Jump to content

chasfh

The 2018 Detroit Tigers Season (Already In Progress)

Recommended Posts


14 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

It's about team control.  If they call him up now and send him back down when Martin gets healthy, they burn an option and start his clock.  If they wait until September to call him up, they'll have him for one extra year.  I think it's silly because Stewart is already 24 and if he doesn't figure it out by the time he's 27, then he'll probably go through waivers anyway.  I personally think they should call up Stewart.  I also think they should send Reyes back to wherever he came from.  

You aren’t exactly right regarding the service time thing. If you call him up in September, you would get him for September and then another six years. If you called him up now (and never sent him down), you would get him for May-September and then another six years. The difference is that he would likely get arbitration after 2020 if you called him up now and never sent him down. If you waited until August or September, he wouldn’t get arbitration until after 2021. 

As for “burning” an option, that’s really not anything to worry about for a guy who hasn’t yet used any options and is as close to ML ready as he is. Even if they sent him down and used an option this year, they could still send him down in 2019 and 2020. If he isn’t good enough to stick on a major league team in 2021, he’s not going to be worth keeping on the roster at all.

Share this post


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

You aren’t exactly right regarding the service time thing. If you call him up in September, you would get him for September and then another six years. If you called him up now (and never sent him down), you would get him for May-September and then another six years. The difference is that he would likely get arbitration after 2020 if you called him up now and never sent him down. If you waited until August or September, he wouldn’t get arbitration until after 2021. 

As for “burning” an option, that’s really not anything to worry about for a guy who hasn’t yet used any options and is as close to ML ready as he is. Even if they sent him down and used an option this year, they could still send him down in 2019 and 2020. If he isn’t good enough to stick on a major league team in 2021, he’s not going to be worth keeping on the roster at all.

We can argue about whether Al Avila is right or wrong, but it's beginning to appear he is going to stick to his guns in terms of not bringing guys up if there is stuff they want them to work on in MiLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

We can argue about whether Al Avila is right or wrong, but it's beginning to appear he is going to stick to his guns in terms of not bringing guys up if there is stuff they want them to work on in MiLB.

You may be right ..or Al Avila may be clueless.

Share this post


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

Does anybody have a read on Reyes yet ? Is there potential there or are we wasting time ?

Who knows? - He has 20 PA. It certainly doesn't make any sense to take a kid who had been improving yr to yr and sit him - you've just cut off any development path he was on at the knees. Maybe, if both Martin and JaCoby had both been bad, he would be playing now. Or probably  of the group of Mathook, Jones, Castellanos, Martin, the plan was that some number of them would become tradeable and Reyes would/will get his shot them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Who knows? - He has 20 PA. It certainly doesn't make any sense to take a kid who had been improving yr to yr and sit him - you've just cut off any development path he was on at the knees. Maybe, if both Martin and JaCoby had both been bad, he would be playing now. Or probably  of the group of Mathook, Jones, Castellanos, Martin, the plan was that some number of them would become tradeable and Reyes would/will get his shot them.

Well, when you're behind Goodrum and Mahtook on the depth chart, you have to question, what is he even doing here?  And do we need both McCann and Greiner starting today?  Seriously, if Reyes can't even get a spot start with all the injuries that they have right now, get rid of him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He a rule 5 pick. He’s not ML ready. He will be back in the minors next year. Why would anyone expect him to look like anything other than a minor leaguer playing in the majors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Not a big deal either way.

It actually is a big deal when he's blocking someone like Christin Stewart.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

He a rule 5 pick. He’s not ML ready. He will be back in the minors next year. Why would anyone expect him to look like anything other than a minor leaguer playing in the majors?

I still don't think it makes sense unless there is a plan to play him later this year. He's not young enough that he can afford to lose a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

He a rule 5 pick. He’s not ML ready. He will be back in the minors next year. Why would anyone expect him to look like anything other than a minor leaguer playing in the majors?

It's the fact that he's not getting AB is the problem.  Sure, he's going to hit like a minor leaguer, but with Martin injured, this is the perfect time to get him some ABs.  But no, we have to give Goodrum more playing time because...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

It actually is a big deal when he's blocking someone like Christin Stewart.  

