Brook Jacoby new Reds Hitting coach

[Topcat]

Steel's Not challenging you ok. Just trying to show you another side. Narron may like Jacoby's philosophy's etc but do you not feel that a hitting coach has to have the ability to adapt to the player's he is given? I try to put my self in the position that Jacoby is in and say I am going to do what is best for each individual player, what are there strengths and weaknesses. In the big picture Jacoby is in this to make a name for himself a a batting coach and the results he produces and what the players say to other players in that regard is going to decide his longterm employment and reputation. The "right way" argument is crap honestly the right way is to play to the players strengths and use them to the best of there ability. I also think that the ballpark they play 82 games in has to factor into this equation.

My thoughts are that if this was my job I do "my job" and I do what is best for each and every individual player to maximize there value to the team and for the benefit of the individual and there ability's.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Sounds to me like the Reds are trying to channel Rudy Jaramillo. He was the BA MLB Coach of the Year in 2005 and Jacoby has been the guy to bring his philosophy to the Rangers' minor league system. Jaramillo returned to the Rangers in early June. Jaramillo has produced a DVD on hitting philosophy. I haven't viewed that and really have no information as to Jaramillo's approach.

That being said, the Rangers had a number of players who went backwards in 2006. Blalock is a shell of his former self. Mark Teixeira didn't progress. Michael Young regressed at age 29. Brad Wilkerson regressed. Mark DeRosa progressed as did Gary Mathews, Jr. But when the core regresses and the fringe players progress, is that actually a hitting coach "win"? I'd suggest not.

The Reds now have a Terry Ryan protege on staff, a Rudy Jaramillo protege on staff, and who knows who the pitching coach protege will be. Chris Chambliss had a history of coaching excellent offenses (including the best NL 2005 offense), but he was let go due to a mid-season trade that robbed his team of a two of their three 90+ Run producers.

Brook Jacoby has a history of exactly nothing at the MLB level, but has earned the trust of Jerry Narron (who has little clue as to how the game should be played). And all in an effort to make a Reds offense that was good before Krivsky screwed it up, better than what Krivsky made it. Problem is that Jacoby hasn't demonstrated the ability to make anyone better at the MLB level.

The Reds' mantra for 2007 should be "We're really trying!"

Unfortunately, I couldn't give half a crap about trying.

Daggoneit, Steel...for as many times as we have disagreed over the years, it seems we're of one mind these days. The more moves the Reds make, the more it seems we go back to that old losing philosophy. Offense was good before Wayne. Offense gets screwed by Wayne. We hire someone to get Wayne's screwed offense straightened out, but we hire someone who hasn't fixed anyone who's screwed up.

Everyone's heart is in the right place, but the moves just don't make sense. Maybe DanO's had the front office so screwed up nobody can play it? You think?

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Rarely are good players good managers. I was just commenting on Brook's approach as a hitter while playing for the Indians in the 80s.

You could make a case that Jacoby was a better major leaguer than Rettenmund. The issue to me was approach. To hit 32 HRs and knock in 69 you're not doing a lot of situational hitting. That doesn't impress me as taking good ABs or getting many clutch hits.

I saw a lot of Indians games back then and Jacoby was not an impressive player. In fact I'd go so far as to say he was overrated as a lot of Indians were back then (Corey Snider, Andre Thornton, Doug Jones)

But maybe he understood the approach, but just didn't possess the abilty to carry it out to any great degree of success (i.e. talent).

Coaching is alot more about the attaining, and then sharing, of knowledge, more then personal execution. And from that knowledge having the communication skills in making observations, evaluations, and then recommendations.

Playing and coaching are two very different aspects of the game. Being good at one does not necessarily translate into success in the other.

Dave Duncan is probably the best pitching coach in MLB. Yet he was a catcher, not a pitcher, and a sub-par player at that. In 11 seasons, he accumulated a .214 BA .279 OB% .357 SLG% .636 OPS

[GAC]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Mark Teixeira didn't progress. Michael Young regressed at age 29.

