Jump to content

SeattleMike

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SeattleMike


  1. 5 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

    A high degree of probability this is true, I would calculate it but don't want to be a show off.

    If a guy profiles as a dominant relief pitcher his development should include lots more innings than these guys normally get in the minors. Joe Jimenez, for instance, pitched a total of 147 innings over five years in the minors. For comparison, Spencer Turnbull pitched 578 innings, giving him 4 times more exposure to professional hitters than Jimenez got. It's idiotic to limit a guy like Jimenez to 50 innings a year just because he profiles as a closer/reliever. He needs to face as many batters as possible during his development. Organizations should identify 2-3 guys per affiliate who definitely have the potential to start and make the rest pitch 3-5 innings per stint. Who cares about roles or wins and losses. The minors are about general development and should be treated as such. 

    • Thanks 1

  2. Jose de la Cruz, the SS the Tigers signed from DR last year for $1.8 million, is off to nice start in the DSL. He's only 17, one of the younger players in that league. Anyway in his first 6 games (29 PA) he has a double, 2 triples, and a HR for a 1066 OPS. He also has 5 walks. The downside are 10Ks. Someone to watch as the year progresses. 


  3. 5 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

    Kody seems a bit like a Frank Catalanatto or Scott Sizemore-type, with more power potential.

    It would be great if he turned into Frank Catalanatto, who posted a 802 lifetime OPS (113 OPS+ in his prime). 


  4. 1 hour ago, socaltiger said:

    I think he struggled at AA and AAA in the beginning also. I think he will "make it' but how much impact is for more knowledgeable evaluators. 

    Actually, April and May were his strongest months at both AA and AAA. He wasn't terrible after that, except in September at AA,  just not as good as in the first two months.


  5. 5 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

    So are we worried about Stewart? I guess with Cameron scuffling and Jones just barely hanging on it's not like he's blocking anyone  with a long range future right now (i.e. anyone other than Mahtook), but other than that he will take a walk, he's not showing much.

    Didn't Microline warn us about Stewart? I'm pretty sure he said Stewart struggled mightily against fastballs. And he is certainly living up to that reputation right now.  


  6. 31 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

    Matt Manning has a 2.17 ERA in 54 innings in AA.  Why is he not considered an option for the Tigers rotation right now?  

    If this were 2012 and the Tigers rotation had been decimated by injuries  at a minimum Mize would be pitching in Detroit right not. Manning probably not far behind. 


  7. 6 hours ago, chasfh said:

    Casey Mize getting the attention of ESPN this morning.

     

     

    Everyone knows the reason, but when the Tigers need a spot starter for a doubleheader and choose a Soto over a Mize, Manning, or Faedo it's gross and surreal and maddening. Damn this rebuild. 


  8. 18 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

    They'll have plenty of years together. I more worried about Jake's bat. Remember how bad he was when he started AA. Let him get up to AAA learn how to hit pitching then worry about controlling pitchers.

    But he closed out last year by posting an 870 OPS over the last three months of the season. He has been raking at AA for a year now. Time for him to move up. 


  9. On 3/23/2019 at 10:52 AM, chasfh said:

    This team might well lose 110 games.

    Twenty years ago this team would have likely lost 110 games. But the appearance on the schedule of the Royals, Orioles, Mariners and to a lesser extent the White Sox and Rangers will probably mean 95-100 losses. 


  10. 3 hours ago, thefunk said:

    I'd argue it doesn't matter when you start, just that you use it and use it effectively.  It remains to be seen whether or not the Tigers have it all in place for it to be effective.

    One of the most astounding stats from last year is how many games the Tigers lost by 1 run.  It was like 25 or something.  So we're 5 years behind, ok whatever.  The question should be can this staff use this technology to win a little more than half those one run games from last year.  Do that, and we'd have been right around .500 last year.  Win all of them and they would have been in the wild card hunt until the last month.  

    Sometimes a one run game comes down to one pitch sequence being better.  One AB that is lengthened by even 2 or 3 pitches.  It could happen.

    The Tigers were 22-30 in one run games. Not great, not horrific. The Tigers, however, were horrific in blowout games (+5). 13-30.  This is far more telling and problematic. 


  11. 6 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

    Why?

    Cutting down on strikeouts would seem like a good thing no matter if you ranked 1st, 17th or 29th.

    Because Ks were not the Tigers biggest offensive issue last year. It was severe lack of power. Hey, reducing strikeouts is fine. But as an organizational philosophy? I suppose it's fine as long as it's not at the expense of developing and adding more players who can hit for power. 


