Greg Walker Career Stats:

 

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO AVG

855 2,864 368 746 164 19 113 444 268 28 520 .260

 

Hal Baines Career Stats:

 

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO AVG

2,830 9,908 1,299 2,866 488 49 384 1,628 1,062 187 1,441 .289

 

 

... Who do you want to be giving you hitting advice?

Edited May 19, 200916 yr by La Marr Hoyt HOF

Greg Walker Career Stats:

 

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO AVG

855 2,864 368 746 164 19 113 444 268 28 520 .260

 

Hal Baines Career Stats:

 

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO AVG

2,830 9,908 1,299 2,866 488 49 384 1,628 1,062 187 1,441 .289

 

 

... Who do you want to be giving you hitting advice?

 

Michael Jordan should be coaching the Bulls. Who knows more about basketball than him? This is a ridiculous argument. For one thing, being a hitting coach requires communication. Harold? Hello.

Often times the best coaches and managers were marginal players in their respective sports.

Eh do you want Frank Thomas teaching his unorthodox stance and swing to our prospects?

I'm not the biggest Walker fan, but this is a half-assed way of going about these things. I mean Dave Duncan wasn't even a pitcher, and looks what he's doing now. Those who do, can't always teach.

I'm not the biggest Walker fan, but this is a half-assed way of going about these things. I mean Dave Duncan wasn't even a pitcher, and looks what he's doing now. Those who do, can't always teach.

 

It seems like a vast majority of the time, those that cannot do, teach, and those that can do, dont understand how to teach.

Michael Jordan should be coaching the Bulls. Who knows more about basketball than him? This is a ridiculous argument. For one thing, being a hitting coach requires communication. Harold? Hello.

 

 

Not sure that communicating the skills that led you to a 9-yr career .260 avg and .320 OBP is all that helpful. Additionally, Donny Baseball did a pretty solid job with the Yankees and now for the Dodgers under Torre and he speaks even less than Hal

The premise is still all wrong. You don't hire a coach or a manager based on their success or failure as a player.

The premise is still all wrong. You don't hire a coach or a manager based on their success or failure as a player.

 

coughrynesandburgcough

Not sure that communicating the skills that led you to a 9-yr career .260 avg and .320 OBP is all that helpful. Additionally, Donny Baseball did a pretty solid job with the Yankees and now for the Dodgers under Torre and he speaks even less than Hal

 

Ever think it could possibly maybe just a little bit have to do with a limited natural ability? The basis of this argument, is entirely flawed.

Going by this logic we should fire Ozzie.

THe argument is indeed flawed, and who the heck calls Harold Baines "Hal"?

 

Actually, maybe HAL is the answer. Or maybe not...

 

Fields: HAL, I need some hitting advice.

 

HAL: Yes Josh, I can see that.

 

Fields: can you tell me how I can catch up to 94 mph inside heat without changing my swing?

 

HAL: I'm sorry Josh, I can't do that.

 

Kenny sucked as a player. He shouldn't be making personnel decisions.

THe argument is indeed flawed, and who the heck calls Harold Baines "Hal"?

 

Actually, maybe HAL is the answer. Or maybe not...

 

Fields: HAL, I need some hitting advice.

 

HAL: Yes Josh, I can see that.

 

Fields: can you tell me how I can catch up to 94 mph inside heat without changing my swing?

 

HAL: I'm sorry Josh, I can't do that.

I don't recall ever hearing Harold ever speak. I wonder if his voice sounds like HAL 9000.

Since Walk is on the hot seat you can actually do whatever you want. If a potential replacement lies within the system, then OF COURSE he needs to be discussed. OF COURSE is the key phrase here. ABSOLUTELY fills in as well.

 

The OP is right on the money 100% in opening this dialouge, 100% dead nuts correct. Harold can't be considered because he was too good of a hitter? Someone with almost 3000 hits doesn't suck enough to teach hitting? GMAFB that he can't be discussed.

 

Since Walk is on the hot seat you can actually do whatever you want. If a potential replacement lies within the system, then OF COURSE he needs to be discussed. OF COURSE is the key phrase here. ABSOLUTELY fills in as well.

 

The OP is right on the money 100% in opening this dialouge, 100% dead nuts correct. Harold can't be considered because he was too good of a hitter? Someone with almost 3000 hits doesn't suck enough to teach hitting? GMAFB that he can't be discussed.

 

And here's the best part...when this team continues to struggle...people will be calling for Harold's head because he's not a good hitting coach. And when the Sox hire the next guy...when this team struggles...people will be calling for THAT guy's head because he's not a good hitting coach...and on and on we go.

Since Walk is on the hot seat you can actually do whatever you want. If a potential replacement lies within the system, then OF COURSE he needs to be discussed. OF COURSE is the key phrase here. ABSOLUTELY fills in as well.

