Ranger hitters were hitting .264 and scoring 4.7 runs per game with Bosley. Since Coolbaugh took over (31 games), they are hitting .289 and scoring 5.5 runs per game. Coincidence?

Probably not. A relaxed environment helps I'm sure. Most of these guys had already spent time with Coolbaugh. Good decision to make an internal move.

I'm actually going to call coincidence on this. I just don't see how a hitting coach could make that big of a difference. It seems like hitters have the technology to look at their own swings and see what's going right or wrong. I'd actually really like to talk to someone who has experience being a hitting coach.

Tell that to Moreland, who was in a bit of a slump, and who was shown video of his swing and critiqued by said coach before the game. And how'd we win again?

I'm going with not a coincidence and I think it has everything to do with being more relaxed. I got the impression that the lack of communication (with Bosley) created more stress and pressure on the players, so by having Coolbaugh in there has only improved that and got the tension down to nothing.

Having a completely healthy team helps quite a bit as well.

Coolbaugh's message is more consistent with what we heard last year out of CH. Every time I listen to a pregame radio interview with a player its all about how Coolbaugh is helping. Bosley was at least not well recieved and l think from what we heard from him and what his KPI's were a bad coach for anything other than a big slugging slow softball team.

mhilgtx -

Exactly, here is an excerpt from Mike Napoli's Sunday post-game commentary:

"Everyone is bringing it. We're clicking as a team right now. We're all feeding off each other. We're passing it on to the next guy while we're hitting. One guy isn't trying to carry it. We're all doing it."

And he is right - the approach at the plate by everyone in the lineup appears to be much more patient and in line with that of a playoff caliber team.

The hacking approach that Bosley predicated earlier in the year was really taxing for me, as it took me back to the go-nowhere hack at everything Rangers teams of the 90's.

It seems as though most perennial playoff caliber teams (Red Sox, Yanks) exhibit a patient, analytical approach to hitting in that they tend not to beat themselves - we had this approach last year and have returned to it this year, which is very exciting to me.

Adam in Longview -

As I said above, I don't think it is the actual hitting instruction that makes the difference, but rather the mental approach/philosophy to hitting that separates one hitting coach from another at the MLB level.

Though, an opinion from someone who has experience as a hitting instructor would be welcome.

..maybe helping guys like andrus and moreland, but dunno if it makes much difference to veterans.

Demeanor & trust factor are key. One takes that with him into the box. It Connects.
It's getting into the head the right way, right time and then reinforcing ones strength.
Ted Williams never could do that. Great hitter, lacking in Clubhouse social skills.
Let's face it, all these guys have a MLB swing, or they wouldn't be here. Some,
obviously better than others... we're talking basically 1/32 seconds & 1/32 inch on
timing. Round Ball on Round Bat at 80-100 mph. Not a lot of error factor there.

I don't think it's a coincidence but I think it may be addition by subtraction more than any amazing coaching Coolbaugh is doing. Removing someone from the clubhouse who caused tension is a good thing and replacing him with a coach the players respect, trust and listen to...well that's even better.

I was one of the guys not too worried my Bosley's infamous spring training comments, but it appears that the concern was perfectly justified. I really like what we are seeing in all of the hitters right now.

I always find a lesser player, to be a better manager. Same applies with hitting coaches. Rudy was a minor leaguer and never a great hitter, yet he studied what great hitters did. Thad Bosley was a good player. His patience was not there. Not to mention, the game is different than when he played. Not a lot, but it is. My best analogy is Ted Williams trying to manage the Rangers. He use to get so pissed, because guys could not do it like he did it. That is a tall order. Coolbaugh communicates, and plays to each guys's personality, their strengths, and their weaknesses. That to me is a coach.

There's an old saying in coaches corner: "The Players don't care how much you know,
untill they know how much you care". Keep that in mind, in any Alpha Scenario... Dad-Husband

For those that don't think a coach can make much difference I have to disagree but let me lay out why.

If coach A) wants more of a power hitting don't waste a good pitch approach and coach B wants more of a small ball move the runners and if you get the right pitch in the right settings blow it up approach what is the difference? The difference is KPI's and accountability to the KPI's that are important to each coach. For instance if Coach A is always talking to batters about extra base hits and home runs and using slugging type KPI evaluations when going over the previous days performance and setting future goals then it is natural for the player to put emphasis on those things. Unless the player is "uncoachable". An example that of this that I keep comming back to is a report from a Telecast where Jones said that Bosley liked to look at 5 pitch PA's. Bosley felt like a quality PA was 5 pitches or more and he like seeing around 10-15 of these per game. But never over 15? This first of all seems very arbitrary in that a pitcher averaging only 15 pitches per inning on a 105 pitch count will get 7 innings in. I believe most pitching coaches would be good with that. The other glaring thing was the over 15 part of the equation, did that pressure batters subconsciously to swing at pitches earlier in the count? Not sure.

Same thing for coach B when he is looking for walks singles and productive outs over doubles and home runs, different set of goals powered by a different set of KPI's ore Key Performance Indicators.
Then you throw in coach A not only having a different view than last years coach and last years approach being wildly successful you create a situation that brings some amount of confusion however small that might be. That confusion might have been worked out over the course of a season or two or might not have. There were contributing factors at play here or they Rangers might have given Bosley more of a chance.

Most of these ideas I get are from management and how I guess I have been trained. I think in business setting goals and then daily reinforcing those goals trains (coaches) people to adopt those goals as their own.

mhilgtx -

I agree with your viewpoint, and I would further reiterate your point about the success of the approach/process last year (World Series). If I am a player or an employee with a team/company that just showed everyone that we were one of the 2 best teams/companies out there in a given year, and this was achieved in part by a certain mentality/approach we were using in a certain aspect of the business/game - well, then I would be rather confused as to why the hell we would hire someone who implements a different philosophy from the one that made us (partly) successful the prior year.

I would have no issue with building upon the philosophy of prior successes, but to radically change the approach would irk me – as Nolan would eloquently put it, I’m sure:

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.