Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[ledzepp8]

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

What about his OPS+? He averaged a higher OPS+ in his first stint with the Orioles than he did with As. That takes into account ballpark differences.

[Bradysburns]

You didn't understand me.

Well I am here to learn, so please clarify if you would good sir.

[Bradysburns]

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.

Yeah, it's probably because he ruined their swings permanently.

[Sports Guy]

What about his OPS+? He averaged a higher OPS+ in his first stint with the Orioles than he did with As. That takes into account ballpark differences.

Not really...What it doesn't tell you is how Tejada would have hit in OPACY.

[TiredofLosing20]

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.

I looked back at your analysis and I definitely appreciate your effort. It is an interesting analysis. I don't however put a ton of stock in it. There is just a lot of variabilty and only looks at certain players, still good stuff.

Look, I would not argue that Crowley hasn't helped guys here or there. But Crowley's teams have been in the bottom 3rd the vast majority of the time with both the Twins and the O's. Additionally, with a lack of a substantial in-depth analysis of his hitters over a significant period all I can really rely on is the overall results (while admittedly questionable) and on my eyeballs.

Again (I seem to say this in every post on the subject) Crowley didn't pick the players so the vast majority of the blame for the poor results are due to player personnel, but Crowley has to take some blame. If he doesn't then I just don't understand how one can honestly say that any results matter when discussing coaches in ML baseball. It is not like he had bad results for 2 years and people are trying to oust him. It has been 13 years and really 6 years before that with the Twins. I disagree with how his teams have historically approached hitting (to which I think overall results can provide some insight) and since he is the guy with the proverbial clipboard I have to assign some level of blame.

[Frobby]

Again (I seem to say this in every post on the subject) Crowley didn't pick the players so the vast majority of the blame for the poor results are due to player personnel, but Crowley has to take some blame. If he doesn't then I just don't understand how one can honestly say that any results matter when discussing coaches in ML baseball. It is not like he had bad results for 2 years and people are trying to oust him. It has been 13 years and really 6 years before that with the Twins. I disagree with how his teams have historically approached hitting (to which I think overall results can provide some insight) and since he is the guy with the proverbial clipboard I have to assign some level of blame.

Well, I think results do matter, but you still have to consider what the coach is working with. It's like if you have two math classes, one for the smarter kids and one for the not-so-smart kids. If the first class does better than the second class year after year on the standardized tests, you don't fire the teacher of the second class just because the results were worse than the first class. Nor do you necessarily keep the teacher of the second class just because the students can't be expected to do as well as the students in the first class. Instead, you come up with ways to assess whether the second class is doing as well as can be expected. Some of that might be by judging whether the students in that class are improving. Some of it might be by observing what goes on in the classroom -- is the teacher teaching what is intended, does the teacher have the students' attention, is the teacher well prepared, etc. Some of it might be talking to the students about their opinion of the teacher.

To me, the evidence assembled by KAZ and hooisers suggests that Crowley is at par or better with his peers. And apparently the various GMs and managers who do the "classroom observation" agree with that.

Now, I don't really put too much stock in the opinions of Perlozzo and Trembley on the subject. But if that's Buck's opinion -- at present -- then I have no problem with his decision to keep Crowley. Buck can always change his mind during 2011 or at the end of the year if the results aren't there or if a longer observation period causes him to change his mind.

[TiredofLosing20]

Well, I think results do matter, but you still have to consider what the coach is working with. It's like if you have two math classes, one for the smarter kids and one for the not-so-smart kids. If the first class does better than the second class year after year on the standardized tests, you don't fire the teacher of the second class just because the results were worse than the first class. Nor do you necessarily keep the teacher of the second class just because the students can't be expected to do as well as the students in the first class. Instead, you come up with ways to assess whether the second class is doing as well as can be expected. Some of that might be by judging whether the students in that class are improving. Some of it might be by observing what goes on in the classroom -- is the teacher teaching what is intended, does the teacher have the students' attention, is the teacher well prepared, etc. Some of it might be talking to the students about their opinion of the teacher.

To me, the evidence assembled by KAZ and hooisers suggests that Crowley is at par or better with his peers. And apparently the various GMs and managers who do the "classroom observation" agree with that.