He is not blocking Stewart.

Stewart's fielding is blocking Stewart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

It's the fact that he's not getting AB is the problem.  Sure, he's going to hit like a minor leaguer, but with Martin injured, this is the perfect time to get him some ABs.  But no, we have to give Goodrum more playing time because...?

Because in the context of their short and long term goals, they deemed Goodrum playing helps the MLB team more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

He is not blocking Stewart.

Stewart's fielding is blocking Stewart.

He's blocking Duece, which why I am frankly amazed it has gone on this long..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep being more impressed with Candelario. Today he charged to field a bunt with a fast runner at 1st, got the out at 1st and then ran back to 3rd in time to take a return throw from 1st to get the runner trying to go to an 'empty' 3rd base. Kid has serious baseball IQ.

Of course the other question is why Iglesias and Kozma both ended up covering 2nd instead of Iggy staying ahead of the runner so as to get to 3rd in front of him to take a possible throw after Candario vacated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 11:32 PM, bobrob2004 said:

According to Baseball Reference, these are the qualifications for a "productive out."

- A successful sac for a pitcher with 1 out.

- Advancing any runner with 0 outs.

- Driving in a runner with the second out of the inning.

Seems rather specific to have much meaning, although the 2nd qualifier is rather vague.  I suppose a successful sac bunt with 0 outs will qualify it as a productive out.  The fact that it has to be done with 0 outs is rather a silly stipulation, though.  However, the fact that the Tigers are only successful 22% of the time and that they are the least successful in those situations is rather damning.  26 out of 120, that means in these situations, the Tigers have made 94 "non-productive outs."  It's not good.

I think "productive outs" are best reserved for very specific situations.  When pitchers bat and move runners over.  Late in a game situation where only one run is needed and a runner advances into scoring position.  That's probably about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Casimir said:

I think "productive outs" are best reserved for very specific situations.  When pitchers bat and move runners over.  Late in a game situation where only one run is needed and a runner advances into scoring position.  That's probably about it.

Well if you're going to make it an out, it's better that's it's productive than non-productive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Well if you're going to make it an out, it's better that's it's productive than non-productive.  

Is there a strong relationship between productive outs and run scoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Is there a strong relationship between productive outs and run scoring?

Related question:  which is worth more all things being equal?  Runner on first with no outs or a runner on second with one out?

Of course no two situations are equal, but we have to begin the analysis somewhere.  I also acknowledge the false binary choice above.  Again, it is a starting place.

Edited by diaspora04
correct typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 9:57 AM, Gehringer_2 said:

The whole "don't let the pitcher catch pop-ups" thing is another one of those 'unwritten rules' that I would think a smart organization would be wise to unwind for its players. Pitchers have to field all the time. There is really no reason a pitcher shouldn't catch a pop-up if he has to, but ONE, and that is you don't want the pitcher trying to catch a ball looking up as he is stepping *down* off the mound because that can throw you. It is better to have an IF go up the mound if a pop-up is going to land near it. Once a pitcher is away from the mound, it should just be normal precedence for who catches a pop-up. The pitcher may still be at the bottom of the list, but he shouldn't feel he can't call it and make the play if he is there and no-one else is.

If there's a pop-up of at least medium height around the mound, there will not be no one else around to catch it. Pitchers will never call of his infielders on medium or high pop-ups. If he does, he'll pay for it in kangaroo court.

Pitchers will catch pop ups only if they are soft, low height pop-ups. Otherwise, whoever catches the pop-up will depend on positional priority: shortstop has dibs on whatever he can get to, then it goes second baseman, third baseman, then first basemen. Catcher will catch a pop-up only if the ball goes up the elevator shaft, or it's foul behind the plate. If it's high in front of the plate and toward the mound, third baseman will call him off of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, diaspora04 said:

Related question:  which is worth more all things being equal?  Runner on first with no outs or a runner on second with one out?

Of course no two situations are equal, but we have to begin the analysis somewhere.  I also acknowledge the false binary choice above.  Again, it is a starting place.

Runner on first with no outs is more valuable than runner on second with one out based on both run expectancy and run probability. That's why no one, except pitchers, bunts runners over to second with no outs anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...