Jump to content

Motor City Sonics

40 game mark. Are your expectations adjusted?

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, diaspora04 said:

The Tigers are missing a single ingredient, a mere presence, really, to contend.

image.png.f62545e5dc9c344a4ad943f4d21e90a4.png

He has business to tend to in Toledo.  He sent Lewicki up as a surrogate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the argument whether they could “easily” (whatever that means) finish with 100 losses or whether they could easily average -1.5 runs/game?

100 losses is still well within reach for a bad team like the tigers. 

-1.5 runs per game is not remotely realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Is it the word "easily" you're hanging me on? OK, I'll bite. Sure, easily. I'll cop to that here and now, and pay for it in October if I have to. Why not.

FWIW, last year they ended last season 44-78 which, granted, is not as bad as 43-79, but you have to admit is close. The level of unlikelihood of their going 43-79 to end this season depends on how substantially better this team is over the long haul of 162 games than last year's team, which included Upton, J.D., Verlander, and overachieving Avila and Justin Wilson for much of that stretch. No way to measure that now. Let's revisit this on October 1 and I'll eat crow if I have to.

I would be happy to bet the Tigers end up with fewer than 100 losses if you would like.

And it wasn't just the word 'easily' I was hanging you on.

I simply think it is improbable that they end up with 100 losses and explained why.

Heck, I think ending up with 100 or more losses was an unlikely result at the beginning of the season, and now that they have chewed up 41 games playing close to 0.500 ball, it is going to be that much harder to get there. They get a bunch of games with CWS, KC and Minn,  none of which are good and two of which are probably worse than they are.  OTOH, they will likely sell off players, so will likely end up a worse team than they are now.

Obviously they can end up with that type of record as they aren't a good team.  But they also could end up 0.500 as well.  It could happen.  But taking it all in, I'd guess something close to 90 losses is the most likely outcome, and the further you deviate from that, the less likely it is to achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be fair, they only need to be -1.4 runs worse than opposition to net -170 runs the rest of the way.  I roughly estimated -1.5 earlier.

Share this post


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

. . .

-1.5 runs per game is not remotely realistic. 

Not considering the current facts.  Facts could change, though.  Injuries and trades could significantly alter the state of things for the worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, diaspora04 said:

Not considering the current facts.  Facts could change, though.  Injuries and trades could significantly alter the state of things for the worse.

True. I suppose the team plane could crash. 

Share this post


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

Is the argument whether they could “easily” (whatever that means) finish with 100 losses or whether they could easily average -1.5 runs/game?

100 losses is still well within reach for a bad team like the tigers. 

-1.5 runs per game is not remotely realistic. 

To Mr. Bigglesworth's point, for the Tigers to reach 100 losses on the season, they would have to average -1.5 (or -1.4, if your prefer) fewer runs per game on average than their opposition, stripping out the luck factor.

Again, only FWIW, when the Tigers finished the season last year 44-78 with a team that included Upton, J.D., Verlander, Avila, and Justin Wilson all having good to great seasons for over half that stretch, we averaged -1.2 runs per game versus their opposition. I don't see how the comparative makeup of this team and the schedule remaining makes exceeding that by -0.2 or -0.3 not even remotely realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

True. I suppose the team plane could crash. 

Certain members of the pitching staff could get "sideways" with Adduci.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m enjoying these wins, and while I’m firmly part of the #tank movement, I know we’ll get our more than fair share of losses  eventually, so it’s fun letting things play out.  I just wish this were a true rebuilding season, but it’s not.  The only youngster who is developing this season, that should be part of our core, is Jeimer.  Jimenez, Farmer, Hicks and Jones, too, but I suspect they’ll just be pieces of a winning team.  Everyone else is either a stopgap or likely to be dealt before we become a contender.

Share this post


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

True. I suppose the team plane could crash. 

If Gardenhire survives, they will still be OK.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you’re hanging “remotely realistic” on me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

Now you’re hanging “remotely realistic” on me?

Language is the tool of your trade, I believe, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only parts of this roster I could see being part of the 202X world champion Detroit Tigers are Candelario and Fulmer, and some people are itching to ship Fulmer out of here, so maybe not even him. May Jimenez if he can add more two-strike swing and miss to his game.

Share this post


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

Now you’re hanging “remotely realistic” on me?

I don't see how being outscored by -1.5 runs per game for the rest of the season is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't see how being outscored by -1.5 runs per game for the rest of the season is not.