Now, I don't really put too much stock in the opinions of Perlozzo and Trembley on the subject. But if that's Buck's opinion -- at present -- then I have no problem with his decision to keep Crowley. Buck can always change his mind during 2011 or at the end of the year if the results aren't there or if a longer observation period causes him to change his mind.

I don't think I have given any indication that I am not taking into consideration the talent level he is working with. To the contrary I have said (multiple times) that clearly that the talent level should shoulder the majority of the blame, however the coach has to take some of the blame. Again, its not like those of us who would like to see a change are asking for it after 2 years. Its been 13, and his hitters track record with his prior organization reflects a similar trend as this one (ie low ranked OBP, walks etc).

I do get what you are saying and I am someone who assumes I don't know the whole picture and try to give the benefit of the doubt to those in the know (coaches, GMs, players) but I cant ignore the last 13 years of watching this team bat and it is the same thing every year. I am not suggesting that the change of the hitting coach is going to fix all the woes overnight, but sometimes a fresh voice isn't a bad thing. I guess I simply prefer this team to be more focused on OBP as we just don't have the horses to pound teams into submission. Nothing in Crowleys coaching past gives me any hope that this will come to fruition. And I supppose for me thats the rub.

[Frobby]

I don't think I have given any indication that I am not taking into consideration the talent level he is working with. To the contrary I have said (multiple times) that clearly that the talent level should shoulder the majority of the blame, however the coach has to take some of the blame. Again, its not like those of us who would like to see a change are asking for it after 2 years. Its been 13, and his hitters track record with his prior organization reflects a similar trend as this one (ie low ranked OBP, walks etc).

I do get what you are saying and I am someone who assumes I don't know the whole picture and try to give the benefit of the doubt to those in the know (coaches, GMs, players) but I cant ignore the last 13 years of watching this team bat and it is the same thing every year. I am not suggesting that the change of the hitting coach is going to fix all the woes overnight, but sometimes a fresh voice isn't a bad thing. I guess I simply prefer this team to be more focused on OBP as we just don't have the horses to pound teams into submission. Nothing in Crowleys coaching past gives me any hope that this will come to fruition. And I supppose for me thats the rub.

I think we've taken this discussion as far as we can take it. Like I've said, it would have been fine with me if Buck (or his several predecessors) had chosen to replace Crowley. Personally, I feel that sometimes you need to change the messenger even if it's just to deliver the same message in a different voice. But my main concern here is whether Buck is making this decision based on his own judgment. So long as he is, I think everything else will work out eventually.

[hoosiers]

Again (I seem to say this in every post on the subject) Crowley didn't pick the players so the vast majority of the blame for the poor results are due to player personnel, but Crowley has to take some blame. If he doesn't then I just don't understand how one can honestly say that any results matter when discussing coaches in ML baseball. It is not like he had bad results for 2 years and people are trying to oust him. It has been 13 years and really 6 years before that with the Twins. I disagree with how his teams have historically approached hitting (to which I think overall results can provide some insight) and since he is the guy with the proverbial clipboard I have to assign some level of blame.

It's fine if you don't think what I put together provides a lot of insight. It's fine if folks don't buy into what KAZ put together regarding overall numbers of the same hitters with and without TC. The two pieces of information provided by Kaz and I provide SOME directional evidence that TC is a positive contributor.

What I find disappointing is the lack of any sort of reasonable statistical information provided by those criticizing TC that his approach has harmed the hitters he has provided - yet some folks want to repeatedly claim that TC has been a bad influence.

I started another thread regarding why Seattle fired it's pitching coach this year. That guy had a negative influence on nearly EVERY hitter he encountered except for the current Seattle CF. Beltre was awful in 09 and did very well in Boston. Kotchman, Figgins and others have done much worse with that guy.

If there were real evidence that TC had a negative influence, that would be one thing, but I have yet to see it after many, many months of attacking TC.

[El Gordo]

I remember listening to Texas' hitting coach being interviewed on XM. He said he thought his job was about getting his players to make better outs. I thought this was an interesting way of looking at things. Failure and making outs is what happens most of the time, with even the best hitters. How to turn a negative into a positive? To me I thought he meant stressing quality AB's instead of the outcome interms of BA, OBP, OPS etc. I would think if you could look at the % of QAB a player has under a given hitting coach you might get a morer accurate measure of his influence.

