Jump to content

Lifeguard

If Miggy Performs well Next year...

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

in the four years spanning 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the guys we acquired in the 1st round (Nick C) or in exchange for 1st round picks (Anibal, Fister, VMart, Fielder, Ian) gave us over 15 combined years of plus performance, 4 playoff appearances (2011 - 2014), 3 ALCS appearances and a WS appearance.

That is four awesome and well-timed 1st round outcomes.  Good job DD!

He traded to win, but in the main the trades made the system older. The strategy was completely defensible but not sustainable for the long term. But that goes back to the old and constant debate between those that care more about competitive regular seasons and those who would rather lose some years as the result of selling out to grab for the brass ring in others. There is no right answer to that choice and our owner had made his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sabretooth said:

The facts don't track at all with what you're saying here.

2009: Jacob Turner (not a reliever, traded for Anibal Sanchez in 2012, which worked out great for us)++

2010: Nick Castellanos (not a reliever, worked out well for us)+

2010: Chance Ruffin (was a reliever, but was traded for Fister, which worked out great for us)++

2011: no pick (b/c of FA VMart, but this "trade" worked out well.....we traded potential future talent for the guy we needed "now", and Victor delivered, giving us 2 great seasons that got us into the playoffs both times and 2 good seasons including an ALCS run in 2013 and a one-game near-miss of the playoffs in 2016)++

2012: no pick (b/c of FA Fielder, this "trade" again worked out very well, we got two very good years of Fielder with a WS and ALCS run and 4 good years of Ian after Fielder)++

2013: J. Crawford (not a reliever, traded in the disastrous A. Simon debacle - OK this was a disaster)BLECH

2014: Derek Hill (Outfielder, not a reliever...not a great prospect, seems like a bad 1st round pick, but that's not the fault of any trades or FA DD made)MEH

2015: Christin Stewart (Outfielder, not a reliever....like D. Hill, not a great prospect, but again, not the result of a bad trade or FA acquisition)MEH

Bottom line: we made three selections of position players and one worked out well enough (Nick C) and two seem underwhelming but that's the nature of late-round picks; we turned two pitchers (Turner and Ruffin) into gold with trades for Anibal and Fister; and we turned two 1st round picks into FA gold with Victor and Prince, who helped us get to the ALCS mutiple times and the WS.

DD's 1st round picks seem to have worked out fine.  His overall drafting and development of players wasn't effective, but I blame a lack of sound development and a poor use of metrics as much as anything for that.

 

I forgot about Turner, but I wasn't counting supplemental picks like Castellanos or Stewart because those guys came after every other team got to pick.  They were basically 2nd rounders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

He traded to win, but in the main the trades made the system older. The strategy was completely defensible but not sustainable for the long term. But that goes back to the old and constant debate between those that care more about competitive regular seasons and those who would rather lose some years as the result of selling out to grab for the brass ring in others. There is no right answer to that choice and our owner had made his.

I get the philosophical point you are making, but in this case I don't think it applied practically-speaking in the way you are suggesting.

With the talent they had on the team, they weren't going to have high draft picks anyway.  The choice was to be mired in near-miss territory playoff-wise AND still be too good to garner high draft picks, or go all-in for the playoffs and get what they could from lower draft picks.  As much as they paid for Miggy and JV, they didn't overbuild to make the playoffs by 5+ games...they were built to eek it out with good mid-season trades and such.

They whiffed on analytics and development, but the roster v. draft strategy was more than defensible, it was really their only good option. 

Passing on a great opportunity to compete every year for 5 years in order to maybe get some better draft picks for the following 5 years would have been indefensible in my opinion.  IMHO that was the real choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

I forgot about Turner, but I wasn't counting supplemental picks like Castellanos or Stewart because those guys came after every other team got to pick.  They were basically 2nd rounders.  

Either way they weren't going to be lighting it up with great draft picks given that they were an 80+ win team at minimum nearly every year for 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is the Tigers/DD were great in one area of development and poor in another.  Some suggest the strategy for the former helped cause the latter result. I think they are independent of each other and an org is capable of doing both if they choose to. 

If the tigers and DD had been better at developing the average players they could have had a run like the Giants.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oblong said:

 

If the tigers and DD had been better at developing the average players they could have had a run like the Giants.  

