Tiger337

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Not saying anything new here at all, but just to come back to the point that anything the Human organism doesn't keep working atrophies. I can't think of a single reason to think that won't be as true of brain function as it is of everything else.

That is already known to be true.  Lack of brain function contributes to dementia.  

28 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Analytics arent working. Maybe theyll win an occasional game or so but long term? Playing the platoon of using Short and an ineffective Tork will get basically the same results as the last 60 games or so. We are we, about 40 games under .500 since last fall? How much data is needed?

Analytics is exactly what you want to use long term.  You lost that argument a long time ago.  I guess short-term, you could try different things, but there aren't a hell of a lot of options right now.

Or they could fire Hinch and Harris and bring in some old school guys that will shake things up and play the hunches?

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

Run the same lineup out there and expect different results? Or shake things up and try to send a message? Bench Tork? Sit Perez? And please....no more Short.

What's the message in shaking things up when you've been doing everything according to logic and analytics for three years? Desperation?

7 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

The lack of power is very concerning.  It'll carry over to next year.  

Greene hasn't hit for much power this season.  Dingler has solid power.  Carpenter is not healthy enough to rack up a goodly number of home runs.  Torkelson has power but it's tough to stay in the lineup with a .190 average.

Everyone else on the roster will struggle to get to 10.

Harris has constructed a roster with punch and judy hitters who, for the most part, have trouble even hitting singles.  You can't consistently win with a roster constructed like that.

You don't need to be a big home run team to win.  Tampa Bay and Milwaukee have fewer home runs than the Tigers.  They shouldn't be reliant on homeruns playing in Comerica.  They need to do other things well though - like pitch, play defense and get on base.

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

No government handouts for convicted criminals!!

Weak on crime.  

7 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

I think Hinch's brilliance had a lot to do with garbage can lids.  

Is that how the Tigers came back in 2024?  

38 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Philadelphia fired their manager and now they are red hot! Coincidence?

Maybe not totally, but mostly.  I'd rather the Tigers get their injured players back and keep Hinch.  

Just now, Sports_Freak said:

Tigers need a good brawl. 

You definitely won't get that from this team.  Maybe Valdez LOL

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Not necessarily.

It will be a bad team unless substantial changes are made.  That could happen, but it will take a lot.  

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Flip side: if he can't live in this world, no one can.

His daughter can.  

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Yeah, might as well have a laugh about it. We can't change what he's going to do.

Well, maybe you can. Maybe you know something. I know I can't. 😏

I don't think he has a desire to end the world.  I think he would like to be celebrated forever after his death.  You and I will never celebrate him, but many will.  If he ends the world, nobody will be left to remember him.  

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Point is, I think he could find someone to cooperate with him. Remember, he is surrounded by people whose mission it is to do everything possible to frontburner Jesus's return to Earth.

If he knows he is going to die, I think his next move would be to arrange to have his head frozen ala Ted Williams.  Eric and Jr will sell his head to the highest bidder.  

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

He can get someone who will sacrifice their life for him to stand in for him. Probably a Michael Flynn type.

And deny himself the one last rush that personally ending the world would give him?  I don't think so.  

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I keep worrying he's gonna push the button once he realizes he's going to die any second now, and this does nothing to dissuade me. And the evangelicals thinks this is all just dandy because that's how Revelations has foretold it.

He doesn't push anything.  He needs to read some numbers off a card.  I am not entirely sure he'd be able to do that.  

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think maybe you can turn it around and get more likely statement - which would be that if you are an elite hitter the majors will find a place for you even if you are a poor fielder, but if you are an elite fielder that is a poor hitter, that is much less likely. Ergo, there are probably more elite fielders that can't hit hanging around the minors that teams are hoping will eventually hit, than there are elite hitters stuck there learning to field better. But the fact there are more than one than of the other doesn't mean there are a lot of them in absolute numbers.

That is probably true, but when I watch minor league games, there is a noticeable difference in fielding from the majors.    

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I’m guessing it’s easier to play shortstop in the low minors than it is to play right field in the majors. 

yes, I think the idea that the minors are filled with elite defenders who can't hit well enough is a myth.  The difference between an average fielder in the minors and an average fielder in the majors is very large.  It's likely not as big as the hitting gap, but still very big.  