Huh? How have these two players not progressed and/or have regressed? I don't see it at all.

Teixeira

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=4937

Young

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=4566

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

I am suspect of every move that gets a ringing endorsement from Jerry Narron. It's my problem.

It must be contagious, just the other day I asked the doctor for some anti-narron biotics.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by GAC

Huh? How have these two players not progressed and/or have regressed? I don't see it at all.

Teixeira

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=4937

Young

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=4566

Teixeira:

2005: .379 OBP/.575 SLG
2006: .371 OBP/.514 SLG

Young:

2005: .385 OBP/.513 SLG
2006: .356 OBP/.459 SLG

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

But when the core regresses and the fringe players progress, is that actually a hitting coach "win"? I'd suggest not.

Apply that same principal to Chambliss, whom you support in the same post.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Apply that same principal to Chambliss, whom you support in the same post.

Chambliss has earned a mulligan based on his prior success with the Yankees and Reds. Jacoby, OTOH, is 0 fer 1.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Teixeira:

2005: .379 OBP/.575 SLG
2006: .371 OBP/.514 SLG

Young:

2005: .385 OBP/.513 SLG
2006: .356 OBP/.459 SLG

Oh c'mon Kori! You call that regression? 1 season? And those were still pretty solid numbers for both of those players.

Michael Young this past year put up 214 hits to comprise a.... AVG .314 | HR 14 | RBI 103 | OBP .356 | SLG .459

Mark Teixeira meanwhile....AVG .282 | HR 33 | RBI 110 | OBP .371 | SLG .514

I guess I don't understand what you mean by regression and/or progress. Regression to me is returning to a former state. Young has been pretty consistent for the last 4 years...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=4566

Compare that to ML league averages for SS's. Wish we had that on this team.

Yeah, there were slight drop offs this past season, but no huge disparity that I'd be worried over. But you say that having an off year, where the numbers are still pretty solid, is regression?

So.... has Dunn then regressed after 1 subpar season?

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Chambliss has earned a mulligan based on his prior success with the Yankees and Reds. Jacoby, OTOH, is 0 fer 1.

That requires a large assumption to be made with respect to how much tangible impact Chambliss had here. But honestly, I'm not real sure how much impact any hitting coach has overall. I'm sure there are a few classic gurus, e.g. Charlie Lau, that made a measurable difference, but I think the typical "successful" big league hitting coach is a babysitter. I think the risk with a hitting coach at the big league level is that he screws a bunch of guys up more than he is going to make a significant positive impact.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by GAC

I guess I don't understand what you mean by regression and/or progress.

Michael Young regressed to near-2003 levels- in particular his SLG. Ditto Teixeira (whose IsoP dropped 41 points versus 2005 and 47 points versus 2004). That's regression.

Compare that to ML league averages for SS's. Wish we had that on this team.

We did. His name is Felipe Lopez.

So.... has Dunn then regressed after 1 subpar season?

I don't think there's even a question that the answer is "yes". But that red herring aside, you're still not speaking to Brook Jacoby's ability to do anything. He's spent basically four years trying to implement another man's (Jaramillo) hitting philosophy at the minor league level. I don't think there's any question that Jaramillo is a good hitting coach (ditto Chris Chambliss). After all, the Rangers did significantly improve offensively after Jaramillo's return but what does that say about his fill-in (Jacoby)? Nothing, maybe. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe Jacoby is as capable, or more capable, than a guy (Chambliss) who's demonstrated that he's at least as capable as Jaramillo.

But then, I'm an occam's razor kind of guy and I generally think it's a bad idea to replace a successful proven commodity with someone who is, at best, an untested commodity because there's little chance that said untested commodity will out-perform the former. It does happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by traderumor

That requires a large assumption to be made with respect to how much tangible impact Chambliss had here. But honestly, I'm not real sure how much impact any hitting coach has overall. I'm sure there are a few classic gurus, e.g. Charlie Lau, that made a measurable difference, but I think the typical "successful" big league hitting coach is a babysitter. I think the risk with a hitting coach at the big league level is that he screws a bunch of guys up more than he is going to make a significant positive impact.

