08-30-2009, 09:12 PM
<!--quoteo(post=60749:date=Aug 30 2009, 11:46 AM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Aug 30 2009, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=60721:date=Aug 29 2009, 10:42 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 29 2009, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Great post.
Though I think the connection between Lou's hitting stats and his qualifications for coaching Bradley's hitting is fallacious.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks. I've really enjoyed your thoughts here. The very debate is interesting, and many people have made some thoughtful arguments here. It's stuff like this that makes me thankful that these guys opened <i>SOI</i> up to the public so schmoes like us could get a crack at it.
Yeah, I'm aware that throwing the hitting stats up for a coach is a gummy area, although I do really wonder what a 31-year-old vet with strong numbers can learn from someone who wasn't nearly as successful in the bigs. Fundamentals? That seems either learned or besides the point at this juncture. I'm sure this is my lack of knowledge of what it means to actually hit at the major-league level showing here.
However, my point was less about my belief in Lou's ability to teach Bradley a thing or two and more about the notion that if this guy was really so antagonistic about being a team player, wouldn't he adopt an attitude similar to what I wrote?
And maybe it's the Rhetoric/Composition teacher in me, but any post containing
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Bear with me, I'm getting to my analogy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
promises to be well worth the read. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks...but shut up before someone tells us to get a room.
Most great coaches and managers are/were far better coaches and managers than they were players. There's a reason Charlie Lau never flirted with hitting .400 but George Brett did. The skill sets have limited overlap.
Though I think the connection between Lou's hitting stats and his qualifications for coaching Bradley's hitting is fallacious.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks. I've really enjoyed your thoughts here. The very debate is interesting, and many people have made some thoughtful arguments here. It's stuff like this that makes me thankful that these guys opened <i>SOI</i> up to the public so schmoes like us could get a crack at it.
Yeah, I'm aware that throwing the hitting stats up for a coach is a gummy area, although I do really wonder what a 31-year-old vet with strong numbers can learn from someone who wasn't nearly as successful in the bigs. Fundamentals? That seems either learned or besides the point at this juncture. I'm sure this is my lack of knowledge of what it means to actually hit at the major-league level showing here.
However, my point was less about my belief in Lou's ability to teach Bradley a thing or two and more about the notion that if this guy was really so antagonistic about being a team player, wouldn't he adopt an attitude similar to what I wrote?
And maybe it's the Rhetoric/Composition teacher in me, but any post containing
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Bear with me, I'm getting to my analogy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
promises to be well worth the read. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks...but shut up before someone tells us to get a room.
Most great coaches and managers are/were far better coaches and managers than they were players. There's a reason Charlie Lau never flirted with hitting .400 but George Brett did. The skill sets have limited overlap.