[TiredofLosing20]

It's fine if you don't think what I put together provides a lot of insight. It's fine if folks don't buy into what KAZ put together regarding overall numbers of the same hitters with and without TC. The two pieces of information provided by Kaz and I provide SOME directional evidence that TC is a positive contributor.

What I find disappointing is the lack of any sort of reasonable statistical information provided by those criticizing TC that his approach has harmed the hitters he has provided - yet some folks want to repeatedly claim that TC has been a bad influence.

I started another thread regarding why Seattle fired it's pitching coach this year. That guy had a negative influence on nearly EVERY hitter he encountered except for the current Seattle CF. Beltre was awful in 09 and did very well in Boston. Kotchman, Figgins and others have done much worse with that guy.

If there were real evidence that TC had a negative influence, that would be one thing, but I have yet to see it after many, many months of attacking TC.

Interesting the comments surrounding his firing by their GM and Mike Sweeney. It sounds familiar.

"Sometimes just the same message from a different messenger sometimes carries some weight, but it's certainly apparent we're not doing what we should be doing offensively," Zduriencik said.

"So maybe there's a little key here the new guy can unlock."

"It's brutal. I look around this clubhouse and there are a ton of players that deserve to get fired before him and I am one of them," designated hitter Mike Sweeney said. "I know our offense hasn't had a heartbeat, but it's not due to Alan Cockrell. It's due to us, the players.

We are the ones that deserve all the criticism, not him. I will be the first one to stand up and take a bullet for that guy because he was here early, he worked his butt off, he put in more hours than anyone in this clubhouse," Sweeney said. "It's tough to see a guy like that go. I wish I was the one to go instead of him because I deserve it more than he does."

It is interesting to note that Seattle didn't exactly turn it on after the Cockrell was fired.

I am not disregarding the work you and KAZ have done and agree that there is SOME directional evidence. But I suppose I believe there is SOME directional evidence in Crowley's record over 13 years here and 8 years with the Twins. You seem to want to ignore it which is fine. Neither is infallible neither is conclusive. Without a pretty comprehensive statistical look at Crowley's batters (not just a few or just over a few years) I am just not willing to rely on smallish sample sizes to come to the conclusion that Crowley is making a positive influence overall on the hitting of the Baltimore Orioles, especially given the fact that I have watched entirely too many 8 pitch innings and domination by no-name pitchers over the past decade.

Even a comprehensive statistical approach to this would to me still be fraught with variabilities that couldn't possibly be factored out. So in lieu of that I have to go with is what I have seen. Not exactly scientific I know but its not like it is June in his first season as hitting coach. I think I have reviewed a pretty good body of work (13 years).

Ultimately, I guess I am left to trust Buck's opinion (as I do believe it is his choice, not so sure about past managers) with a skeptical eye.

With that, I agree with Frobby not sure what else to really say about this.

[Frobby]

Ultimately, I guess I am left to trust Buck's opinion (as I do believe it is his choice, not so sure about past managers) with a skeptical eye.

I thought I'd mention that Crowley was hired when Ray Miller was the manager, in between his first and second seasons here. Miller was replaced by Mike Hargrove, who elected to keep Crowley and then retained him all four years he was the manager. Whatever one wants to say about Buck's other predecessors, Mike Hargrove was a very experienced manager, a very good and patient hitter himself, and he had managed some great-hitting teams in Cleveland. I have no doubt Hargrove had authority to hire his own staff and to change coaches during his tenure here.

[nate22]

The Blue Jays have apparently narrowed their managerial search down to three

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=338056

I thought this might be significant because Brian Butterfield is not mentioned as one of the three thus opening the door to possibly join Buck's staff.

[Going Underground]

The Blue Jays have apparently narrowed their managerial search down to three

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=338056

I thought this might be significant because Brian Butterfield is not mentioned as one of the three thus opening the door to possibly join Buck's staff.

I think Butterfield will be here. We might not have all the staff hired till the middle of November. With the playoffs and manager hirings in flux,the O's might have to wait a little. I can also see a former Oriole in one of the coaching positions.

[Dipper9]

I think Butterfield will be here. We might not have all the staff hired till the middle of November. With the playoffs and manager hirings in flux,the O's might have to wait a little. I can also see a former Oriole in one of the coaching positions.

You mean BESIDES the Crow? :laughlol: