Career .220 Hitter Hensley Meulens Named Giants Batting Coach
kbd
nomisnala
> Is that an upgrade from Lansford?
We shall see? He is not hired to hit, he is hired to coach!
NFN Smith
> Is that an upgrade from Lansford?
>
>
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
I have no idea of Meulens will be any better than Lansford, or not, but
Meulens' career as a player isn't necessarily a reliable predictor of
his effectiveness as a coach.
There's huge number of guys that have been good coaches and managers
that had no significant playing careers. Off the top of my head, Tony
La Russa, Tommy Lasorda and Earl Weaver all come to mind. And often,
the guys with great careers turn out to be lousy coaches. The mediocre
(or worse) players often have to really learn the game, and that often
(although not always) can turn into a guy that's good at teaching. For
the star-quality players, too many of them did too much of their careers
on true natural ability, and it's too easy for them to approach things
with "do as I did", without really understanding that what they did was
something sufficiently unique that it can't be replicated to guys that
don't have that talent.
Ted Williams is actually one of the few that was really good, and and
had sufficient ability to teach it. No telling what he could have been
as a manager, had he actually gotten to manage a team that had talent,
but he was certainly competent as a hitting instructor.
The better example in hitting instructors is Charley Lau -- a journeyman
catcher that managed to get a decade as a player, but only 1311 career
plate appearances, but then spent a lot of years as a hitting instructor
with a good reputation
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lauch01.shtml
Walt Hriniak only got 111 PAs in 2 seasons.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hriniwa01.shtml
I wouldn't worry about Meulens' .220 career BA.
Smith
Awesome Lincecum
li63LXnZ2dn...@earthlink.com:
> Is that an upgrade from Lansford?
Can't imagine he'll do any worse than Lansford, so it'll either be the
same or an upgrade. I think there's a >50% chance that it'll be an
upgrade. Just a hunch.
Jon Rossen
than Lansford? Will he be better teacher at the Porcine school of
Cosmetology?
The pig is the Giant offensive talent level or lack thereof. That's the
main problem. That issue seems to be on the shoulders of Brian 'BS' Sabean
and his staff who appraise talent.
If you have a house that is structually unsound because its foundation is
crumbly you do't remodel your kitchen or refinish your floors....you put a
new foundation in. The Giants need new vision and a new GM. Worrying about
the hitting couch is mental masturbation. I'm not criticising you for
bringing it up because as Giants fans I guess this is the only excitement we
get I suppose. <g>
-jon rossen
"kbd" <k...@mySPAMLESSway.com> wrote in message
news:XIqdnXhvB-li63LX...@earthlink.com...
kbd
"Jon Rossen" <jon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hctq73$mfv$1...@news.albasani.net...
> In other words are you asking if he can put lipstick on a pig any better
> than Lansford? Will he be better teacher at the Porcine school of
> Cosmetology?
Nah. Mainly - is this is the best they could do? It's not like spring
training starts next week.
JW
wrote:
Considering Charlie's students, like one Rod Carew and a certain
hitter for Kansas City, he had more than a good reputation.
JW
wrote:
If he's the guy who was teaching them before they got to the Giants,
what's the difference with him coaching in the bigs? I mean, they
didn't have much patience at the plate when they got here, so what's
going to change?
NFN Smith
>
> Considering Charlie's students, like one Rod Carew and a certain
> hitter for Kansas City, he had more than a good reputation.
Lau was The Guru on hitting for a number of hears. Hrniak, to some
degree, has taken up that mantle, especially for that style of hitting.
I had forgotten that Carew had worked with Lau.
Speaking of Carew, I remember seeing a story in Sports Illustrated (late
90's, I think) about him being a hitting instructor for the Angels, and
how that had helped the Angels. However, one of the Angels' players was
a former student of a friend of mine. My friend was briefly a roving
minor-league hitting instructor, and now works with high school kids.
My friend told me that Carew's approach of hitting the ball down (which
worked well for him as a player) was hard on this particular player (a
power hitter), and that the player was a much better hitter after Carew
left the Angels.
By the way, on the topic of guys whose playing career doesn't
necessarily indicate how they might be as coaches, one of the top
pitching coaches out there right now is Dave Duncan, whose career as a
player was as a catcher. By contrast, we have Dave Righetti, who was
pretty good as a player, but for many in this NG, is regarded
below-average as a pitching coach.
Smith
NFN Smith
>
> If he's the guy who was teaching them before they got to the Giants,
> what's the difference with him coaching in the bigs? I mean, they
> didn't have much patience at the plate when they got here, so what's
> going to change?
How long has been in the organization? My guess is that for guys like
Lewis, he actually got to the majors ahead of Meulens' influence.
And for guys that come from organizations (Molina, Winn, Rowand,
Renteria, etc.) those are guys he's never really seen either, except
maybe some brief work in spring training.