I guess it just depends on how you personally define that phrase. If the baseline projections for the worst teams in baseball range from -80 to -100 going forward, going -170 from this point doesn’t seem remotely realistic to me, even though it is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was expecting the Tigers to be where the ChiSox are now, so my expectations are somewhat adjusted. This season is a lot more fun than I thought it had any right to be. My only hope is that Cleveland isn't so bad to where the Tigers have a few games lead by the deadline and decide to go for it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, holygoat said:

I was expecting the Tigers to be where the ChiSox are now, so my expectations are somewhat adjusted. This season is a lot more fun than I thought it had any right to be. My only hope is that Cleveland isn't so bad to where the Tigers have a few games lead by the deadline and decide to go for it. 

Impossible to say for sure, but I would guess that in the unlikely event that Cleveland continues being terrible and the tigers continue playing close to .500 and remain in the race, the cost to the rebuild would be minimal. None of the guys we have available for trade are likely to bring back much. A guy like fulmer, assuming he could be traded for the return we want, would still be worth a lot in trade in the offseason or next year. But castellanos, Greene, liriano, Martin, and those types aren’t likely to bring back much in trade. So keeping them would not likely deprive of us of the prospects we would need to help the rebuild. 

With so many sellers and so few buyers, there isn’t going to be a candelario and paredes for Avila and Wilson deal out there this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to follow that up, I don’t see Avila making any moves where he gives up an important piece to add to the ML team.

So, I really think the only effect would be that we might pass on a fulmer deal. And that might not be so bad anyway, especially if the reason we are in the race is because the younger players have improved and Cabrera has come back healthy and good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I guess it just depends on how you personally define that phrase. If the baseline projections for the worst teams in baseball range from -80 to -100 going forward, going -170 from this point doesn’t seem remotely realistic to me, even though it is possible. 

You used the phrase without defining it, leaving it to the reader to define it. So in the way that I define it, going -170 in the final 121 games is at least remotely realistic, particularly given last year's team went -147 in their final 122 games, and I do not believe this team is so clearly better than last year's team that there is no remotely realistic possibility they could exceed last year's deficit up, to and even beyond, -170. I believe there is that possibility.

If you're so inclined to define your phrase in a specific way, please feel to do so, and I will reassess my position against that. Otherwise, we can simply agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, holygoat said:

I was expecting the Tigers to be where the ChiSox are now, so my expectations are somewhat adjusted. This season is a lot more fun than I thought it had any right to be. My only hope is that Cleveland isn't so bad to where the Tigers have a few games lead by the deadline and decide to go for it. 

Or worse, they're only a few games back and decide to go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You used the phrase without defining it, leaving it to the reader to define it. So in the way that I define it, going -170 in the final 121 games is at least remotely realistic, particularly given last year's team went -147 in their final 122 games, and I do not believe this team is so clearly better than last year's team that there is no remotely realistic possibility they could exceed last year's deficit up, to and even beyond, -170. I believe there is that possibility.

If you're so inclined to define your phrase in a specific way, please feel to do so, and I will reassess my position against that. Otherwise, we can simply agree to disagree.

Nah, define it any way you want. Just like others can define what “easily” means to them. 

Share this post


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

And to follow that up, I don’t see Avila making any moves where he gives up an important piece to add to the ML team.

So, I really think the only effect would be that we might pass on a fulmer deal. And that might not be so bad anyway, especially if the reason we are in the race is because the younger players have improved and Cabrera has come back healthy and good. 

Yes, I can not see them trading any legitimate prospects to try to win this year.  I also agree that a close race means they probably wouldn't be selling anyone like Fulmer either.  

Share this post


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

And to follow that up, I don’t see Avila making any moves where he gives up an important piece to add to the ML team.

So, I really think the only effect would be that we might pass on a fulmer deal. And that might not be so bad anyway, especially if the reason we are in the race is because the younger players have improved and Cabrera has come back healthy and good. 

If Avila/Ilitch decided to go for it because they're close on July 31, I might well just give up on this franchise until they sell.

I've always been on the side of keeping Fulmer, not only because we have five years of control and should be planning to field him as our ace when we're (supposed to be) ready to contend, but to your other point, we steered the rebuilding ship right into what might be the biggest buyer's deadline market ever, so the chances of anyone like the Yankees or the Braves emptying their farm system of several of their top 100 prospects to get Fulmer are practically zero. 

Share this post


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

Nah, define it any way you want. Just like others can define what “easily” means to them. 

Now that you mention it, the Tigers could easily go 43-79 in their final 122. :grin: 

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

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      95,808
    • Total Posts
      2,772,363
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×