Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019 REGULAR SEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Cromartie, Valentine, Dawson.  

I know Dawson is the the one one the right.  I am not sure which one is Cromartie and which one is Valentine.  

I think you are correct left to right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Dawson, warming up against the Phillies at Veteran's Stadium in maybe 1983, throw 250 feet on a line from RF to home plate.  I have not seen the like since.

Share this post


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

Cromartie, Valentine, Dawson.  

I know Dawson is the the one one the right.  I am not sure which one is Cromartie and which one is Valentine.  

That’s the correct order. The photog should have put Dawson in the center (CF).

anyways, nice job, new best friend!  By the way, I like to borrow large sums of money from my new friends.  Hope that’s cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Teams also carry more pitchers and fewer bench players -> far less pinch hitting, which probably also leads to more strikeouts.

I think shortened bench might be a bigger factor than anyone gives credit to. We know that handedness matters for batters and the shorter a bench not only the less pinch hitting but the fewer platoon hitters available to match up against the starter.

Share this post


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

That’s the correct order. The photog should have put Dawson in the center (CF).

anyways, nice job, new best friend!  By the way, I like to borrow large sums of money from my new friends.  Hope that’s cool.

Lee was second on that one. Sorry Lee.

But I have no problem with you two being friends and the lending relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chili Mac Davis said:

Lee was second on that one. Sorry Lee.

But I have no problem with you two being friends and the lending relationship.

Plenty of room in our Wolfpack, bestie!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When MLB was surely aware most of the league was on drugs they kept the balls juiced and based their marketing on how cool homers are. This style of play inevitably encourages strikeouts, which are also basically the only pitcher highlights you see. 

I really have a hard time believing the continued deluge of hrs isn't intentional. Definitely some of it is launch angles etc etc but it's not like the league makes any changes that are anti offense. Even their big move to speed up the game is to limit pitcher changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.e532973c8114224faf26c8d6ea8306d1.png

So, this has the potential makings of a fun little race, eh?  The poor Reds have somehow disgraced Pythagoras.  Perhaps they should incorporate his likeness into Mr. Red for the second half of the season?

Share this post


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

image.png.e532973c8114224faf26c8d6ea8306d1.png

 

it's as if no one really wants to win the NL Central.  Mediocrity rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 12:35 PM, Buddha said:

how did major league baseball intentionally focus the game on home runs and strikeouts?

My take is that the strikeout and shifts are at worst a direct reaction to the home runs or if not at least in a vicious circle re-enforced by HRs. With the relative run expectancy up for HRs compared to other hitting, the value of pull hitting is higher, so almost no-one tries to beat a shift. If hitters are happy to hit into the shift, then teams will continue to play them as the best defense for whatever doesn't leave the ball park. Pitchers who don't allow balls to put in play are going to be at a premium when too many balls in play leave the yard. Pitch to contact pitchers can't win, so they they don't start, so the net result is more K because we chose pitchers with higher K rates to do our pitching. 

A third aspect which  goes further back in time but maybe has just taken a long time to fully express itself is the upward movement of the strike zone. This started a long time ago with the first K-zone instrumentation (Questec) but I think accelerated when telecasts began being able to put the knee line on the broadcast.  Pitchers do not get as many strikes called below the knees as they used to, again this makes it harder on GB pitchers and takes away a pitch that is hard to get into the air, while the strike above the waist, which for years was never called, is now back in the game. But while it is a very good K pitch, miss a little lower than you want it and it is also a potential long ball as guys like Boyd and Verlander who throw it a lot are now complaining about. Verlander is still very effective but he gives up a higher proportion of the runs he does give up on the HR than used to be the norm for that type of pitcher.

In fact I would agree with a previous post that the ballparks are part of this also, the combination of the return of the high strike into an era when the deep center fields have largely disappeared. In the 60s pitcher's era game for example, the balance of the game was that you could throw the high fastball, and if you threw hard enough to keep a guy in CF instead of the pull field, the ball would not leave the yard. Lots of ball parks had CF longer than 400'. The umpires are now giving that high fast ball back to pitchers but now it's a more mixed blessing than in was in the pitchers era because now it in increases both K and HRs, the latter probably the combination of both juiced ball and shorter CFs. But I'd argue it's mostly the ball. Going back as far as when they put in the CF gate, it was really only 420 to CF in Tiger Stadium - the same as CoPa (the 440 marker was to the old corner behind the gate, they never took it down)  and you just never saw more than one or two HRs hit in straight away CF in a  whole season. Today guys put them in the bushes at CoPa all the time. That difference in the longest balls being hit can only really be the ball.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 6:16 PM, tiger337 said:

Cromartie, Valentine, Dawson.  

I know Dawson is the the one one the right.  I am not sure which one is Cromartie and which one is Valentine.  

Do you remember reading that article?  Were they referred to as "blackbirds" in the headline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compare the 2003 Tigers to the 2019 Tigers. 

