In article <1164423125.620505.244640.DeleteThis@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"danfergis" <danfergis.DeleteThis@netscape.net> wrote:
>Dan Szymborski wrote:
>> It's kind of funny that Crowley, a man who only had a long
>> career in the majors as a role player because he'd take lots of
>> walks and hit for power with a low BA, would want to tailor
>> offenses to be exactly the opposite.
>I don't know that he took "lots" of walks. His lifetime OBP of .345 is
>servicable at best and but 19 points over league average.
He didn't say he had a high OBP; he said he took lots of walks. His career
OBP was unspectacular because he hit .250 in his career. He walked almost
90 times per 600 ABs. That's not Barry Bonds, but it's quite good.
> As for power,
>his.375 slugging percentage was below the league average for when he
>played by about 7 points.
>The same for his medicore career OPS and OPS+ numbers which are .720
>and 104 respectively.
Which is why he was a role player, rather than a starter. The issue here
isn't how good Crowley was -- obviously, nothing special; the issue is the
*type* of player he was. Crowley was a guy (like many Earl Weaver players)
whose value was wrapped up in his Secondary Average rather than his Batting
Average. That's why, despite hitting .250, he was able to stay in the
majors for 15 years.
>I pretty much see this reflected in his coaching
>approach and results. This guy was no walking machins and was far from
>it. As a "power hitter" he fails miserably in my book.
No, it isn't much like his coaching approach (or at least nothing like the
results.) The Orioles now look for players to perform very differently
than Crowley. The ideal Oriole hitter nowadays (it seems, judging by what
the team values) is a guy who hits .280 with 45 walks, not a guy who hits
..250 with 90 walks.
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
