2023 Detroit Tigers Regular Season Discussion Thread

[1984Echoes]

I think it will depend a lot on how much patience/ leash they'll give to Schoop.

I'm assuming quite a lot more than what I am willing to give...

[RandyMarsh]

Schoop had that 1 month hot stretch that he parlayed into an extension but outside of that month has he hit at all since he been here?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Schoop had that 1 month hot stretch that he parlayed into an extension but outside of that month has he hit at all since he been here?

that's what Schoop does. Hot and cold streaks

[SoCalTiger]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

I'll be more excited when they release Schoop in order to add Nevin to the roster.

I don't even care if Nevin proves to be nothing more than a bandaid at 3rd or another utility guy... I just want to move on from Schoop. 

Put Nevin at 3rd and Maton at 2nd and mix and match Kreidler/ McKinstry off the bench as needed. If nothing exciting happens with Nevin by mid-season then Malloy should be ready for a call-up (possibly Wenceel as well...? When's he off the DL...?) and we can move to Plan C...

IMO.

If Perez is ready... maybe he pushes McKinstry to waivers...?

 

Thats the correct call for all three. Schoop gone- Maton at second and Nevin  at third

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

that's what Schoop does. Hot and cold streaks

I have always wondered whether being streaky decreases value.  I don't know it's been researched.  Crudely, let's say player A is a 6-WAR player.  He is 3-WAR in April and 3-WAR in July and is replacement level the rest of the year.  Player B is 6-WAR, but he is 1 WAR each month.  Which one has more value?  Is it about timing?  If player A gets hot when the team happens to be involved in a lot of close games, then his hot streaks will become more valuable than his WAR suggests.  On the other hand, he may get hot during blowouts.    

[mtutiger]

18 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Thats the correct call for all three. Schoop gone- Maton at second and Nevin  at third

They will give Schoop more time to fail because he's a vet, and obviously despite lighting it up in the first three games Nevin may not be a great answer at third, but this would be the bold and correct move. Just get it over with and dedicate these ABs to young guys who want opportunities to prove themselves.

I do think the McKinstry trade was probably a signal that he's part of the plans for a little while longer... definitely signals a dedication to the bit in terms of a platoon at 2B

Edited April 4, 2023 by mtutiger

[casimir]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

They will give Schoop more time to fail because he's a vet, and obviously despite lighting it up in the first three games Nevin may not be a great answer at third, but this would be the bold and correct move. Just get it over with and dedicate these ABs to young guys who want opportunities to prove themselves.

I do think the McKinstry trade was probably a signal that he's part of the plans for a little while longer... definitely signals a dedication to the bit in terms of a platoon at 2B

Give the ABs & IPs to the younger guys.  So, I understand Schoop had the option to come back, and he of course picked it up.  I guess I don’t see how bringing back Cisnero jives with that philosophy, but here we are.

[mtutiger]

May be thinking too deeply about this, but the other question I have regarding the "alternatives at third / moving Wolfie Maton to 2nd" discussion is Matt Vierling - how serious is this team really in giving him reps in the infield?

He hasn't played there much, granted he was injured most of Spring.... but if they are serious about it, and he performs (and last night indicated that might be a possibility going forward) and they feel they need to keep his bat in the lineup regularly, it's another strike against keeping Schoop imo.

Of course, injuries and/or poor performance from other outfielders may ensure Vierling can stay in the lineup regularly as an outfielder if he performs, but just theorizing a bit.

Edited April 4, 2023 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I have always wondered whether being streaky decreases value.  I don't know it's been researched.  Crudely, let's say player A is a 6-WAR player.  He is 3-WAR in April and 3-WAR in July and is replacement level the rest of the year.  Player B is 6-WAR, but he is 1 WAR each month.  Which one has more value?  Is it about timing?  If player A gets hot when the team happens to be involved in a lot of close games, then his hot streaks will become more valuable than his WAR suggests.  On the other hand, he may get hot during blowouts.    