The 2003 Tigers had a record of 43-119, the 2019 Tigers are on pace to have a 52-110 record, a difference of 9 games.

Runs Scored/Game:

2003 - 3.65.

2019 - 3.64.

Runs Allowed/Game:

2003 - 5.73.

2019 - 5.54.

So the 2003 and 2019 Tiger teams have practically the same exact offense with the 2019 team with slightly better pitching. This results in the 2003 team under-performing by having a 49-113 Pythagorean W/L record.  The 2019 Tigers are performing exactly as expected by having a 28-59 Pythagorean W/L record, the same as their actual W/L record.  This means the 2019 Tigers team is on pace to only be 3 games better than the 2019 team according to this standard, all due to their pitching.

However, the 2019 Tigers team is skewed by their 12-10 record in their first 22 games. Since then, they have a 16-49 record in their next 65 games. If they continue at this pace for the remainder of the season, they will win 18 more games and finish with a 46-116 record, only being 3 games better than the 2003 team.

The 2019 Tigers team is doing even worse as of late, only winning 6 of their last 33 games. If they continue at this pace for the remainder of the season, they will win only 14 more games and finish with a 42-120 record, one game worse than the 2003 team.

Furthermore, we haven't even reached the trading deadline yet.  Nick Castellanos, Shane Greene, and Matt Boyd are all likely to get traded.  I can't imagine the team's performance improving after these trades. 

So, is the 2019 team just as bad as the 2003 team?  Probably not, but it's definitely close. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL:DR - We stink. 

so Avila's plan to tank is working to near perfection.

😉

 

Share this post


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

TL:DR - We stink. 

so Avila's plan to tank is working to near perfection.

😉

 

Which will happen first?

A.  Al Avila's newly extended contract epires.

B.  The Detroit Tigers win a baseball game.

Looks like a toss-up. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the race to the bottom, due to the Tigers' recent freefall and the Orioles' recent surge (5-5 in their last ten games!), the Tigers' record is now only two games better than Baltimore's.  (They are tied in the Win column, but the O's have four more losses.)  So for those who want the Tigers to once again get the top pick in the draft, their chances are looking better and better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 12:09 PM, bobrob2004 said:

Let's compare the 2003 Tigers to the 2019 Tigers. 

The 2003 Tigers had a record of 43-119, the 2019 Tigers are on pace to have a 52-110 record, a difference of 9 games.

Runs Scored/Game:

2003 - 3.65.

2019 - 3.64.

Runs Allowed/Game:

2003 - 5.73.

2019 - 5.54.

So the 2003 and 2019 Tiger teams have practically the same exact offense with the 2019 team with slightly better pitching. This results in the 2003 team under-performing by having a 49-113 Pythagorean W/L record.  The 2019 Tigers are performing exactly as expected by having a 28-59 Pythagorean W/L record, the same as their actual W/L record.  This means the 2019 Tigers team is on pace to only be 3 games better than the 2019 team according to this standard, all due to their pitching.

However, the 2019 Tigers team is skewed by their 12-10 record in their first 22 games. Since then, they have a 16-49 record in their next 65 games. If they continue at this pace for the remainder of the season, they will win 18 more games and finish with a 46-116 record, only being 3 games better than the 2003 team.

The 2019 Tigers team is doing even worse as of late, only winning 6 of their last 33 games. If they continue at this pace for the remainder of the season, they will win only 14 more games and finish with a 42-120 record, one game worse than the 2003 team.

Furthermore, we haven't even reached the trading deadline yet.  Nick Castellanos, Shane Greene, and Matt Boyd are all likely to get traded.  I can't imagine the team's performance improving after these trades. 

So, is the 2019 team just as bad as the 2003 team?  Probably not, but it's definitely close. 

Guess what do these two teams have in common?   Craig Monroe is part of both teams.  

BTW, I miss Shane Halter.

Share this post


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

Did the 2003 team have a similar 12-10 run during their season?   I can’t look it up. 

The best stretch I could find was May 4 - May 26, where they went 10-11.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other stats:

The 2003 Tigers team went 35 games, from July 18 - August 23, without winning back-to-back games.  The current 2019 Tigers team has not won back-to-back games in 37 games...and counting. 

The longest losing streak for the 2019 Tigers is 9. The 2003 team had 4 separate losing streaks of 9+.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theories:

A. The Tigers don't like Gardy, so they are intentionally losing so Gardy will get fired.

B. Ilitch, Avila, and Gardy are telling these players to lose so they can secure another #1 overall pick.

C. Avila really is not embracing advanced analytics like he says he is.  

D. Gardy is just this terrible of a manager and so are his coaches.  

E. These players really are giving 100% effort and are just this terrible.

F. Miggy has tainted the clubhouse so much with his personal problems and it is causing the Tigers to not care about winning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think E and F are both partially true.  Many of the players are simply terrible and the clubhouse is...toxic is too strong probably so I'll go with ....not conducive to winning.

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...