Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

The Cardinals have won two championships this century.  The Tigers have won zero.   So, even by your measure, the Cardinals have done significantly better.   

Sure. The op said in the last 40 years though. I was going with that. If we go with the last decade we are the same as the Cardinals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tigers gave Denny McLain cortisone shots in his shoulder to mask the pain from injury so he could pitch during most of the 1969 season.  I doubt that his was an isolated case.  If baseball can live with that....it can live with guys taking anabolic steroids.

 

Share this post


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

I don't have any problem losing a bunch of games now. Because its the way sports have worked for thier entire history. Your bad, then your good, then your bad, then your good. No reason to slam what has worked for centuries. It's also silly to try to win slightly more games to feel better. If your going to be bad, just be bad. Nobody cares about moral victories. If we only lost 102 last year there would be no less whining and complaining.

The Yankees aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

The Dodgers aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

The Cardinals aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

The Red Sox aren't bad then good then bad then good (at least not bad for very long). They're good almost all the time.

Sports doesn't work like that for every team. There are exceptional teams who are consistently good. I want the Tigers to be one of those franchises that is consistently good. Please don't tell me that can't possibly happen. There are franchises making that happen now. Maybe you don't want that, but I want that, and you won't talk me out of wanting that.

22 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

And your right being terrible does not guarentee a ring in the future. What it does guarentee is that when I'm the worst, I get to chose the player that I most think will help get me to that level - without anyone taking away my top choice. 

Just like being the cardinals and "always having a chance" does not guarentee any more success as evident of history and their titles compared to other teams. 

I will never buy the idea that it's better to go the Ilitch Way, losing 114 games today to get a top draft pick, than to be competitive every year, especially when the Ilitch Way has already been tried three times and has yielded us exactly zero rings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m very happy the Tigers had those string of good years. I’m also pretty sad they weren’t able to carry it through to the end on any of those great seasons. Remorseful is probably a more accurate way of putting it.

It seems unrealistic, though, to have to choose between nine terrible seasons to then win one World Series serendipitously or to experience what we actually experienced. It’s a false forced choice. 

I would rather experience the remorse mixed with joy that we knew for so long than to have something happen that is pretty much inconceivable. That’s like me losing sleep over what I’d do if Charlize Theron proposed to me.

EDIT - In case anyone is losing sleep over it I would indeed accept her proposal.

 

Share this post


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

The Yankees aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

The Dodgers aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

The Cardinals aren't bad then good then bad then good. They're good all the time.

 

First off, you literally picked the three richest teams and the Cardinals at 7th. Part of the reason tehy are a bit of an outlier is they can spend to cover up their mistakes. 

And yes they are bad too. You just have to look on a futher timeline. For us, it's been what 13 or so years since we've been this bad. The yankees were god awful in the early 90s and had the number one pick back then. Same in the late 60s. For them its about 30 years between rebuilds. For the dodgers, it was 60s, early 90s and maybe early 2000s depending how you view their yo-yos)of being not so good . The Red sox it was the mid 1990s, basically throuhg the mid 1980s they were pretty bad. 

To say tehy are good all the time is not accurate. They've been good for a nice stretch here, but mainly cause they can spend to keep their window open longer than most other teams which have tiger 2010-2014 runs and then time to rebuild. 

Share this post


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

But, that's not true. 

Again this is how casino's get your money. When you hit new deal on the video poker machine the cards dealt are random. It's completely independent on the previous hand. If you lose five hands in a row you are no more likely to get a winner in the sixth hand then you were in the fifth. 

Same concept for baseball playoffs. Going to the playoffs in 9 years does not more to guarentee a title any more than going once in 9 year. But, your mind think the 9 straight does increase your odds. Each year is indepedent and having more shots year after year does not increase your odds. The only way to increase your chance would be to have more than one playoff spot in a given year. 

You keep using this word "guarentee". That's a red herring, because no one is demanding a guarantee. At least no one who's reasonable.

What we are asking for is to increase our chances of winning a title, and you increase your chances for winning a title when you are competitive every year and go to playoffs nine out of nine years, than when you go through bust-and-boom cycles and go to only one playoff in nine years.

I know, I know: "citation, please". I don't have a citation for that. I'm using Logic 101 instead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will never buy the idea that it's better to go the Ilitch Way, losing 114 games today to get a top draft pick, than to be competitive every year, especially when the Ilitch Way has already been tried three times and has yielded us exactly zero rings.

Cause its baseball not basketball. It takes more than one year to build a winner in baseball, there are no Lebrons. To say we've tried it three times and gotten zero rings is just silly. 

And there is difference between being comepitive and being bad. I view being comeptitive as playoff contention until at least august or futher. If we are close I have no problem being competitive. If being competitive means, being in a lot of games but still losing 95, well that is just silly. As i said there are no moral victories and nobody sits there and is like its OK they lost 95 they tried really hard and were in a lot of games -- well, there are people who do that. They are called the Fords and they run the Lions.

