Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[Sports Guy]

The strongest evidence is that different managers keep retaining the guy. They have to have a reason, so if you don't believe the Angelos conspiracy theories (which I don't), then the only logical explanation is that many different people who have worked closely with him think he's good at his job.

So, then I am to assume that you(along with Drungo and others) believe that all of the managers we have had Crow as #1 on their list of hitting coaches they wanted to have on their staff(and obviously, #1 of the guys that were actually available..personally, i think Buck goes with Jaramillo right now if he was available)?

And if you do believe that, do you also believe that guys like DT, Perlozzo, Maz, etc...were qualified enough to determine that Crow is the best hitting coach for this team?

[Moose Milligan]

Do you believe that the managers and pitching coaches that have been fired over the years, should have been fired?

Sure.

But that wasn't my point with that analogy.

[Sports Guy]

Sure.

But that wasn't my point with that analogy.

But wait a minute...you are saying Crow hasn't had anything to work with.

Have the managers and pitching coaches had anything to work with?

[DrungoHazewood]

If he'd proven himself to be some kind of miracle worker, well, that'd be one thing, but he hasn't. Jones hasn't "grown" under Crow. Roberts is what he's always been. Markakis is Markakis. Wieters went from a .300+ minor league hitter with power to a huge question mark going forward. Pie's done little of consequence. Riemold flashed, then burned. Wigginton? Career averages. Luke Scott? Maybe he's the success story? Based on one, career year? Izturis fell off the face of the Earth. And you can stretch the list back for as long as Crow's been here.

Is this really your evidence?

Jones had a 63 OPS+ in limited time in Seattle, an 87 as an Oriole rookie, a 105 last year, and a 107 this year. He's never had a season where his OPS+ didn't get better.

Roberts came up as a prototypical slap-hitting little middle infielder. His first two years he had an OPS+ in the 60s, then an 87, then a 90, then he broke out, and has averaged a 114 OPS+ since, with 48 doubles per 162 games. He showed exceptional growth.

Markakis has been up and down. You could certainly argue that his approach could be different, maybe more productive.

Wieters hasn't broken out as expected. You could blame Crowley, or his catching workload, or his youth, overexuberent PECTOA forecasts, or any number or things.

Pie was so poorly regarded that the Cubs sent him away for a grade D pitching prospect. When he came to the O's he had a career OPS of .615 in nearly 300 PAs. With the O's he's just shy of league-average at .739.

Reimold was a rookie of the year contender based almost solely on his bat, then had a bizarre year full of personal problems.

Wigginton, as you mention, has been Ty Wigginton.

Scott has been great.

Izturis has a 67 OPS+ without Crowley, 56 with. Terrible in either case. Had a 50 this year, but three other years with other coaches in the 50s.

Even with anecdotal evidence this is pretty flimsy proof.

[Moose Milligan]

But wait a minute...you are saying Crow hasn't had anything to work with.

Have the managers and pitching coaches had anything to work with?

Ohhhh, you're a tricky one SG! I never saw THIS angle coming from that original question, you sly guy, you!

And no, they haven't. But for some reason Crow gets kept around. But it couldn't possibly be that smarter baseball men than you and me actually think he's got something to offer, could it?

[DrungoHazewood]

So, then I am to assume that you(along with Drungo and others) believe that all of the managers we have had Crow as #1 on their list of hitting coaches they wanted to have on their staff(and obviously, #1 of the guys that were actually available..personally, i think Buck goes with Jaramillo right now if he was available)?

And if you do believe that, do you also believe that guys like DT, Perlozzo, Maz, etc...were qualified enough to determine that Crow is the best hitting coach for this team?

I have no idea, but I have to assume at least some of them had very good qualifications.

[MrOrange82]

Is this really your evidence?

Jones had a 63 OPS+ in limited time in Seattle, an 87 as an Oriole rookie, a 105 last year, and a 107 this year. He's never had a season where his OPS+ didn't get better.

Roberts came up as a prototypical slap-hitting little middle infielder. His first two years he had an OPS+ in the 60s, then an 87, then a 90, then he broke out, and has averaged a 114 OPS+ since, with 48 doubles per 162 games. He showed exceptional growth.

Markakis has been up and down. You could certainly argue that his approach could be different, maybe more productive.

Wieters hasn't broken out as expected. You could blame Crowley, or his catching workload, or his youth, overexuberent PECTOA forecasts, or any number or things.

Pie was so poorly regarded that the Cubs sent him away for a grade D pitching prospect. When he came to the O's he had a career OPS of .615 in nearly 300 PAs. With the O's he's just shy of league-average at .739.

Reimold was a rookie of the year contender based almost solely on his bat, then had a bizarre year full of personal problems.

Wigginton, as you mention, has been Ty Wigginton.

Scott has been great.

Izturis has a 67 OPS+ without Crowley, 56 with. Terrible in either case. Had a 50 this year, but three other years with other coaches in the 50s.

Even with anecdotal evidence this is pretty flimsy proof.

And it stands in opposition to the "proof" that Crowley should keep his job because...obviously he's well-regarded by managers and FO-types...because he's kept his job.

He should keep his job because he's kept his job. Nice.

[El Gordo]

Seems to me theer are several optoions here.

1)Buck doesn't know what he is doing, but SG does.

2)Buck does know what he is doing, but SG doesn't.

3)Buck knows what he is doing, but PA is forcing him to go against his better judgement.

