Jump to content

Tenacious D

2018-19 Off-season Thread

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, 1776 said:

I wish there were a hard salary cap in MLB.

The money you would spend on these guys would go further in acquiring younger players and building for the future. I like Trout as a player but would NEVER roll big money for him at this point. You would never get your money out of him going forward based on what he would command salery wise. 

 

They aren't either/or options. And you'd be like to acquire 5 young players who together put up multiple 8+ WAR seasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

They aren't either/or options. And you'd be like to acquire 5 young players who together put up multiple 8+ WAR seasons. 

The Tigers, as you know, are still trying to get beyond some bad contracts. I don’t see the organization being interested in any marquee names in the foreseeable future. The Machados, Harpers, and Trouts are out of the question right now unless Illitch has a change of heart.

Yes, I’m all about acquiring quality players as the opportunities arise. But there has to be some fiscal consideration. This coming year will answer a lot of questions about the org and how they have approached the rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1776 said:

The Tigers, as you know, are still trying to get beyond some bad contracts.

That's a different conversation to the one when you said if you were an GM you'd stay clear of Trout, Harper or Machado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trout is the kind of talent that would be fun to watch every day even if they didn't make the playoffs.  I do understand that most fans don't share that view though.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1776 said:

The Tigers, as you know, are still trying to get beyond some bad contracts. I don’t see the organization being interested in any marquee names in the foreseeable future. The Machados, Harpers, and Trouts are out of the question right now unless Illitch has a change of heart.

Yes, I’m all about acquiring quality players as the opportunities arise. But there has to be some fiscal consideration. This coming year will answer a lot of questions about the org and how they have approached the rebuild.

The Red Sox had bad contracts in Pablo Sandoval and Rusney Castillo but that didn't stop them in signing JD Martinez and winning the World Series.  They even ate Hanley Ramirez' contract.  

Share this post


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

That's a different conversation to the one when you said if you were an GM you'd stay clear of Trout, Harper or Machado

My point is.... no long term high dollar deals. The Tigers already have enough dead wood. Stay away from repeating same, simple.

Share this post


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

The Red Sox had bad contracts in Pablo Sandoval and Rusney Castillo but that didn't stop them in signing JD Martinez and winning the World Series.  They even ate Hanley Ramirez' contract.  

Why don’t you touch base with Illitch and see what he’s thinking. Don’t think he’s of the above mindset.

Share this post


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

From the Department of Huh, You Don’t Say: Ron Gardenhire would like to outlaw the shift.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-david-stearns-and-ron-gardenhire-differ-on-the-shift/

In other news, Ron Gardenhire still believes in Abner Doubleday, and that Abner set up the positions in 1839 the exact way they’re played today.

I thought Gardenhire was a forward thinking manager who is a big proponent of analytics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder about the Tiger front office. Either they hired a manager who is 180 degrees from them on the value of analytics, or they’re on the same page with his thinking. I wonder what Occam’s Razor would have to say about that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article linked above..,

In 1968, Bob Gibson made 16 starts on the road for the St. Louis Cardinals and went 12-3 with a 0.81 ERA.

Just. Wow!

Share this post


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

Makes me wonder about the Tiger front office. Either they hired a manager who is 180 degrees from them on the value of analytics, or they’re on the same page with his thinking. I wonder what Occam’s Razor would have to say about that? 

I lean toward the latter option.

Share this post


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

I thought Gardenhire was a forward thinking manager who is a big proponent of analytics.

did someone say that? TBF however, being willing to shift and liking it are not the same thing. I'd vote to do away with toll roads, I'm not going to stop using them when I need to get where they go.

Share this post


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

From the Department of Huh, You Don’t Say: Ron Gardenhire would like to outlaw the shift.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-david-stearns-and-ron-gardenhire-differ-on-the-shift/

In other news, Ron Gardenhire still believes in Abner Doubleday, and that Abner set up the positions in 1839 the exact way they’re played today.

That same article cited that Gardenhire shifted over 1000 times, 14th in MLB. 

All year long. Gardenhire bragged about using analytics and using the shift as his example, and now this? Who's really managing this team?  