AI is useful.  It helps me do my job, but it doesn't replace what I do.  Somebody that knows what they are doing needs to talk to it and needs to correct it when it makes errors. 

Like the internet, AI will make life easier for people in the short-term.  Then it will eventually get controlled by big business in a way that only they will benefit.  It will become more expensive to get any utility out of it.  It will also add more layers to security problems which will put us all at greater risk of losing, money, privacy, etc.  And they will make damn sure they convince the masses that they can't live without it.    

59 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

We do seem to be stuck on running it back with the same group of failed/disappointing/runofthemill prospects for the last few years - Garcia, Jones, Jung, Tork, etc - shaking things up a bit wouldn't hurt.

Who is Garcia?  Pedro?

29 minutes ago, chasfh said:

OK, I was wondering whether you meant their window had closed and they need to overhaul again.

I think mid-market teams need to re-tool continuously like the Indians and Brewers seem to do every year.  Please don't take that as a criticism of Harris.  It's just something that I anticipate the Tigers will have to be doing in the future.  

42 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

 

Things people need to survive going up more than luxuries.  

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

A home run contest to decide the game....kind of as ludicrous as soccer having a shootout at the end...not that I watch soccer or care about it at all.

They tried in the minors a few years ago.  They used in the allstar game last year and fans loved it.  It's stupid, but I wouldn't rule out them trying in the MLB regular season some time in the future.    

7 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Probably not.  If it’s an average of 4 games per year, why do we need a Manfred runner at all then?  Trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist.  I kind of understood during the perspective of COVID, but we are past that now.

According to AI, the majority of fans do not like the rule.  I am not sure that's true, but I think that the majority of avid fans don't like it.  The players like it, so maybe do it after 11 innings?  I still wouldn't like it, but if they have to do it, after 11 innings is better than after 9 innings.  

11 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Im not a fan of games ending in ties, but it is probably the most pure way to do it outside of just playing extras until one team wins.

If they call a tie after 11 innings, there would not be that many of them.  Before the rule change, 9.5% of games went extra innings, but only 2.5% went beyond 11 innings.  2.5% is an average of 4 games per year for every team.  

Are they really saving bullpens by what they are doing?  There seems to be just as many injuries if not more than ever.  

4 minutes ago, monkeytargets39 said:

My question would be just how many games were really going beyond maybe 11 innings prior?  Was it really so much that they had to bastardize the concept of the game with the extra runner?  If it’s that important to end the game quickly if it’s tied after regulation, then just do a 1-on-1 homerun derby and whichever teams player hits the most HR after 10 or 20 pitches wins.  The MLB equivalent of an NHL shootout

Tango doesn't like the home run derby idea beause he says a home run contest is something that never happens in a real game whereas trying to get a runner home from second happens all the time.  Anyway, amost all his readers disliked the idea of the extra inning base runner. 

I think there are solutions to the bullpen protection issue which don't involve bastardizing the game.  Expanding rosters like you said is one of them.  I think changing the ball, so pitchers are not forced to throw with max effort on every pitch is another one.   

1 minute ago, monkeytargets39 said:

What if they did something like expanding the roster to 27 players but that extra player can only be used as your extra innings pitcher?  
 

He can’t pitch at any other point in any game and you cannot swap that person out with anyone on the active roster unless you actually use options or DFA them.  They only exist to pitch extras.  
 

This way you aren’t frying your bullpen by going into extras and the longer they pitch in extras the more likely they run out of gas and start giving up hard contact.  Might be an interesting strategy on how teams manage that roster spot and who they put there.  Do you sign a stud and have him just ride the bench until you play extras, or do you put a gas can out there and use your best pitchers in regulation innings.

That could work, but I don't think protecting the bullpen is the only reason for the rule change.  I remember a discussion on Tom Tango's site, not long before the rule change was made.  He posed a question to readers asking them how they felt about putting a runner on second in extra innings.  He works in the game, so I got the feeling he had some inside information and that it was not just one of his thought exercises.  He strongly supported the move and his main reason was that fans don't want to stay at games for hours and hours watching extra innings.  I think protecting the bullpen is a benefit of the move, but not the primary one.