Smith
JW
wrote:
>JW wrote:
I was just reading some articles about batting instructors and Charlie
Lau's name came up. It reminded me that a career .255 hitter turned
out to be one of the best teachers of hitting in baseball. He turned
out a few solid examples. Does the name George Brett ring a bell? :)
NFN Smith
>
> I was just reading some articles about batting instructors and Charlie
> Lau's name came up. It reminded me that a career .255 hitter turned
> out to be one of the best teachers of hitting in baseball. He turned
> out a few solid examples. Does the name George Brett ring a bell? :)
Especially Brett, but I suspect that Lau made a difference for a lot of
other guys on the Royals of the early 80's.
Speaking of the Royals of that era (and brett), the other guy that's
kind of interesting is Jamie Quirk. Quirk was a third baseman, and
IIRC, was drafted about the same time as Brett (give or take a year).
He followed Brett to the majors. Never a star, and among other things
took up catching as well, as a way of staying in the majors. Although
he bounced around the majors at the end of his career and played a lot
less games than Brett, Quirk managed a career of 18 seasons.
For a player like that, that's somebody that I'd expect to turn up
eventually as a manager, although as far as I'm aware, he's spent a
bunch of years coaching in the minors.
Smith
Jim Garaventa
Jamie Quirk Named New Houston Astros Bullpen Coach
November 04, 2009
The Houston Astros have named Jamie Quirk their new bullpen coach,
according to senior director of digital media Alyson Footer.
Quirk was the bench coach for the Colorado Rockies from 2003-08 before
joining the Cincinnati Reds last season as a scout.
========
Being the bench coach for six years usually gets you looks as potential
manager. I wonder what happened in 2008 that sent him out of the
Rockies organization. Scout and bullpen coach are not two positions I
think of when hiring a manager.
Jim
Ron Johnson
> JW wrote:
>
> > I was just reading some articles about batting instructors and Charlie
> > Lau's name came up. It reminded me that a career .255 hitter turned
> > out to be one of the best teachers of hitting in baseball. He turned
> > out a few solid examples. Does the name George Brett ring a bell? :)
Well yes, but it's worth noting that Ted Williams (whose record
as a hitting instructor is without doubt the best of all time.
I'd argue that Ty Cobb's is the second best) said that Lau,
"set the science of hitting back 30 years."
And Brett was a substantially better -- and different -- hitter
after Lau had moved on.
OK, he was just entering his prime years when Lau left and he
had turned into a fine young hitter on Lau's watch, but he
took that next step forward after Lau.
>
> Especially Brett, but I suspect that Lau made a difference for a lot of
> other guys on the Royals of the early 80's.
Willie Wilson seems like the obvious choice, but Bill James
(who was very knowledgeable about the Royal scene) gave
most of the credit to Herzog -- and in his best years Wilson
hit with a very different style from what Lau taught.
Wilson's interesting because he was pretty clearly messed
up by another hitting instructor -- Lee May. May taught
Wilson to hit the ball harder, unfortunately what this
tended to produce was warning track outs.
Hal McRae very clearly had his best run under Lau.
Entering his prime when he joined the Royals. Still,
I'd count this as a positive.
John Mayberry also turned from talent into a player
on Lau's watch. And most certainly did not hit
"Lau style". He's an unambiguos success by results
but certainly didn't validate any of Lau's theories.
And for whatever reason Lau never got a lot of credit
for Mayberry. (I suspect because Mayberry was notorious
for not paying attention to anybody)
Against that, he got a lot of credit for Amos Otis --
for no reason that I can see. Otis' career progression
looks perfectly normal to me.
Seems pretty clear that Frank White got a little
better after Lau left.
Don't know how to classify Al Cowens. Never took
the next step, though he did have one very good year
with Lau, which is one more than he had under anybody
else.
Likewise Pete LaCock. He didn't hit much by
the standards of a platoon first-baseman but his
best years clearly came under Lau.
Can't see anybody else of note. Hurdle --
monster prospect who got derailed and then
hurt. Most everybody else showed a pretty
normal career arc.
And you know what? That's a pretty good record.
Didn't have a lot of success any place else.
(Giving him any credit for Frank Thomas is
pretty much like Ty Cobb taking credit for
Al Simmons. Simmons had a 253 hit season
before working with Cobb. Those are the
students to seek out I guess.)
NFN Smith
>
> Well yes, but it's worth noting that Ted Williams (whose record
> as a hitting instructor is without doubt the best of all time.
> I'd argue that Ty Cobb's is the second best) said that Lau,
> "set the science of hitting back 30 years."
I'm not surprised that Williams objected -- he was pretty opinionated,
and I think he didn't like anybody else's approach to hitting. Williams
considered himself to be The Master, and that was pretty much it.
>
> And Brett was a substantially better -- and different -- hitter
> after Lau had moved on.
Interesting point.
>
> OK, he was just entering his prime years when Lau left and he
> had turned into a fine young hitter on Lau's watch, but he
> took that next step forward after Lau.
To me, that's indicative that hitting is partially natural ability
(which develops with age and maturity), and part that can be honed by
instruction -- both approach and mechanics.
> Wilson's interesting because he was pretty clearly messed
> up by another hitting instructor -- Lee May. May taught
> Wilson to hit the ball harder, unfortunately what this
> tended to produce was warning track outs.