Share this post


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

did someone say that? TBF however, being willing to shift and liking it are not the same thing. I'd vote to do away with toll roads, I'm not going to stop using them when I need to get where they go.

Why hire a guy with 13 years of experience when they could have hired any puppet to do whatever the front office told him to do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I don't follow what this is about at all. A guy who has been in the game for 50 yrs expresses that he liked the game he used to play better than the one he is playing in now. BFD - we have saber devotees on this very forum who express pretty much the same sentiment often. That sentiment has exactly zero direct implication to how he manages now, uses information now,  or how his FO approaches the current game.

We can have all the concerns about Gardenhire we like, but this one is a nothing burger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not care less about Gardenhire.  I was just being snarky.  I am actually torn on defensive shifts.  I like innovation, but also like the game a little better without shifts. 

Share this post


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

I could not care less about Gardenhire.  I was just being snarky.  I am actually torn on defensive shifts.  I like innovation, but also like the game a little better without shifts. 

I think they are fine. LH hitters need to learn to take a pitch the other way - It's only fair since they they'd had it too easy for decades.

But part of this may go back to an earlier discussion: Given the high HR/FB ratio in the league today, are LHH hitters refusing to go against the shift exactly because internal team analytics data says they are better off making more outs if it keeps the HR in order for them?  This would(does) lead to a more boring game - but if you ask me the answer is not to ban the shift, but get rid of the rabbit ball so LHH have more incentive to go the other way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I think they are fine. LH hitters need to learn to take a pitch the other way - It's only fair since they they'd had it too easy for decades.

But part of this may go back to an earlier discussion: Given the high HR/FB ration in the league today, are LHH hitters refusing to go against the shift exactly because internal team analytics data says they are better off making more outs if it keeps the HR in order for them? 

I think this is true.  Otherwise you would see more players try to hit away from the shift.  My reason for not liking the shift is simply aesthetics.  It's not a big deal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

did someone say that? TBF however, being willing to shift and liking it are not the same thing. I'd vote to do away with toll roads, I'm not going to stop using them when I need to get where they go.

I was working on examples to say this - the toll road thing is perfect.

Share this post


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

From the Department of Huh, You Don’t Say: Ron Gardenhire would like to outlaw the shift.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/sunday-notes-david-stearns-and-ron-gardenhire-differ-on-the-shift/

In other news, Ron Gardenhire still believes in Abner Doubleday, and that Abner set up the positions in 1839 the exact way they’re played today.

Baseball started to go down hill when umpires couldn't demand that the striker state his preference on where the ball should pitched.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I think they are fine. LH hitters need to learn to take a pitch the other way - It's only fair since they they'd had it too easy for decades.

But part of this may go back to an earlier discussion: Given the high HR/FB ratio in the league today, are LHH hitters refusing to go against the shift exactly because internal team analytics data says they are better off making more outs if it keeps the HR in order for them?  This would(does) lead to a more boring game - but if you ask me the answer is not to ban the shift, but get rid of the rabbit ball so LHH have more incentive to go the other way.

Absolutely this. I recommended in a poster earlier this year that Baseball deaden the ball by 1% to 2%, as well as reduce the spin on the ball to reduce swing-and-miss. This would realign incentives to lead more hitters to swing for contact and get more balls into play. The prevalence of the shift might be one of the impetuses to lead to that decision, although, devil’s advocate, there’s still a lot of money in Chicks Dig The Long Ball. 

Share this post


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

Absolutely this. I recommended in a poster earlier this year that Baseball deaden the ball by 1% to 2%, as well as reduce the spin on the ball to reduce swing-and-miss. This would realign incentives to lead more hitters to swing for contact and get more balls into play. The prevalence of the shift might be one of the impetuses to lead to that decision, although, devil’s advocate, there’s still a lot of money in Chicks Dig The Long Ball. 

I agree they would improve the game if they deadened the ball.  There are too many home runs and strikeouts and not enough balls in play in today's game and I believe a less lively ball would decrease both of them.  It will never happen though because of what you said in the last sentence.  $$$$$    

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

×