4) No body here knows enough to accurately assess the situation.....:scratchchinhmm:

[NewMarketSean]

OK, Crowley is coming back and there is nothing we can do about it.

But it would be nice if the Orioles did something they have hardly done in the time under Crowley and brought in some real quality hitters for him to coach. No more Garrett Atkins retreads or "swings for the fences".

Just sign us some guys who...you know...can actually hit.

[MrOrange82]

OK, Crowley is coming back and there is nothing we can do about it.

But it would be nice if the Orioles did something they have hardly done in the time under Crowley and brought in some real quality hitters for him to coach. No more Garrett Atkins retreads or "swings for the fences".

Just sign us some guys who...you know...can actually hit.

I'll bet you $10 and a scratch-off ticket that Kranitz would look like a genius if the O's signed Cliff Lee, Darvish and Mariano Rivera.

[Sports Guy]

Ohhhh, you're a tricky one SG! I never saw THIS angle coming from that original question, you sly guy, you!

And no, they haven't. But for some reason Crow gets kept around. But it couldn't possibly be that smarter baseball men than you and me actually think he's got something to offer, could it?

Sure, it could be that.

However, you also have to believe that all fo the managers have had the ability to name their staff and that Crow was always #1 on the list...if you don't believe, as I don't, then it goes back to PA...and I don't know about you but PA isn't exactly someone I would refer to as a "smart baseball man".

Also, if you did believe that guys like DT, Maz and Perlozzo should have been fired and that they weren't good at their jobs, why should you then believe that they were able to make the proper hitting coach decision, if they were in fact allowed to make their own decision?

For me, I see no reason to think PA didn't influence them and I see no reason to think these guys were good enough to make the correct decision.

So, the fact that Crow has stayed around through several managerial changes means nothing to me.

It obviously holds some weight with many others but not me.

[Moose Milligan]

Sure, it could be that.

However, you also have to believe that all fo the managers have had the ability to name their staff and that Crow was always #1 on the list...if you don't believe, as I don't, then it goes back to PA...and I don't know about you but PA isn't exactly someone I would refer to as a "smart baseball man".

Also, if you did believe that guys like DT, Maz and Perlozzo should have been fired and that they weren't good at their jobs, why should you then believe that they were able to make the proper hitting coach decision, if they were in fact allowed to make their own decision?

For me, I see no reason to think PA didn't influence them and I see no reason to think these guys were good enough to make the correct decision.

So, the fact that Crow has stayed around through several managerial changes means nothing to me.

It obviously holds some weight with many others but not me.

But you've already admitted to not knowing what'd be in it for PA keeping Crowley around. I mean, I can't even think of any reasons that it'd be beneficial for him to do so, can you? Of ALL positions in the organization, why does the ML hitting coach successfully stay from regime change to regime change?

DT, Maz and Perlozzo are all good baseball guys, just not good manager material. Doesn't mean they necessarily failed at picking who their coaches were.

[Sports Guy]

But you've already admitted to not knowing what'd be in it for PA keeping Crowley around. I mean, I can't even think of any reasons that it'd be beneficial for him to do so, can you? Of ALL positions in the organization, why does the ML hitting coach successfully stay from regime change to regime change?

DT, Maz and Perlozzo are all good baseball guys, just not good manager material. Doesn't mean they necessarily failed at picking who their coaches were.

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.

[LookinUp]

I agree with SG overall.

I think that baseball is stuck in statistics overload. Everyone thinks you can or should be able to measure every aspect of the game and, when you can't rely on the stat, that must mean there's no evidence one way or the other. That same argument was apparent with Trembley.

I think this decision is about scouting more than tangibles. As a fan of the O's, do you ever wonder why we can't hit lefties, or seemingly never adjust to those pitchers making their first ML start, or why Pie continues to swing at first pitches over and over again?

If you're an opposing team, do you ever get outsmarted by Oriole hitters? Do we ever wear out opposing starters by working the count? Is there ever a team approach (e.g., trying to wait for an average secondary pitch and jumping on that) apparent?

I know the O's haven't had great talent over the years, but I find it silly that a coach can't change that approach, especially with young players. In fact, I think that FAs we signed are a bad measure anyway, since they're the least likely to change with a new coach...and I even wonder what advice Crowley provides when we're considering various FAs.

There was one statistic in this thread that actually stood out to me very clearly. We ALWAYS ranked better in terms of BA than we did in terms of runs or OBP. I don't think this is a coincidence. The O's have an Old#5Fan strategy in the era of Bill James...and Crowley is at least partially to blame.

[Enjoy Terror]

There's no evidence to say the Crowley is keeping his job because he's a good hitting coach. He could have the ear of any number of execs within the organization. However, judging from what we know the players have said, they like him. But we've also heard players say that Crowley gets ignored and they go up to bat without a plan. A history of poor batting for the organization in addition to poor drafting. But we've also seen successes.

So we know.... nothing. A lot of misinformation. Conflicting stories, past track record and personal opinions of character meshing with the quality of current production. How anyone can say that Terry Crowley is or isn't what the Orioles need right now is beyond me. There's no way you can possibly know.

But... what I do know is the fact that the Orioles bats are not very good. Crowley may or may not have any control over that. "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result" is essentially what the Orioles seem to be doing. That's insanity. The Orioles really should try to find someone else with a outsider's perspective.