Reds 2003: 4.28 Runs per Game

Post-Chambliss:

Reds 2004: 4.63 RPG
Reds 2005: 5.03 RPG
Reds 2006: 5.03 RPG (pre-ASB)

Now, regardless of what kind of impact we think Chambliss may have had, one thing is clear- he was the hitting coach while the Reds had a top-notch offense. It's not the first time he was involved in a high-level offense. And considering his track record, I'd suggest that it won't be the last.

Chris Chambliss was fired due to a trade that sent two of three 90+ RC players out of town. There isn't a hitting coach in the world who can overcome that kind of hit to a team's lineup dynamic while also having to work against a manager who doesn't seem to understand how Runs are actually scored and a GM who doesn't seem to understand how making a trade that's destined to be over-under on the Run impact is a bad idea.

Chris Chambliss wasn't fired for his own failings. He was dismissed for the failings of others. That's a pretty good sign that you're headed in the wrong direction. You're a fairly conservative guy, tr. And one thing we both agree on, I'd expect, is that the buck has to stop somewhere. Well, that "somewhere" shouldn't have been at the feet of Chris Chambliss.

And we also agree on the fact that the biggest potential impact from a hitting coach might be his ability to screw folks up. Well, knowing what I know about Jerry Narron's philosophy, I'm a little frightened that the Reds are bringing someone in who better fits the way he thinks.

[Chip R]

After thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that the Reds are going to keep Dunn throughout his deal and Jacoby represents his last chance to become more conventional - for lack of a better word. The Reds may believe that if he sacrifices walks for more contact - regardless of what outcome that contact is - that he will be more productive. But if he keeps putting up roughly the same numbers across the board that he's put up over the last 4 years, then I believe the Reds will either trade him in his walk year or let him walk. Jacoby would be his 3rd or 4th hitting coach since he's been a regular here and if Dunn doesn't improve with Jacoby, the Reds may feel that he's a lost cause.

[RANDY IN INDY]

That's a good take, Chip, and I pretty much agree with it, unless a "can't turn it down" deal pops up around Dunn.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Reds 2003: 4.28 Runs per Game

Post-Chambliss:

Reds 2004: 4.63 RPG
Reds 2005: 5.03 RPG
Reds 2006: 5.03 RPG (pre-ASB)

Now, regardless of what kind of impact we think Chambliss may have had, one thing is clear- he was the hitting coach while the Reds had a top-notch offense. It's not the first time he was involved in a high-level offense. And considering his track record, I'd suggest that it won't be the last.

Chris Chambliss was fired due to a trade that sent two of three 90+ RC players out of town. There isn't a hitting coach in the world who can overcome that kind of hit to a team's lineup dynamic while also having to work against a manager who doesn't seem to understand how Runs are actually scored and a GM who doesn't seem to understand how making a trade that's destined to be over-under on the Run impact is a bad idea.

Chris Chambliss wasn't fired for his own failings. He was dismissed for the failings of others. That's a pretty good sign that you're headed in the wrong direction. You're a fairly conservative guy, tr. And one thing we both agree on, I'd expect, is that the buck has to stop somewhere. Well, that "somewhere" shouldn't have been at the feet of Chris Chambliss.

And we also agree on the fact that the biggest potential impact from a hitting coach might be his ability to screw folks up. Well, knowing what I know about Jerry Narron's philosophy, I'm a little frightened that the Reds are bringing someone in who better fits the way he thinks.

Which all points to what we are told was the reason Chambliss was fired and the real reason(s) he was canned. He was also fired by the Yankees. That is the trouble with message boards. Folks make dogmatic judgments on tales from the crypt.