What do you mean? Other than winning the titles, which they had a shot at, I'm not sure the Giants run was better than ours. (overall, obviously I'd take the three titles, but right now the giants after about 6 or seven years in contention are now in a worse position than us)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I think winning 3 WS over 5 years was better than the Tigers run.  How is there a question?

There is no question. Three WS championships in five years is amazing in today’s environment. With one of their series wins being a four game sweep of the Tigers I wouldn’t begin to compare the two teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I think winning 3 WS over 5 years was better than the Tigers run.  How is there a question?

In retrospect, their run was better than the Tigers.  I am not sure how much credit the GM gets for that though.  Both GMs put their teams into position to win championships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

What do you mean? Other than winning the titles, which they had a shot at, I'm not sure the Giants run was better than ours. (overall, obviously I'd take the three titles, but right now the giants after about 6 or seven years in contention are now in a worse position than us)

I see SF going down the same road Detroit did under DD. They’re starting to get away from what got them there. They’re going big $$$ on free agency and that doesn’t always work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

In retrospect, their run was better than the Tigers.  I am not sure how much credit the GM gets for that though.  Both GMs put their teams into position to win championships. 

The Giants foundation for the run was home grown. I would believe the GM would have to have a big say in that. They drafted and developed very well to set themselves up for a sustained presence in the playyoffs.They were planning for more than one or two years out. 

It is interesting that a lot of Giants fans point out today that the run of the Giants cracked when they traded Matt Duffy. There does seem to be something to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1776 said:

The Giants foundation for the run was home grown. I would believe the GM would have to have a big say in that. They drafted and developed very well to set themselves up for a sustained presence in the playyoffs.They were planning for more one or two years out. 

It is interesting that a lot of Giants fans point out today that the run of the Giants cracked when they traded Matt Duffy. There does seem to be something to this. 

Homegrown is nice, but making trades and signing the right free agents is another way to build a team.  The fact is, both GMs built strong teams which were capable of doing well in the playoffs.  The Giants teams just got hot at the right time and the Tigers didn't.  I don't think that is Dombrowski's fault.  

Matt Duffy only played in one post-season and had only one hit, so I don't see him as the reason for their run.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

The Giants teams just got hot at the right time and the Tigers didn't.  I don't think that is Dombrowski's fault.  

Matt Duffy only played in one post-season and had only one hit, so I don't see him as the reason for their run.  

The success the Giants experienced over a five year period is much more than just getting hot at the right time. 

Duffy, another home grown kid, was credited with being a leader and inspiration to the team around him. In 2015 he was awarded the teams Willie Mac Award for being the teams most inspirational leader. It was the first time in 35 years a rookie had received the reward. I think this is the Matt Duffy the fans are referring to when they imply his absence from the team has been an overall negative. Not so much at the plate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 1776 said:

The success the Giants experienced over a five year period is much more than just getting hot at the right time. 

Duffy, another home grown kid, was credited with being a leader and inspiration to the team around him. In 2015 he was awarded the teams Willie Mac Award for being the teams most inspirational leader. It was the first time in 35 years a rookie had received the reward. I think this is the Matt Duffy the fans are referring to when they imply his absence from the team has been an overall negative. Not so much at the plate. 

I disagree.

But Happy Thanksgiving!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 8:51 AM, Oblong said:

I don't think Cabrera would ever net a return worth moving him.  If the org is committed to analyitcs and changing their ways, etc. then they should be able to draft and develop dozens of guys that a Cabrera would get you.  At that point you are just saving money and paying him to beat you.   Franchise is stuck with him.  May as well ride it out and milk it for all it's marketing purposes and let him lead the new group to a title in 2021. The hope is he regains elite status, chases 600 HRs, racks up other milestones, and retires as the greatest hitter in Tigers history.

