Tiger337

16-12 and not many (if anybody) are playing over their heads.  They can contend and I can see them making deals geared toward this year and next year at the trade deadline if things go well.  

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

KC is very, very scrappy. They should win a lot of games with that team speed. It really puts pressure on the fielders.

They should all be batting second  

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

I miss Harry Caray. He was a homer and he was a fan and above all else, he was entertaining. Corporate MLB wouldn’t have a place for Harry today. Harry had more interesting real life stories than the jocks could bring and never  stood in a batters box. 
There is nothing personal, but as long as Monroe or Scales is on radio, I’m likely not tuning in for an extended period of time. I enjoyed Petry when he worked with Dan. I’m OK with Dirks. I like Gania and Hasty both. Frankly, I believe the color guy in these games is not necessary. They don’t really add to the content. For example, Dan tells you the ball is hit on a line drive down the left field line and X the left fielder digs it out if the corner and batter Y is in with a stand up double. I don’t need this play regurgitated by some color guy trying to enhance the description with pointless overkill. I don’t care!!! It is annoying. 

Signed,

Boomer

In order for an analyst to work for me, they have to add some knowledge about the game that I don't already have.  Since I have never playerd the game at an advanced level, that is certainly possible, but they rarely do that.  They also have to have a good rapport with the play by play man and know when to shut up.  Not many check off all those boxes.   

34 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Benetti is a bit of a cheerleader, too. You can tell when he says things along the lines of “come on, guys, we need some insurance runs here”, whereas Dan would say, “Tigers could use some insurance runs here.” Big difference, at least to my ears. You can also hear difference in reactions after home runs and the like. Dan is all business and always a journalist. Jason will allow himself to be a fan. 

 

Tigers need some instant runs.  

How about they have simultaneous tv/radio broadcasts with Dickerson and Benetti?  No ex-jocks.  

1 hour ago, LongLiveMaroth said:

I would be very happy with this outcome.

I'd be very happy with 2023 Corbin Carroll.  Not this year's version...at least not yet.  

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Isn't being in court a core campaign tactic for him?

Any attention he can get benefits him.  It's been that way his whole life.  It's all he's got.  

Just now, VegasTiger said:

He still can't be wrong.

He can't be right either!

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I get it, he's not wrong. You tell me something has a 80% chance of happening and it doesn't and you're still not wrong. I can say right now Biden has a 99% chance of winning and not be wrong. Nate was supposed to be the expert since he correctly predicted every election up until then. 

Saying that Biden has a 99% chance of winning would be really optimistic at this point!

7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

No I get it but Nate is suppose to the genius and he got 2016 wrong. If he's never wrong, why bother with him? 

Probability is not about wins and losses.  It's not binary. 

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Basically Nate Silver is the pitcher who gave up the hit that ended Chris Davis hitless streak. 

Not really understanding that analogy.  

10 minutes ago, oblong said:

and he qualifies his statements in such an insfufferable way that he's technically never wrong. 

I look for pundits to clear out the weeds for me and do the dirty work and give me the straight dope as best they can.  It's ok to just come out and say "This is what I think will happen based on....." and if you are wrong, so be it.  we can all see it.  But don't try to hedge your bets and look for cover.  Be a man.  Own it.  

That is how statisticians talk.  Never wrong and never right!  I don't think he has the personality to be a pundit.  He probably should have further developed in the field and stayed in the background rather than trying to be a pundit.    

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The good thing with Nate is that he is never wrong. He predicted Hillary had an 80% chance to win and fell back on well Trump still had a 20% chance. What's the point? It's never going to be 100%. 

80% is not a particularly high number.  If a .200 hitter comes up in the 9th inning and needs a hit to win the game, it's probably not going to happen, but there is a decent chance it will.  The people who were wrong were the many who said Trump had no chance to win based on that 80%. 

I'm not making excuses for Silver.  I think his time has passed.  He was a very influential man in the field for a number of years, but isn't so relevant anymore.      

35 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Theoretically, an umpire can stop the game and demand the ushers eject a fan -  under threat of forfeit, assuming the ump can identify the perp. Can't say as I've ever seen it happen.

They did eject Youppi.  

On 4/22/2024 at 10:44 AM, gehringer_2 said:

IDK how much  prep draftee is going to/should focus on being compared to a college player. I guess if he were that would be a red flag to me.

Also - The context is that Clark is a shoe nut - sort of Imelda Marcos of the Diamond set. He apparently has hundreds of pairs of designer shoes. So it's a hobby with him.

Another red flag.  😃  

2 hours ago, oblong said:

He limped to 3000 hits and 500 HR.

 

And the 3000 hit, 500 hrs, 600 doubles thing was just a set of arbitrary categories and cutoffs to make him look better than players like Ted Williams and Willie Mays who were clearly superior to him.  

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I guess by any objective metric, this is true. Miggy is firmly in the 99th percentile of all players. He has a Triple Crown and a ring. He has 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, and a .300 batting average—all the traditional benchmarks that constitute baseball greatness. And, barring anything horrific occurring in the meantime, he will make the Hall of Fame in five years on the first ballot with well over 90% of the vote.

