark differences.

[El Gordo]

If a manager effects the W/L record 3-5 games. How much does a hitting coach effect it? More?