I think one problem is the dislocation streakiness produces in the lineup. If the guy puts up good numbers - goes to the top of the line-up, then crashes between the team's other high OBP hitters, he effectively spikes more rallies than if were batting 7th where his end of season numbers would have put him, or vice versa, the #7 hitter is suddenly hot and 5/6 don't gett on base and 8/9 don't drive him in so he ends up a LOB stat all the time. I don't have any math to prove it, but given that performance distribution in baseball is asymmetric around the mean and there is a strong non-linearizing BaBIP contraint on the upper limit, it just seems to me that consistent performance is going to allow for the best line-up optimization and thus the most runs through the season.

Edited April 4, 2023 by gehringer_2

[casimir]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

May be thinking too deeply about this, but the other question I have regarding the "alternatives at third / moving Wolfie Maton to 2nd" discussion is Matt Vierling - how serious is this team really in giving him reps in the infield?

He hasn't played there much, granted he was injured most of Spring.... but if they are serious about it, and he performs (and last night indicated that might be a possibility going forward) and they feel they need to keep his bat in the lineup regularly, it's another strike against keeping Schoop imo.

Of course, injuries and/or poor performance from other outfielders may ensure Vierling can stay in the lineup regularly as an outfielder if he performs, but just theorizing a bit.

I don’t know.  It seems there is a much more RHH OF time available for him than RHH IF time.  He’s really the only “pure” RHH OF on the 40.  I would venture to guess that Haase might find more playing time as an OF than Vierling as an IF, at least given the way the 26/40 is currently constructed.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I have always wondered whether being streaky decreases value.  I don't know it's been researched.  Crudely, let's say player A is a 6-WAR player.  He is 3-WAR in April and 3-WAR in July and is replacement level the rest of the year.  Player B is 6-WAR, but he is 1 WAR each month.  Which one has more value?  Is it about timing?  If player A gets hot when the team happens to be involved in a lot of close games, then his hot streaks will become more valuable than his WAR suggests.  On the other hand, he may get hot during blowouts.    

The way WAR is structured, A presumably won three extra games all by himself in April and again in July, while B won one extra game all by himself each month, and at the end of the season, they both won six games all on their own, which makes them equal. What I don’t know is whether there is a diminishing return, a marginal utility, at the top end of a player’s overachievement that’s baked into the WAR calculation. I’ve never seen anything on that topic.

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The way WAR is structured, A presumably won three extra games all by himself in April and again in July, while B won one extra game all by himself each month, and at the end of the season, they both won six games all on their own, which makes them equal. What I don’t know is whether there is a diminishing return, a marginal utility, at the top end of a player’s overachievement that’s baked into the WAR calculation. I’ve never seen anything on that topic.

But WAR is supposed to be designe to be 'team independent' isn't it? I mean in the sense that it's supposed to isolate individual performance - so I would assume that it would not distinguish between your 3 war in two months vs 1 WAR in 6 month players. But I would suppose it is exactly in the interaction with the rest of your team mates - RBI and Runs scored, where the streaky player costs his team.

[Motor City Sonics]

OUTTA HERE, SPENCER TORKLESON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Motor City Sonics]

He fucking CRUSHED that. 

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

But WAR is supposed to be designe to be 'team independent' isn't it? I mean in the sense that it's supposed to isolate individual performance - so I would assume that it would not distinguish between your 3 war in two months vs 1 WAR in 6 month players. But I would suppose it is exactly in the interaction with the rest of your team mates - RBI and Runs scored, where the streaky player costs his team.

RBI and runs scored do not factor into the calculation of WAR. It’s a linear weights system: how much is this situation worth in expected run value, and did the player exceed, match, or fall short of that value with his outcome? The player is then credited or debited with the difference. WAR is not designed to take into account the psychological effects on players by other players, situations, etc. It’s designed only to credit or debit the player based on performance against expected run value on each play.  Rinse and repeat for 500 or more plate appearances for regulars. In that way, WAR isolates individual performance across the season well.