Share this post


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

What we are asking for is to increase our chances of winning a title, and you increase your chances for winning a title when you are competitive every year and go to playoffs nine out of nine years, 

No. You. Do. Not. 

That's not how odds or chances work with independent events. Your mind think it does, but that's not true. That's your mind tricking you. That's how casino's win and make their money. That mind trick right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keepleyland2 said:

First off, you literally picked the three richest teams and the Cardinals at 7th. Part of the reason tehy are a bit of an outlier is they can spend to cover up their mistakes. 

And yes they are bad too. You just have to look on a futher timeline. For us, it's been what 13 or so years since we've been this bad. The yankees were god awful in the early 90s and had the number one pick back then. Same in the late 60s. For them its about 30 years between rebuilds. For the dodgers, it was 60s, early 90s and maybe early 2000s depending how you view their yo-yos)of being not so good . The Red sox it was the mid 1990s, basically throuhg the mid 1980s they were pretty bad. 

To say tehy are good all the time is not accurate. They've been good for a nice stretch here, but mainly cause they can spend to keep their window open longer than most other teams which have tiger 2010-2014 runs and then time to rebuild. 

Yes, those are exceptional teams. I want us to be an exceptional team. That's my dream, so don't **** on my dream. And don't tell Ilitches can't spend. They're ****ing billionaires several times over and they've already spent their way to the playoffs!

Also, I don't give a **** how "bad" the Yankees were in the early 1990s, or the late 1960s, or the 1910s for that matter. Talk about cherry-picking to make your point ... :laugh:

Share this post


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

Sure. The op said in the last 40 years though. I was going with that. If we go with the last decade we are the same as the Cardinals. 

The Cardinals lead 3 to 1 in the last 40 years.  Tigers won in 84, Cardinals in 82.  

Share this post


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

 

Also, I don't give a **** how "bad" the Yankees were in the early 1990s, or the late 1960s, or the 1910s for that matter. Talk about cherry-picking to make your point ... :laugh:

"They're good all the time."

Clearly they're not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all though, when Keeplyland2 emphasizes the importance of winning it all I agree. I just don’t think that the gap between winning IT all and not winning AT all is an unnecessarily wide chasm to place between these possibilities. 

Share this post


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

No. You. Do. Not. 

That's not how odds or chances work with independent events. Your mind think it does, but that's not true. That's your mind tricking you. That's how casino's win and make their money. That mind trick right there. 

So wait: you're flat-out telling me that teams that go to the playoffs nine times have no better chance of winning a ring than teams that go one time?

Man, I have got to invite you over for poker night.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tiger337 said:

The Cardinals lead 3 to 1 in the last 40 years.  Tigers won in 84, Cardinals in 82.  

oh yeah i guess 68 was 50 years ago not 40. OK 3-1. Let's use the Marlins again then. The point remains for all their chances, they really win no more than the extreme ebb and flow teams. 

Share this post


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

So wait: you're flat-out telling me that teams that go to the playoffs nine times have no better chance of winning a ring than teams that go one time?

Correct. If you go to the playoffs your chances of winning are 1-10 this year. If you go the next year your chances are still 1-10. They don't improve to 2-10 cause you went the year before.  

I should invite you to my poker night because you can lose four hands and then keep playing because "i'm due."

Share this post


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

"They're good all the time."

Clearly they're not. 

Here's a t-shirt for you:

H0783LW1BL0000037120808080677WHYGDRA1A,m

Share this post


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

Correct. If you go to the playoffs your chances of winning are 1-12 this year. If you go the next year your chances are still 1-12. They don't improve to 2-12 cause you went the year before. 

I should invite you to my poker night because you can lose four hands and then keep playing because "i'm due."

OK, well, you keep on dreaming of nine losing seasons in exchange for a guaranteed ring. I don't want to spoil your fun.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

OK, well, you keep on dreaming of nine losing seasons to guarantee your ring. I don't want to spoil your fun.

Again I didn't say it guarentees. Nor did I say i'm ok with losing 9 hoping for one championship. You're twisting words and meaning. 

Would I like to win like the cardinals over what we are doing now? yes. Would I like to win 10 titles in 10 years, yes. Is this current stretch fun? no. 

But, if you told me I could have 10 playoff seasons and no rings, or 9 losing seasons and one ring. I pick door number 2.

I disagree with the love the cardinals franchise gets because to me they don't win any more than the teams with ebbs and flows. In the end its all about winning championship and being constantly good, but not great, like the cardinals does not help them win any more. 

I want to build great teams. The way that has been shown to do that is by getting good young talent. Easiest way to do that is the draft. Once I build great teams, I'll worry about being good every year. 