But can you imagine his attitude playing for a 100+ loss team? He would be very unhappy and not afraid to show his unhappiness 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

But can you imagine his attitude playing for a 100+ loss team? He would be very unhappy and not afraid to show his unhappiness 

Fwiw, I don’t think Miggie would be any lesser player, attitude or performance, playing for a bottom tier team.  Detroit has done a lot for him and vice versa. The organization lived through his issues in the past and were always very supportive of him. I think he’s happy being a Tiger for the rest of the ride. I’m pretty optimistic about 2018 for Miggie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Fwiw, I don’t think Miggie would be any lesser player, attitude or performance, playing for a bottom tier team.  Detroit has done a lot for him and vice versa. The organization lived through his issues in the past and were always very supportive of him. I think he’s happy being a Tiger for the rest of the ride. I’m pretty optimistic about 2018 for Miggie. 

baseball is the longest season, the most games, the most time spent together with teammates - it's more a 'regular' job than other sports. If the Tigers create a positive atmosphere, with good management and coaching, achieve measurable progress toward improving to sustain future hope,  those are the things that will keep players on board more than absolute present tense win/loss records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tiger337 said:

In retrospect, their run was better than the Tigers.  I am not sure how much credit the GM gets for that though.  Both GMs put their teams into position to win championships. 

For sure.  I used them as an example because I think their success was the fact they had guys who could run and play defense in addition to the all star players.   That’s what struck me the most about watching them.  I don’t think they were especially unique to warrant winning that many titles in 5 years.   The tigers are not in this position because of overpaying for Sanchez or VMart. It’s for having to make trades for guys like Simon and Soria and signing Aviles.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Oblong said:

For sure.  I used them as an example because I think their success was the fact they had guys who could run and play defense in addition to the all star players.   That’s what struck me the most about watching them.  I don’t think they were especially unique to warrant winning that many titles in 5 years.   The tigers are not in this position because of overpaying for Sanchez or VMart. It’s for having to make trades for guys like Simon and Soria and signing Aviles.   

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the conversation here about the Tigers's run, I looked up their cumulative record between 2006 and 2014.

Turns out the Tigers had the third best record of any franchise in the majors during this period: 790-669, for an average season of 88-74. It surprised me because at no point during this nine-year period did the Tigers ever have the best record in baseball, or the best record in the American League, or even the second best record in the American League. Yet there they are: third best record in baseball, 2006-2014.

The Yankees had the best record for these nine seasons: 839-619 (93-69), during which they had six playoff appearances, three misses, and only one World Series appearance (2009 champs).

Guess which franchise had the second best record? Go on, guess. You'll never guess.

Ah, **** it, I'll just tell you: the Angels! They were 811-647 (90-72).

Did you know off the top of your head that the Angels won that many more games during the Tigers' "dynasty period" than the Tigers did? I sure didn't. Yet during that same period in which the Tigers went to five playoffs and made two World Series appearances, the Angels went to only four playoffs total, crapping out of the LDS in three of them, and losing the LCS that fourth season.

And the moral of the story is: playoffs are hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

FIFY

OK, so, I'm with you on this for the most part, but the devil's advocate demands equal time:

Did you read Bill James's Underestimating the Fog essay from a few years ago? He essentially hypothesized that baseball researchers have a tendency to attribute to luck or randomness those traits which have not yet, through testing, been determined to be a persistent skill. Things like clutch hitting ability, winning or losing streaks, outcome on balls in play, etc., have been concluded to be random clusters of discrete events not influenced by the players involved. James holds that just because we haven't figured out how to measure a certain trait doesn't mean it's not a skill that doesn't exist, and therefore the answer is randomness.

Point being, it's possible that the Angels, or any team, can be one of the best teams year after year during the regular season due to reasons we can easily determine, but at the same time could be, because of some reason we haven't determined yet, completely unsuited to winning playoff series.

Some people who themselves don't believe baseball research is an actual thing will come to conclusions that are suited to their own prejudices: Angels couldn't win playoff series because they lacked the right experience, lacked the right fortitude, lacked the right clubhouse leadership, etc. And that's fine, let them. They don't have to be part of the serious conversation about it, and we shouldn't force them to be. But when baseball researchers, unable to identify a reason for the persistent phenomenon of the Angels' failing to win playoff series, conclude that no reasons leading to that exist so it must all be random, they're engaging in the same facile conclusion-jumping that anti-research fans do, made worse by the fact that researchers spend countless hours juggling numbers before throwing up their hands and guessing.

Bringing it all back around to Miggy: after having juggled the numbers, I'm confident his slide in 2017 is a transient phenomenon due to random bad luck. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×