  12. 11 hours ago, Shelton said:

    It wouldn’t be too difficult to use hindsight and build a 2019 tigers team that is good this year and in decent shape going forward. And it all starts with not letting scherzer walk and not trading porcello and Suarez. 

    Verlander

    scherzer

    porcello

    JD

    suarez

    adames

    castellanos

    cabrera

     

    Ilitch and DD and Avila all have a share of the blame for where we are. 

    That Suarez trade really annoyed me at the time. Suarez was one of the few position prospects in the Tigers system who had hit at every level. So he comes up at 22 and posts an 85 OPS+ and everyone gives up on him, including DD. At the time of the trade no one liked the return but few seemed bothered by losing Suarez. 


  13. On 12/16/2018 at 2:49 PM, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

    Regardless, this is where they are today.

    What is the alternative to rebuilding?

    No alternative really at this point. But I could do without the 60s mindset regarding strikeouts. That article may have been the most deflating thing I've read about the Tigers this year. 


  14. 5 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

    It would seem to be a contrarian viewpoint but I'd rather we not sign any of the deadwood cut adrift from other teams.   Play the kids and let's see what we have.  If we're going to lose, let's lose with our own and learn something about them.

    The Tigers are trying to thread the needle between avoiding 115 losses and not wasting valuable service time   for the 2-3 intriguing prospects they have. They are like beachcombers with a metal detector. Will they find something with hidden value? Sure beats those years when the Tigers were only signing the sure things. It's all terribly exhilarating, isn't it? 

     


  15. 2 hours ago, chasfh said:

    Jake Rogers ain't starting for anybody until he buys himself a bat.

    Rogers had a pretty solid 2017 at A and A+ (.817 OPS, 18 HRs) and after an horrific April and May in 2018 at AA he posted a .1004 OPS in June, .784 in July, and .857 in August. This stretch included 14 HRs and a 10% walk rate. I don't know what happened to him in the Spring--and I understand scouts have always questioned his bat--but he has shown some ability so far to hit and with power. With his elite level defensive skills if he can post a 95-100 OPS+ that is something the Tigers can work with. 


  16. On 10/25/2018 at 11:25 AM, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

    Good for Boyd.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm always pleased when the guys who are marginal talents survive in the league long enough to make a few million. Maybe Boyd doesn't fall into this category, because he's been decent since becoming a professional. I'm thinking more of a guy like Marcus Thames or, looking ahead, Niko Goodrum. Thames was 31 before he made any real money. He didn't really settle into a MLB career until he was 27. How many times did he hear from friends, a spouse, another family member that he should give up, get serious about his life, and so on. Anyway, kudos to Matthew Boyd.  


  17. 2 hours ago, Shelton said:

    They will be better next year, I think. I don’t see many instances of guys aging out of good production. We will lose Martin and Fiers production from the first four months. But we should gain by adding Cabrera back, and better production from fulmer. 

    I don’t know. There is still a lot of projection. I think I can say I will probably be more interested in watching next year’s team. I will be interested to see fulmer and Cabrera and Stewart and even Norris. More Jake Jones in CF will be good, too.

    I will miss iglesias. 

    I'm hoping Paredes goes all Cabrera (Miggy didn't really blossom until his age 20 season at AA) and forces his way onto the MLB roster by mid season. That would be reason enough to tune in on a regular basis. If Cabrera could regain his health and stroke and Candelario and Stewart showed more promise that would be even more reason to pay attention. I almost completely unplugged from the Tigers this past season, something I don't think I've ever done. But once Cabrera went down and Candy started slumping I couldn't bring myself to watch a lineup in which James McCann occasionally hit cleanup and a Jose Iglesias at-bat brought relief instead of dread--and not because Iglesias suddenly starting hitting like Trammell. 


  18. 25 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

    So the AL had three 100-win+ teams and three 100-loss+ teams.  7 of 15 AL teams won 89 or more games, the other 8 teams were under .500. Many seasons Seattle's 89 wins would have been enough to grab a wildcard, this year it was 8 games behind the 2nd wildcard and wouldn't even have been a 3rd wildcard.

     

    Only time in history 5 AL teams lose 95 or more games. Four teams with even 90 losses doesn’t happen that often. Suppose we’ll see more seasons going forward with such extreme gaps between the best and worst. 


  19. On 9/17/2018 at 5:10 PM, irvink said:

    They had Clemens ranked 31 out of the 33 prospects they ranked w/in the org. They have him a future value of 35+, so clearly not believers.

    Parker Meadows was 18.

    In a recent chat McDaniel said he views Clemens as a platoon bat, for what that is worth. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...