It's interesting that some instructors approach hitting with "my way is
the best way", and try to apply that to all hitters. Others may be more
flexible in working around the hitter's particular abilities and overall
physique. For the hitter I mentioned previously, Rod Carew's approach
of pushing to hit the ball on the ground didn't work well for him, and
he did much better with an instructor with an approach of "see the ball,
and hit it hard".
I remember reading Williams' book on hitting in junior high school. One
of the things that impressed me about Williams' approach was the
emphasis on seeing the ball. I remember that he mentioned that he had
been working with Mike Epstein, and when Epstein seemed to have problems
seeing pitches, and after Epstein had a vision test (and got glasses),
he was able to see (and hit) much better.
I know that one of Ron Luciano's books mentions a demonstration that
Williams did to prove his claim that he could actually see the bat
hitting the ball. Williams covered a bat with shoe polish, and hit a
dozen pitches or so, and noted where the seams of the ball were as he
was hitting the pitch. A check of the balls (with the shoe polish
marks) confirmed what Williams reported he was seeing at the time he hit
the pitches.
> John Mayberry also turned from talent into a player
> on Lau's watch. And most certainly did not hit
> "Lau style". He's an unambiguos success by results
> but certainly didn't validate any of Lau's theories.
> And for whatever reason Lau never got a lot of credit
> for Mayberry. (I suspect because Mayberry was notorious
> for not paying attention to anybody)
And there's hitters that are sufficiently stubborn and/or unorthodox
that no instructor will be able to make much difference. Bengie Molina
seems to be one of these.
(For what it's worth, Lincecum is a similar example, even though he's a
pitcher. His pitching mechanics are definitely unusual, but his talent
(and results) are sufficient that the Giants have had sense enough to
not try to play with his mechanics.)
Carl Yastrezmski is also an interesting example. Although he was
obviously a great hitter, there were times where he had horrendous
slumps, and sometimes made significant changes in his mechanics. I
remember seeing him some time in the late 70's with a really strange
stance, and my understanding is that he picked that up when he reworked
things following a long slump.
>
> Can't see anybody else of note. Hurdle --
> monster prospect who got derailed and then
> hurt. Most everybody else showed a pretty
> normal career arc.
The other one that comes to mind is Jim Wohlford.
I know that after Lau left the scene, the person who's been most
prominent in his approach has been Walt Hrniak. I wonder how Hriniak's
players have done (not that I expect you to repeat this exercise...)
>
> And you know what? That's a pretty good record.
Good, but not overwhelming.
Thanks for your notes.
Smith
NFN Smith
>
> Jamie Quirk Named New Houston Astros Bullpen Coach
> November 04, 2009
>
> The Houston Astros have named Jamie Quirk their new bullpen coach,
> according to senior director of digital media Alyson Footer.
>
> Quirk was the bench coach for the Colorado Rockies from 2003-08 before
> joining the Cincinnati Reds last season as a scout.
>
> ========
>
> Being the bench coach for six years usually gets you looks as potential
> manager. I wonder what happened in 2008 that sent him out of the
> Rockies organization. Scout and bullpen coach are not two positions I
> think of when hiring a manager.
I'm guessing that either the team or Quirk (or both) decided that change
was beneficial to both parties, and time for him to move on.
For somebody like Quirk, he's been around long enough as a former
player, that I think his chances of managing are waning. If he hasn't
gotten there already, he probably won't. The place where he might find
himself managing would be as an interim, a promotion following a
mid-season firing -- somebody to finish out the season, but not merit
serious consideration for a long-term contract. Another former player in
a similar situation would be Gene Tenace.
Smith
Ron Johnson
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > Well yes, but it's worth noting that Ted Williams (whose record
> > as a hitting instructor is without doubt the best of all time.
> > I'd argue that Ty Cobb's is the second best) said that Lau,
> > "set the science of hitting back 30 years."
>
> I'm not surprised that Williams objected -- he was pretty opinionated,
> and I think he didn't like anybody else's approach to hitting. Williams
> considered himself to be The Master, and that was pretty much it.
Sure, but what's interesting is that he had success with
a wide variety of hitting styles. Including non-hitters
like Eddie Brinkman.
What's also interesting is that while his record for
short term improvement is stunning, nobody I can think
of sustained the improvement longer than two years.
And his final team was a stunningly bad offensive
team. Hit .217/.290/.290 as a team (77 OPS+)
> > Wilson's interesting because he was pretty clearly messed
> > up by another hitting instructor -- Lee May. May taught
> > Wilson to hit the ball harder, unfortunately what this
> > tended to produce was warning track outs.
>
> It's interesting that some instructors approach hitting with "my way is
> the best way", and try to apply that to all hitters. Others may be more
> flexible in working around the hitter's particular abilities and overall
> physique.
That's one reason why Ty Cobb impressed me as a hitting
instructor. He had a fairly unusual style (swung hard
with his hands spread apart) and had tremendous success
with it but didn't press anybody. He had success with
a wide variety of hitting styles (including OBP only
guys like Johnny Bassler and Lu Blue, fine line drive
hitters like Haryy Heilmann and A lSimmons [who also
had a really strange stance -- Cobb didn't care] and
many other pretty good hitters)
What he seemed interested in is taking what the hitter
had and addressing specific issues.