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think one problem is the dislocation streakiness produces in the lineup. If the guy puts up good numbers - goes to the top of the line-up, then crashes between the team's other high OBP hitters, he effectively spikes more rallies than if were batting 7th where his end of season numbers would have put him, or vice versa, the #7 hitter is suddenly hot and 5/6 don't gett on base and 8/9 don't drive him in so he ends up a LOB stat all the time. I don't have any math to prove it, but given that performance distribution in baseball is asymmetric around the mean and there is a strong non-linearizing BaBIP contraint on the upper limit, it just seems to me that consistent performance is going to allow for the best line-up optimization and thus the most runs through the season.

I believe WAR already takes into account base-out state, which is a necessarily component because WAR is based largely on estimated run value of plays. So if your guy is failing in rally situations at the top of the order, WAR should be reflecting that. What WAR won’t take into account is the change in approach the hitter after your guy has to take because, for instance, it’s now still man on first with two outs, instead of first and third with one out.

[Jim Cowan]

Vierling gets another hit.

[Jim Cowan]

Wingenter, get serious

[kdog]

A few improvements we have seen with putting more athletes in the field:

-baserunning(taking an extra base)

-defense in the infield and outfield

 

[bobrob2004]

11 hours ago, chasfh said:

I believe WAR already takes into account base-out state, which is a necessarily component because WAR is based largely on estimated run value of plays. So if your guy is failing in rally situations at the top of the order, WAR should be reflecting that. What WAR won’t take into account is the change in approach the hitter after your guy has to take because, for instance, it’s now still man on first with two outs, instead of first and third with one out.

There's basically four factors for WAR that get added together: offense, baserunning, defense, and positional adjustment.  On FanGraphs, they basically take wOBA and adjust it to batting runs for that section of the calculation.  wOBA factors in walks, HBP, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, etc.  The exact situation of when these hits occur doesn't matter.  A home run in the first inning in a 0-0 game is worth exactly the same as a home run in the bottom of the ninth with the score of 5-5 or 10-0. 

Win Probability (WPA and RE24) factors in specific situations, and the result gets added/subtracted, but this stat is not used in the calculation of WAR.  I have seen arguments that this stat should be heavily weighted when determining MVP because it directly shows who has affected the team's winning, as opposed to WAR.      

[Tiger337]

11 hours ago, chasfh said:

I believe WAR already takes into account base-out state, which is a necessarily component because WAR is based largely on estimated run value of plays. So if your guy is failing in rally situations at the top of the order, WAR should be reflecting that. What WAR won’t take into account is the change in approach the hitter after your guy has to take because, for instance, it’s now still man on first with two outs, instead of first and third with one out.

Unless there wave been recent updates, I don't think WAR takes base out state into consideration.  You could get that if you plugged WPA into the formula as the offensive component.  

[mtutiger]

43 minutes ago, kdog said:

A few improvements we have seen with putting more athletes in the field:

-baserunning(taking an extra base)

-defense in the infield and outfield

 

I'll add one

-Jake Rogers

[RandyMarsh]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Unless there wave been recent updates, I don't think WAR takes base out state into consideration.  You could get that if you plugged WPA into the formula as the offensive component.  

I can't remember the exact stat they used, it may have been WPA combined with something else but anyway I remember reading this article years ago that actually justified Miggy getting the MVP over Trout in 2012 based off this modified version of WAR that they used.  I'm gonna have to try to dig it up. 

[chasfh]

23 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Unless there wave been recent updates, I don't think WAR takes base out state into consideration.  You could get that if you plugged WPA into the formula as the offensive component.  

That’s right, base out state would be dependent on other players and WAR is meant as a self-contained metric.

[Jim Cowan]

To me Jake Rogers was always the key to the Verlander trade, I didn't care about Franklin Perez, and Daz Cameron had a famous dad but that's about it.  Jake Rogers though, nobody ever questioned his glove or his arm.  To me it always seemed that he was the sort of guy you could bat in the 8 spot, and in 135 games he would hit .240 with 22 homers, and that would make him one hell of a number 8 hitter, and combined with potentially elite defense that would make him one of the top 10 catchers in MLB.  I still believe that.

So if he makes 3 or 4 all star teams, which I think he still could, we might review the Verlander trade and conclude that maybe it wasn't so bad after all.