Coaching staff discussion

[Yelling At Clouds]

I've seen this come up a few times now, and I figured it was worth longer discussion. The sentiment in various posts I've seen is that this particular coaching staff, whatever their positive points may be, may not be the best group for the specific purpose of helping the younger guys transition to the Major-League level. The lack of offensive improvement by Bogaerts and Bradley and defensive improvement by Bogaerts in particular would seem to back up that assertion. At the same time, it's difficult to figure out the effect of individual coaches, or even a coaching staff more generally. Even further, the hitting coaches would be logical candidates to take the fall for the team's lackluster offense under normal circumstances, but Colbrunn's health issues make things somewhat less clear. 
 
I'm not going to claim any sort of expertise on any of this, but I do think the subject should be open to discussion. Yes, this same group was present for 2013, and everyone was singing their praises. But does the change in roster composition necessitate a change in coaching staff as well? Or does this whole discussion hinge upon too many things that those of us who aren't with the team on a day-to-day basis know nothing about?

 

[LostinNJ]

I've been wondering the same thing. This offseason they need to make sure that each coach is the right person for this specific group of players; a coach who's great with veterans might not be ideal for younger guys. They also, of course, need a staff that can work well with each other and with the manager. That's a kind of chemistry that really does matter.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

For further discussion, I'd like to look at the hitting coaches specifically. There's no need to rehash the recent struggles of Bradley and Bogaerts here, as both have lengthy threads devoted to them. But the team is below average offensively by many "standard" categories - 27th in runs, 24th in slugging percentage, 25th in homers, 22nd in hits. Their team BABIP is .297, so their struggles can't just be luck. They are 11th in on-base percentage, but that's boosted by their MLB-leading total of intentional walks and times hit-by-pitch. They're leading baseball in grounding into double plays (though, for the record, only by one over the Cardinals as of today), although they're not hitting an abnormally large number of groundballs. 

Do Colbrunn and Rodriguez bear any responsibility for this? Or is it just some badly-timed bad luck on the hitters' part?

 

[alwyn96]

I've been wondering the same thing. This offseason they need to make sure that each coach is the right person for this specific group of players; a coach who's great with veterans might not be ideal for younger guys. They also, of course, need a staff that can work well with each other and with the manager. That's a kind of chemistry that really does matter.

 
I think that the chemistry you're talking about is hugely important (both coach-to-player and coach-to-coach), but I'm not sure it's really possible to a assess a priori whether an individual coach is exactly the right person to work with an individual player. Each coach's relationship with a player is unique, and a good coach for one guy might not be the best or most effective coach for another guy. You never know what coach is going to find the drill or the idea or visualization or whatever that helps a player get back on track or find a new gear. I think the best you can do is find someone knowledgeable with experience and enthusiasm and a good personality, and just go by their results.
 
If the team isn't hitting and you want to do something about it, then you can either get better players or try to switch up the coaches. It might be unfair, but it's generally a lot easier to just switch up the coach. Colbrunn has been a good coach (I mean, he played a role in the 2013 team, which was unexpectedly the best hitting team in baseball, by far), and he gets along well with Farrell and (I assume) the other coaches. Given how disappointing the hitting was this year though, I think the Red Sox would be justified in shuffling things around or trying something new. When a team is unexpectedly awesome or unexpectedly bad, a lot of that can be due to random fluctuation, however I think at least some small portion of what appears to be random (for example, whether a hitter makes an adjustment, either mentally or physically, that breaks him out of a slump) can sometimes be attributed to coaching. 

 

[Carmen Fanzone]

Last year there was a lengthy article, by Alex Speier I believe, that talked about the incredibly detailed efforts undertaken by individual coaches. It specifically hit on topics like the homework behind baserunning decisions. One of the things the 2014 team seems to have lost is the ability to - for instance - consistently go first-to-third. How much of that is th absence of guys like Ellsbury and Victorino, and how much is coaching, I wonder?

 

[joe dokes]

Last year there was a lengthy article, by Alex Speier I believe, that talked about the incredibly detailed efforts undertaken by individual coaches. It specifically hit on topics like the homework behind baserunning decisions. One of the things the 2014 team seems to have lost is the ability to - for instance - consistently go first-to-third. How much of that is th absence of guys like Ellsbury and Victorino, and how much is coaching, I wonder?

 
Isn't it the same group of coaches?

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Isn't it the same group of coaches?

 
This is part of the central issue, though - is it the same from a coaching perspective to help 11-year MLB veteran Shane Victorino with a specific skill (like going first-to-third) as it is to help almost-one-full-season veteran Jackie Bradley with that same skill? 

 

[GreenMonsterVsGodzilla]

For further discussion, I'd like to look at the hitting coaches specifically. There's no need to rehash the recent struggles of Bradley and Bogaerts here, as both have lengthy threads devoted to them. But the team is below average offensively by many "standard" categories - 27th in runs, 24th in slugging percentage, 25th in homers, 22nd in hits. Their team BABIP is .297, so their struggles can't just be luck. They are 11th in on-base percentage, but that's boosted by their MLB-leading total of intentional walks and times hit-by-pitch. They're leading baseball in grounding into double plays (though, for the record, only by one over the Cardinals as of today), although they're not hitting an abnormally large number of groundballs. 
Do Colbrunn and Rodriguez bear any responsibility for this? Or is it just some badly-timed bad luck on the hitters' part?