That said, Miggy will not be considered an inner-circle Hall of Famer in the long run. Sure, he will be referred as such while the voting is going on, because he is alive and current and the people who will be talking about him on The Network know him personally and all that. Recency counts.

But ten or twenty or thirty years after that, Miggy will recede to the background of baseball consciousness, more or less in the same way Frank Thomas and Eddie Murray and Paul Molitor have. All great players in the 99th percentile, to be sure—but when you are talking about The Greatest Players in Baseball History, you have to name a whole lot of names before you get to theirs. And the same will be true of Miggy.

Miggy had a chance to be a true inner-circle Hall of Famer once, and to us, he is, because he was ours for a while, plus he's been gone for less than a year. But to the rest of the baseball world, he will be considered just another pretty good Hall of Famer. Nothing to be ashamed of, of course, but it will be an appropriate consideration for a guy who finished with a lower career bWAR than Dwight Evans, Craig Nettles, Robinson Cano, Kenny Lofton, and Bobby Grich—and, not for nothing, also lower than Frank Thomas, Eddie Murray, and Paul Molitor.

This is a good summary.  It might not matter to most fans whether advanced stats consider Cabrera to be Hank Aaron or Frank Thomas.  Tigers fans might just consider him to be an all-time great and one of their boys and leave it at that.  However, if you are somebody that likes to rank players throughout history and construct Hall of Fame tiers, it does matter.    

8 minutes ago, casimir said:

We did a tour of Fenway right before we left Boston last year.  It was fine to walk around and check stuff out, but I can't imagine sitting anywhere in there except for maybe on the Monster for 9 innings.  The seats are just so cramped together.

Fenway is a park every fan should visit once because of its history and uniqueness, but it's actually a terrible place to watch a game.  I rarely go anymore.

5 minutes ago, casimir said:

I liked Pittsburgh.  We walked across the Clemente Bridge.  Sat in the RF bleachers.  Walked around the stadium and took in the game at different spots for a short time during the game.  The spiral walkway in the LF corner is a good SRO type of view of the city and the field.  The lower deck seats in LF were pretty neat, too; you never see a lower deck section quite that small, so that unique aspect was interesting.

Surprisingly, it was a great city too.  I wasn't really expecting that.  I loved the river walk.  

45 minutes ago, oblong said:

We are going near the TB region this year for vacation, we went in 2021 but they had red tide which made swimming in the gulf not really an option, plus it rained 3 of the 4 days.  This will be a do over.  My wife is like "Why don't we go to a game?"  I'm trying to tell her that stadium is horrible and I have no desire.  I'm open to going to a minor league game somewhere if we can find one.  As it is, they are away anyway so dodged that bullet. "What kind of fan are you if you don't want to go to another MLB ballpark".  "The kind of fan that doesn't need to go to the equivalent of the Pontiac Silverdome"

Have you been to a game in Lakeland?  If not, I recommend it.  I also don't have a desire to go to ALL the MLB parks.  I had to see Tiger Stadium and Comerica.  I went to Pittsburgh, because it's a great park and I wanted to do a road trip.  I used to go to Montreal because it's a unique environment even though the park itself was bad. However, I am not going to make a point of visiting a crappy park just to experience every park.  

How did Baez get into the top three Tigers of all time thread???

8 hours ago, romad1 said:

FatLenin doesn't like Mike J

Who gives a **** what Steve Bannon thinks?  He has never been in any position of relevance, but he always talks like he is king of the world.  

17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

You can argue that if he had stayed healthy longer, his talent level was high enough to have matched Pujols - especially if he had stayed fit enough to stay at 3B longer. So it's a similar semantics discussion as in the Wings forum. Fedorov was probably the absolutely most talented hockey player I ever watched, but he didn't achieve a career that matched the absolute abilities he possessed by a large margin. Cabrera was the whole package as a 3b, soft hands, good arm, and that bat. But for all he did achieve in his career, he still fell far short of what his absolute talent level promised. And that is true of many players, but to me Cabrera is a pretty striking example.

Through age 33, which is when Cabrera stopped hitting, he had an OPS+ of 155 with 70 WAR.  Pujols had a 165 OPS+ and 93 WAR through age 33.  Pujols was one of the best defensive first basemen during his prime.  Statistically, Cabrera was a below average defender most of his career.  Fans used to make excuses for him because they loved his hitting, but he was not a good defender especially when he was trying to play 3B.  He was adequate as a 1B.  Pujols was better than Cabrera.  Not staying fit is a poor excuse!     

Cabrera was a great hitter, but not a "generational talent".  A generational talent is someone who dominates the game for a decade or more.  Pujols was a generational talent.  Trout was a generational talent.  Cabrera was Hall of Fame caliber, but not in their class. 

You keep saying opinion versus stats and then your opinion about Cabrera is all stats! He didn't get 600 home runs by the way.  He got 500.  Pujols got 700!

I

34 minutes ago, buddha said:

another easy top 3:

cobb

kaline

gehringer

Top 3 is easy.  If he said top 5, it gets more interesting.