Roch: Hitting Coach Terry Crowley is coming back

[Sports Guy]

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.

Absolutely...I meant to point this out and forgot. I noticed that too.

The rest of your post is spot on and it is things that have been brought up several times over the years.

Drungo says, forget the data...Fine..Well, then what about the approach? How about the fact that a soft tossing left dominates us all the time?

Those are things that you see...Those are constants.

And again, that isn't all Crow's fault. Advanced scouting has been terrible for years. But again, when you see the same damn thing over and over again, at what point does that coach, the one in charge of preparing and making the hitters better, be held accountable on some level?

That's what i want to know from those who favor him coming back....At what point should he be held accountable? Should it only be if we have a stacked lineup and that still fails?

[Sports Guy]

We have seen people saying we need to fire our coaches in charge of baserunning.

Should they be fired because the players on our team have a baseball IQ of 10?

Why should they be held accountable because the Orioles are, in general, a stupid baseball team?

[LookinUp]

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.

After 13 years, what I can definitively say is that Crowley hasn't shown that he's an exceptional batting coach.

He may be a fine coach, maybe good, maybe bad, maybe just old, outdated and ineffective, but there's no evidence after 13 years that he's a solution to the problem.

We should be looking for solutions, not staying with people just because there's not definitive evidence that they're the problem.

[El Gordo]

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.

what would you say Buck is? Has he been here long enough to become jaundiced from the poisonous fumes emanating from the warehouse?

[El Gordo]

After 13 years, what I can definitively say is that Crowley hasn't shown that he's an exceptional batting coach.

He may be a fine coach, maybe good, maybe bad, maybe just old, outdated and ineffective, but there's no evidence after 13 years that he's a solution to the problem.

We should be looking for solutions, not staying with people just because there's not definitive evidence that they're the problem.

If you want a solution, sign two players who have career average OBP of .350 or better. It would raise the teams OBP to around .330. Thats the same as Tampa's. No hitting coach could have that big of an impact on a team's production.

[Sports Guy]

If you want a solution, sign two players who have career average OBP of .350 or better. It would raise the teams OBP to around .330. Thats the same as Tampa's. No hitting coach could have that big of an impact on a team's production.

I think we can all agree that signing better talent will improve a lot of our issues.

[makoman]

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.

This is true, but he's also willing to dump them when they aren't getting results and simply give them another job elsewhere. See Dempsey, Flanagan, the one Stockstill. He could have easily made Crow unfirable overall but reassigned him somewhere...

[LookinUp]

what would you say Buck is? Has he been here long enough to become jaundiced from the poisonous fumes emanating from the warehouse?

A step in the right direction.

If you want a solution, sign two players who have career average OBP of .350 or better. It would raise the teams OBP to around .330. Thats the same as Tampa's. No hitting coach could have that big of an impact on a team's production.

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.

[Hank Scorpio]

I think we can all agree that signing better talent will improve a lot of our issues.

This is undoubtedly true. Showalter silenced a lot of people (including me) who said, "The manager doesn't make a shred of difference."

But in the face of that, I'll say that most of the time, hitters are going to be what they are regardless of the hitting coach. Nolan Reimold is going to be a patient hitter with or without Terry Crowley, as is Brian Roberts. In the same vein, Adam Jones is never going to be a patient hitter. Nor will Cesar Izturis or Ty Wigginton.

End of the day, get some better hitters in here and nobody will bat an eye over the presence of Terry Crowley.

[Stotle]

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.

[Enjoy Terror]

what would you say Buck is? Has he been here long enough to become jaundiced from the poisonous fumes emanating from the warehouse?

Buck is... the manager, not the hitting coach.

The bats remain unchanged since Buck came. Only the pitching seems to have benefitted his arrival.

[LookinUp]

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?

Yes, mostly because I respect the interview process, so I don't think there's a high risk of bringing in an unlikable guy. We shouldn't be hiring just any Joe off the street. These are the types of things you check references on and ask about in interviews.

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?

I'm not in the duggout, but I'd wager that being comfortable is a bad thing for this team. Felix Pie, for example, should not be comfortable swinging at every first pitch. Wieters should not be comfortable meekly rolling over a GB to 2B.

Sometimes change is good just for the sake of change. It's possible that Crowley has gotten his strengths across to the players and they'd greatly benefit from someone who looks at things differently. It's probably not possible that Crowley is going to come up with a ton of new approaches to change things up at this point though.

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'm willing to take the risk that minimal growth would be lost considering the reward might be an offensive explosion by the likes of Markakis, Wieters and Jones.

Even if it's likely that there's no discernable change between Crowley and a new coach, I'd still make the change 100 times out of 100 at this point. The alternative is the status quo for our hitters and, likable or not, I say no thanks to that.

[MrOrange82]

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 agree with this. The problem, IMO (and granted my insights into the hitting coach market are limited) is that it feels as though the search for a possible, new hitting coach ended before it began. Out of all the coaches the Orioles have, I don't see why the "we're retaining Crow" announcement had to come first, and so soon.

[Enjoy Terror]

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?

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.

[El Gordo]

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 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 extrapalations 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.