Tiger337

I suppose he has moments where he sounds like that, but I don't think it's genuine.

The radio announcer needs to be descriptive and to have a some style. I'd rather have the TV announcer be bland. I can see what's happening. I don't need to have an announcer getting in the way.

I find it really really hard thinking of him as "lower-middle-class-working-with-his-hands". He probably hates people like that.

I am neutral on Joe Buck. When he is doing a game, I don't really notice him.

I should say that I am apolitical with mostly liberal ideals. I don't pretend that either party cares about anyone's ideals. I have little interest in the financial side of the game and even less interest in whether the Illitch's make a profit or whether baseball becomes more popular. I think it is almost always a good thing for fans if their owner is willing to spend a lot of money.

He definitely looks like a relief pitcher. He'll be pretty solid for a long stretch and say some funny stuff and everyone will like him. Then he'll blow a couple of leads and we'll all be arguing about whether he is good or not.

You must be following a different saber crowd than me. All I see is them trashing owners on twitter and other places. While I generally agree with them politically, I think politics and sabermetrics should not be mixed.

I think it's more accurate to say there has been a shift in the saber community from sabermetrics to left-wing politics.

True and the Tigers relievers who had good seasons last year could easily be bad this year. That is where I am hoping more modern coaching can help.

A bigger pool of money for international free agents is one. I think indirect tanking is more likely where teams primarily want to save money but still reap the reward of draft picks.

You were not kidding. I hope you didn't put too much in there.

Of course, but I think projections are interesting when you look at them closely.

You guys always complain about Biden's cognitive skills, but Trump said more dumb things than all the presidents in my lifetime combined. He has never said anything of substance in 40 years. All he does is ramble on about stuff like your drunken uncle. Just because he has a big yap and does the fake tough guy routine, you guys think he's smart. It boggles the mind.

That is a valid theory.

They still need Kenny Rogers and Todd Jones. Let's get it done.

Those people are terrible.

Not everybody who wants to secure the border more is racist, but the motivation to campaign so heavily on it was racist. It is also a matter of staying in power. They don't want a bunch of Mexicans coming up here, eventually becoming citizens and then voting for Democrats.

And no person nor algorithm can predict injuries especially to pitchers.

Who is judging them by their record last year?

Not every 120 game stretch is indicative of a new level of performance though. Players go hot and cold all the time. The projections do assume a career arc where players get better or worse at a certain age. The projections would not assume that Cabrera will reach his career average in 2022. They would assume that he will perform like a former great player who is now 39. I think where the projections can go wrong is with young players. There isn't enough data to know what their careers will look like or how quickly they will break out. The Tigers have a lot of young players which give them uncertainty, but also a lot of opportunity for improvement.

Last year, it would have been 91 games in the AL, but I think that was an anomaly. I think around 86 wins gives a team a good shot. Edit: This article says 87 wins on average: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/how-many-wins-will-it-take-to-make-expanded-playoffs/

I think that is possible if several of the young players break out. I just wouldn't project it. I think they'll be around .500 with a lot of interesting young players going hot and cold. It should be a fun season.

It is not true that what players did recently is always more important than what they did in the past. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. In most cases, I'd rather take the bigger sample size. Remember Brennan Boesch for example? I want to look at a players entire career. not just the part of his career when he was good. I will say though that projections are only a baseline. You should look at the individual projections for each player and see which ones look too low. Then you can adjust the aggregate accordingly. I don't see how focusing on 120 games will give you a better projection.

The projections do include individual player statistics from those 120 games. They just don't throw out the first 40 games. What human factors are you considering that wouldn't be picked up by stats? Personally, I think they played over their heads the last 120 games. They had a mediocre bullpen that hardly blew any games. I think there was some luck involved there. The first 40 games were flukey too because every hitter was slumping at the same time. A lot of people give credit to Hinch for the improvement, but wasn't he also the manager at the beginning of the season? I think they'll do better than 74 wins, by the way. I just don't think the improved record at the end of the season should be used to pump up a projection.

And what do you call throwing out the first 40 games? Just looking at a favorable stretch of 120 games and ignoring 40 unfavorable games will cause bias. I would much rather look at all the games, plus games from previous years.