Share this post


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

OK, well, you keep on dreaming of nine losing seasons in exchange for a guaranteed ring. I don't want to spoil your fun.

I just want to watch good baseball all summer. I've gotten to where I could care less what happens in baseball once I've got my winter clothes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Again I didn't say it guarentees. You're twisting words. 

Would I like to win like the cardinals over what we are doing now? yes. Would I like to win 10 titles in 10 years, yes. Is this current stretch fun? no. 

But, if you told me I could have 10 playoff seasons and no rings, or 9 losing seasons and one ring. I pick door number 2.

I disagree with the love the cardinals franchise gets because to me they don't win any more than the teams with ebbs and flows. In the end its all about winning championship and being constantly good, but not great, like the cardinals does not help them win any more. 

I guess what I don't understand is, why would you want your team to deliberately lose 100 games for years on end for a chance to win a ring far down the road, versus having a team that is competitive practically every season and could win a ring in any one of them, including this year? I just don’t get that.

Share this post


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

Again I didn't say it guarentees. You're twisting words. 

Would I like to win like the cardinals over what we are doing now? yes. Would I like to win 10 titles in 10 years, yes. Is this current stretch fun? no. 

But, if you told me I could have 10 playoff seasons and no rings, or 9 losing seasons and one ring. I pick door number 2.

I disagree with the love the cardinals franchise gets because to me they don't win any more than the teams with ebbs and flows. In the end its all about winning championship and being constantly good, but not great, like the cardinals does not help them win any more. 

I want to build great teams. The way that has been shown to do that is by getting good young talent. Easiest way to do that is the draft. Once I build great teams, I'll worry about being good every year. 

Championship are for the players. For fans sports is entertainment - *we* don't win anything no matter what hardware the players put on their shelf. Explain to me how I am more entertained by two weeks of wins once a decade instead of 8 seasons of good baseball 'cause I don't get it either. StL deserves the love.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I guess what I don't understand is, why would you want your team to deliberately lose 100 games for years on end for a chance to win a ring far down the road, versus having a team that is competitive practically every season and could win a ring in any one of them, including this year? I just don’t get that.

You got it before I added it to. 

Cause I want to build great teams (and when I say great I mean WS champions, which are usually very very good). A vast majority of those great teams are built by young, homegrown talent.  The easiest way to acquire that is through the draft/prospect development. That's why I don't mind being god awful. It means I get to pick the guy I most think will help me build that great team. If I lose 90, six other teams get to pick before my and might pick my guy. 

You see this with the Cubs and Astros recently. And the Royals for a bit. 

I want a championship team and its easier to find that great young talent to build that squad at pick 1 than it is to be really good for a long stretch and finding it at 20. Of course there are no guarentees being bad will guareentee being good in the future. But, being on the cusp of the playoffs or just making it every year (a bad false equivelant, is the pistons but I'm gonna use it anyways) can get you stuck in the mud. Where you are too good to add that high end young talent, but not good enough to be a real contender. 

Share this post


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

Explain to me how I am more entertained by two weeks of wins once a decade instead of 8 seasons of good baseball 'cause I don't get it either. 

I don't own any Tigers t-shirts with the words 1972 on it. I own plenty with 1984 on it. 

Nobody talks how great a player is and says oh he made the playoffs 9 times. Quick when I say Dan Marino, what's the first thing you think of? 

(and you know championship years last way more than two weeks worth of wins. It lasts six moths of a season worth of fun moments).

Share this post


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

You got it before I added it to. 

Cause I want to build great teams (and when I say great I mean WS champions, which are usually very very good). A vast majority of those great teams are built by young, homegrown talent.  The easiest way to acquire that is through the draft/prospect development. That's why I don't mind being god awful. It means I get to pick the guy I most think will help me build that great team. If I lose 90, six other teams get to pick before my and might pick my guy. 

You see this with the Cubs and Astros recently. And the Royals for a bit. 

I want a championship team and its easier to find that great young talent to build that squad at pick 1 than it is to be really good for a long stretch and finding it at 20. Of course there are no guarentees being bad will guareentee being good in the future. But, being on the cusp of the playoffs or just making it every year (a bad false equivelant, is the pistons but I'm gonna use it anyways) can get you stuck in the mud. Where you are too good to add that high end young talent, but not good enough to be a real contender. 

The Giants who have been wildly successful by your measure did not have great teams.  I don't know that those teams were particularly home grown either.  

Share this post


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

The Giants who have been wildly successful by your measure did not have great teams.  I don't know that those teams were particularly home grown either.  

Posey and Bumgardner their two best and most players in every one of these teams were drafted by whom? and where in teh draft? 

(and I just looked one one of their teams. 2014. four of the top 5 war were homegrown. 3 of five on 2012)

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.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,825
    • Total Posts
      2,952,785
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...