 

The OP is right on the money 100% in opening this dialouge, 100% dead nuts correct. Harold can't be considered because he was too good of a hitter? Someone with almost 3000 hits doesn't suck enough to teach hitting? GMAFB that he can't be discussed.

Discussing Harold as an option is certainly worthwhile. But the idea that a hitter's numbers in his career are the dictator of how well he will coach is not "100% dead nuts correct", whatever the heck that means. Its actually quite false, as shown by history.

 

Just because someone is good at something, that is NOT the same as being good at teaching it. In non-sports terms, its like taking a guy who is really good at coding, and having him run a department of software developers. Might work, might not, but whether or not it works is dependent on a different set of skills.

 

Harold might work. But not because he put up better numbers than Walker, especially since Harold had a less than ideal approach at the plate for teaching someone anyway. And by the way, Walker's career ended earlier than it should have due in part to a broken arm and an anuerysm that may or may not have repeated itself and put his life in danger.

 

Since Walk is on the hot seat you can actually do whatever you want. If a potential replacement lies within the system, then OF COURSE he needs to be discussed. OF COURSE is the key phrase here. ABSOLUTELY fills in as well.

 

The OP is right on the money 100% in opening this dialouge, 100% dead nuts correct. Harold can't be considered because he was too good of a hitter? Someone with almost 3000 hits doesn't suck enough to teach hitting? GMAFB that he can't be discussed.

I'm not a Walker supporter by any means (I'm not calling for his firing now, but I've openly discussed firing him in the past), but the entire premise of this thread doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Discussing Harold as an option is certainly worthwhile. But the idea that a hitter's numbers in his career are the dictator of how well he will coach is not "100% dead nuts correct", whatever the heck that means. Its actually quite false, as shown by history.

 

Just because someone is good at something, that is NOT the same as being good at teaching it. In non-sports terms, its like taking a guy who is really good at coding, and having him run a department of software developers. Might work, might not, but whether or not it works is dependent on a different set of skills.

 

Harold might work. But not because he put up better numbers than Walker, especially since Harold had a less than ideal approach at the plate for teaching someone anyway. And by the way, Walker's career ended earlier than it should have due in part to a broken arm and an anuerysm that may or may not have repeated itself and put his life in danger.

 

Dude I'm sorry, but you are missing the whole point. You presume to know too much information that you, quite frankly, just don't know. Saying "Just because someone is good at something, that is NOT the same as being good at teaching it" is just as ambiguous as the weak counter argument. I could say, "Dude, Harold had great stats, he should teach the guys how to hit." That argument also addds zero to the conversation. The point is he deserves to be discussed just like anybody else, and like I said, that is 100% dead nuts correct.

Dude I'm sorry, but you are missing the whole point. You presume to know too much information that you, quite frankly, just don't know. Saying "Just because someone is good at something, that is NOT the same as being good at teaching it" is just as ambiguous as the weak counter argument. I could say, "Dude, Harold had great stats, he should teach the guys how to hit." That argument also addds zero to the conversation. The point is he deserves to be discussed just like anybody else, and like I said, that is 100% dead nuts correct.

 

Does Harold even WANT to be a hitting coach? Might be an important little tidbit.

Does Harold even WANT to be a hitting coach? Might be an important little tidbit.

That's a dead nuts correct question to ask.

Does Harold even WANT to be a hitting coach? Might be an important little tidbit.

We are also assuming that he'd make a good hitting coach for pretty much no reason at all.

Does Harold even speak one of English/Spanish? Maybe he just speaks baseball. I can see Hawk sayin that. "Harold just speaks baseball; not many guys only speak baseball; 20, 30, 40 years ago more guys spoke baseball. Today's game it's a rare breed that'll speak purely baseball" Ok im done.

Being a coach and instructor for the past 8 years, and having very little natural baseball skills prior, it infuriates me when people assume that playing baseball (or any sports) well makes you qualified to teach it. Having coached with good ballplayers and seeing professional ballplayers instruct, a good chunk of the time I find they really aren't qualified to teach. Someone who does something well may not know how he's doing it and in many instances can't relate to the person who can't, and then, fix them. That person may have also spent more time on the field playing than off the field watching, which is extremely important in being an effective coach.

 

I don't care for Walker ... it's hard to know exactly what he's telling the hitters, but his approach appears to be geared towards turning on pitches. It could it also just be the players' fault. Nonetheless, the coach is usually the first to fall, and then if things don't change, it's obviously the players. So why Walker still has his job is baffling.

 

As for Harold and his inability to communicate. Are you guys in the dugout and clubhouse? And even if he's soft-spoken, it doesn't mean he can't communicate.

Dick Howser was a great hitting coach with the Yankees in the late 70s.

 

Check out his stats:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/howsedi01.shtml

 

 

Rudy Jaramillo, the hitting coach of the Rangers, never played in the majors.