Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Angels hire Don Baylor as new hitting coach


clubMVP

Recommended Posts

I think managers/coaches who were good players are more likely to get more respect and have young players listen to what they have to say. That doesn't mean that what they are saying is worth anything though. Milton Bradley was a pretty good player. He'd probably tell players to go home and beat their wives on a drunken rampage after an 0-10 slump.

it worked for Cabrera. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walks are a False Stat are back. Great.

how does that mean fewer walks?

 

to me it means a greater emphasis on strike zone management. 

 

2009 Rockies - 10.3% BB rate - 1st in the NL

2010 Rockies - 9.3% BB rate - 3rd in the NL

2011 Dbacks - 8.7% BB rate - 3rd in the NL

2012 Dbacks - 8.8% BB rate - 2nd in the NL

 

just as an FYI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think managers/coaches who were good players are more likely to get more respect and have young players listen to what they have to say. That doesn't mean that what they are saying is worth anything though. Milton Bradley was a pretty good player. He'd probably tell players to go home and beat their wives on a drunken rampage after an 0-10 slump.

 

Good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you carefully considered my sentence, I pointed out that Baylor was a much better player which indicates an understanding of what it takes to perform at a high level when every single pitcher is focused on you. I understand why Scioscia "tips his cap" and "turns the page" because he was never the centerpiece for the Dodgers offense. It did not matter whether Mike had a clutch hit or big homerun because there were others on the team to do it. Don Baylor, for much of his career, was the offensive centerpiece for many teams. I can not remember Don Baylor accepting failure as a player. I remember him willing to be hit by a pitch than to accept the pitcher's right to the inside corner. This perspective might help someone to clearly communicate what it takes to be successful because they bring experience. That is not to suggest that a successful playing career is in itself, an indicator of being a successful manager. I indicated that with the second part of the sentence using the phrase "could be" and not leaping to any conclusions. Baylor has already managed and has a variety of experiences that could help him in communicating with young talented players as well as older fading superstars. Longevity in any area requires a person to constantly reinvent themselves to meet the changing landscape. I think Baylor should be considered a mangerial option, but I do not claim to know anyone having inside knowledge, so this is purely hipshooting speculation.

I might suggest that in today's world, the game and people have changed in the last 20 years. Today, many people no longer blindly accept authority and having a person in authority with some credibility is important. This is apparent when examining who has been hired as new inexperienced managers. Their credibility is rooted in either their playing accomplishments or in industry connections. Based on what I read, managing today requires more than it did 20 years ago. Baseball managers must manage game situations, egos, media and relationships in order to be a difference maker. Baylor played for Earl Weaver, Chuck Tanner, Jim Fregosi, Gene Mauch, John McNamera, Tom Kelly, and Tony LaRussa. A logical assumption would be that Baylor learned quite a bit about managing from a player's perspective while playing for these guys. I am not saying that this "pedigree" earns him an automatic label as "good manager" but I think it certainly should earn him consideration for a mangerial opportunity.

Might I suggest that a catcher, who is involved on every single pitch has a better understanding of how to get guys out. Which also means he would have a better understanding of how pitchers will pitch against his hitters. At least a better understanding of that versus a DH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does that mean fewer walks?

 

to me it means a greater emphasis on strike zone management. 

 

2009 Rockies - 10.3% BB rate - 1st in the NL

2010 Rockies - 9.3% BB rate - 3rd in the NL

2011 Dbacks - 8.7% BB rate - 3rd in the NL

2012 Dbacks - 8.8% BB rate - 2nd in the NL

 

just as an FYI

 

I'm not entirely sure that's what that quote necessarily means either, though. I sure hope it does, and as skeptical as I am about how much of a change a hitting coach is going to make with established hitters, I would welcome that attempt if nothing else.

 

If Baylor's thought here is what you suggested(and that I'm not even disagreeing with, I think the way he said it leaves it very open to interpretation), and his concern is tightening up guy's strike zone control in the name of getting on base at a better rate and getting themselves into better counts, and at the same time cutting down on Ks? Like I said, wonderful! Not the way I would have explained that, but I'll take it!

 

I think the concern with that quote though is Baylor's focus on just strikeouts, which are really just a symptom of the strike zone management problem. I could see how one would get the impression that Baylor's main concern is just cutting down on strikeouts, which doesn't really solve anything on it's own. Even if the K totals are more aesthetically pleasing in that scenario, if Kendrick or whoever is striking out say 20 fewer times a year but making that same number of outs in other ways, I'm not going to be jumping up and down about the "progress" Baylor has made.

 

All that said: I'm willing to give Baylor a little bit of the benefit of the doubt and hope he just explained the former option in a kind of roundabout way though. At least for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure that's what that quote necessarily means either, though. I sure hope it does, and as skeptical as I am about how much of a change a hitting coach is going to make with established hitters, I would welcome that attempt if nothing else.

 

If Baylor's thought here is what you suggested(and that I'm not even disagreeing with, I think the way he said it leaves it very open to interpretation), and his concern is tightening up guy's strike zone control in the name of getting on base at a better rate and getting themselves into better counts, and at the same time cutting down on Ks? Like I said, wonderful! Not the way I would have explained that, but I'll take it!

 

I think the concern with that quote though is Baylor's focus on just strikeouts, which are really just a symptom of the strike zone management problem. I could see how one would get the impression that Baylor's main concern is just cutting down on strikeouts, which doesn't really solve anything on it's own. Even if the K totals are more aesthetically pleasing in that scenario, if Kendrick or whoever is striking out say 20 fewer times a year but making that same number of outs in other ways, I'm not going to be jumping up and down about the "progress" Baylor has made.

 

All that said: I'm willing to give Baylor a little bit of the benefit of the doubt and hope he just explained the former option in a kind of roundabout way though. At least for now.

 

I think you have to understand who you are dealing with a go from there.  Baylor strikes me as kind of an old school guy. He doesn't seem all that concerned about framing his comments to give the saberheads (including myself) a big obp boner. 

 

If he was concerned about 'putting the ball in play', he would have said that. 

 

To me, he recognizes that a strikeout is worse than every other out because it's independent of defense. 

 

Last year, we led the AL is O-swing% and we were 4th in the AL in swstr%. 

 

Would you like the team's philosophy to be 'don't swing at crap', or 'try to get as many walks as possible'?  Because there is a difference. 

 

So I have no problem with focusing on decreasing strikeouts as a bridge to improving pitch recognition.  Yes, obp is of the utmost importance and if he's talking about making more contact to sacrafice obp, then I'd agree it's not the ideal approach.  But I don't think that's what he means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I suggest that a catcher, who is involved on every single pitch has a better understanding of how to get guys out. Which also means he would have a better understanding of how pitchers will pitch against his hitters. At least a better understanding of that versus a DH.

 

I agree.  The fact that Scioscia was a catcher makes a big difference in understanding the game compared to a DH.  However, the DH does gets to sit on the bench with the manager.  Bottom line, I don't know.....I just want the Angels to play better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you misunderstood the statement. baylor is saying he doesn't approve of strikeout machines. that would lend itself to more patience, therefore more walks.

Not at all. Look at strikeout kings such as Adam Dunn. He also has a crazy high walk rate.

The isn't strikeout totals. It is plate discipline and to not swung at bad pitches and force a pitcher to be backed into hitter's counts.

Taking 3 pitches per PA is also not in 95% of player's best interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...