Not to single anyone out, but in my (admittedly limited) understanding of BABIP, this doesn't correlate.  High hitting BABIP for a team should be indicative of, well, good hitting, not luck.  Low BABIP (against)  for a pitching staff would suggest good luck. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
This is part of the central issue, though - is it the same from a coaching perspective to help 11-year MLB veteran Shane Victorino with a specific skill (like going first-to-third) as it is to help almost-one-full-season veteran Jackie Bradley with that same skill? 

 
Fair point. But one that I doubt we can explore with anything but the most rudimentary speculation.
 
Farrell does have his farm system director background, so I'd guess that he's got some skill in assessing whether the coaches can apply what they did last year to the players who will be there next year.
 
And there are the numerous stories of how Butterfield turned a raw Jeter into a major league infielder.  But beyond stuff like that . . . .

 

[Toe Nash]

Last year there was a lengthy article, by Alex Speier I believe, that talked about the incredibly detailed efforts undertaken by individual coaches. It specifically hit on topics like the homework behind baserunning decisions. One of the things the 2014 team seems to have lost is the ability to - for instance - consistently go first-to-third. How much of that is th absence of guys like Ellsbury and Victorino, and how much is coaching, I wonder?

This was discussed and numbers posted in this thread: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/84470-john-farrell-base-running-and-the-organizational-philosophy/
 
Basically the numbers show that losing Ellsbury and Victorino was really huge, but the rest of the team fell off a small amount as well. But really a big reason they were so good on the bases last year were those two players rather than the coaching.

 

[OttoC]

While Ted Williams was managing the Senators, I feel sure that he freely imparted hitting knowledge to his players and you can see that in his first year he was quite successful. One of his biggest successes was with shortstop Ed Brinkman. A new hitting coach may make a difference but it does not necessarily mean that the difference will continue year after year and it also does not mean that he would help all players (think Walt Hriniak). Colbrunn's illness may have effected the young players more than others. But overall, I think the answer is to get hitters.
 
[tablegrid=  ]Washington Senators .224   .287   .336   .623   1968 .251   .330   .378   .708   1969   Ted Williams took over as manager .238   .321   .358   .679   1970 .230   .307   .326   .634   1971   American League .230   .297   .339   .637   1968 .246   .321   .369   .690   1969 .250   .322   .379   .701   1970 .247   .317   .364   .681   1971   Ed Brinkman .208   .261   .289   .550   1961-68    .266   .328   .325   .653   1969    with Senators .262   .330   .301   .631   1970    with Senators .221   .275   .305   .581   1971-75    AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS [/tablegrid] 

 

[zimmerolls]

Last year there was a lengthy article, by Alex Speier I believe, that talked about the incredibly detailed efforts undertaken by individual coaches. It specifically hit on topics like the homework behind baserunning decisions. One of the things the 2014 team seems to have lost is the ability to - for instance - consistently go first-to-third. How much of that is th absence of guys like Ellsbury and Victorino, and how much is coaching, I wonder?

 
I keep thinking of exactly this finely tuned focus and attention to detail  every time there has been a base running gaff this year or a batter with two on and nobody failing to score or even worse move the runners. Sometimes their failure to score has seemed statistically impossible or improbable game after game.  It has seemed a common enough theme of short offensive or inconsistent success with WM, JBJ and Bogaerts.  Iglesias seemed to break out of that mold after a dismal offensive 2012 call up. But I remember reading that he spent time with Pedroia prior to the 2013 season and here was Dustin's advice: 
 
"Pedroia’s hitting advice to Iglesias was to trust his natural instincts and tune out the distractions.
 
“He listens to everybody,” Pedroia said. “Some of that is good, but as a hitter if you listen to everybody then you have so many things in your mind. See the ball and hit it. Your hand-eye coordination is incredible, so just stop listening to eight hitting coaches and just let your natural ability take over.
“In 2007, everybody wanted to be the guy to turn it around for me and the only person who can do it is you,” Pedroia added. “A lot of people helped you get to the big leagues, but you’re the only one that can make you stay here.”
You wonder if there is so much noise that these younger players are not locking into a solid approach and over thinking their adjustments.  They have to be looking at the videos of all their at bats, what pitches give them problem etc.  It seems like progress of these young guys offensively has hit a wall.  It's confounding.  And in the end we'll see whose left standing. 

 

[twibnotes]

The anecdote about Pedroia coaching up Iglesias is fantastic and, I think, indicative of the kind of guidance young developing players need sometimes. Pedey didn't say a word about mechanics - it was a well timed and thoughtful pep talk basically.

Established veterans aren't as likely to need the moral support and sports psychology. You hope the current staff has the right mix of coaching fundamentals and helping a JBJ or X trust his talents via the occasional confidence boost. Dealing with failure is a new thing for so many prospects when they hit the bigs.