Jump to content

05/23/2023 7:40pm EDT Detroit Tigers vs Kansas City Royals


casimir

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I would never consider a reliever to be a building block.  They tend to have short primes and are more useful to contending teams than building teams.  However, given how weak the central division is, I don't know if I want the Tigers to be in re-building mode.  They may be able to contend this year and/or next if they can get enough pitchers healthy.  They might even consider not trading but extending Rodriguez so he won't opt out. It depends on how well he pitches and how well the team plays the next two months.   

It probably has a lot to do with the current cycle of abysmal suck that the team has been in for the last several seasons, but nothing is ever said about retaining Rodriguez.  It is both understandable and frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I would never consider a reliever to be a building block.  They tend to have short primes and are more useful to contending teams than building teams.  However, given how weak the central division is, I don't know if I want the Tigers to be in re-building mode.  They may be able to contend this year and/or next if they can get enough pitchers healthy.  They might even consider not trading but extending Rodriguez so he won't opt out. It depends on how well he pitches and how well the team plays the next two months.   

Exactly.... I think we can all agree that the Tigers aren't where they want or need to be as an org right now while acknowledging the reality which is, at least on May 23rd, the team finds themselves 2.5 games out of first place and one game behind the first place team in the loss column. Maybe they regress in a big way over the next couple of months and the decisions become a little easier on trading off pieces, but if their position looks anything like it looks now, they oughtta be using that as leverage in any negotiation over players and be willing to walk away if teams don't meet it.

Put more succintly, for Alex Lange, if they are still "competing" come deadline in this division, you do not trade him unless you get a big haul.... basically what Chas suggested in his post.

On another note, how this division has played out as well is probably a demonstration on why Scott Harris found this job attractive, more than most of the baseball media thought it was anyway. Even if the Guards and White Sox were playing more to what expectations were going into this season, this still isn't a good division and is filled with light spending teams and multiple organizations (White Sox, Royals) who have been as poorly run as the Avila Tigers, if not worse. As fans, we've looked at this thing as a 3-4 year rebuild, certainly in the teams worst moments but even when it's doing OK, but my guess is that, even if the team isn't fully rebuilt or at the level of the elite orgs in the game, Scott sees the overall division as a lot more attainable than any of us largely do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

By the time the best pitcher who is about to be traded is actually traded, they will have a better idea of what they will get back off of injury; one presumes that Skubal and Manning will all be back by the deadline.

Either way, Lange is young and controllable in his own right, and they had better get a haul in return if they do trade. Particularly in this division... it would be one thing if they played in the AL East or NL West, but all of their negatives in the AL Central still has them competing in late May. And I dont suspect that dynamic is changing past this season...

Artificial race for the division. Whoever wins this division will just get swept away in the 1st round of the playoffs. MLB had to break teams into 6 divisions just to keep fans interested. Pretty soon we'll have 10 divisions with 3 teams in each division. Won't that be fun, every team playing meaningful games into October?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Artificial race for the division. Whoever wins this division will just get swept away in the 1st round of the playoffs. MLB had to break teams into 6 divisions just to keep fans interested. Pretty soon we'll have 10 divisions with 3 teams in each division. Won't that be fun, every team playing meaningful games into October?

Panthers and Heat send their regards.

I think it's easy to lose sight of how little difference there is between an 80 and a 95 win team. It's less than one win every ten games, and a playoff series is only 7 at the most. You can get a long way before such a small difference in odds catches up to you.

To me, letting lower performing teams into the playoffs is less an issue because they can't win, than because they can.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Artificial race for the division. Whoever wins this division will just get swept away in the 1st round of the playoffs. 

Why?  It is not uncommon for teams with lesser regular season records to succeed in the playoffs.  The post-season is mostly a crap shoot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Panthers and Heat send their regards.

I think it's easy to lose sight of how little difference there is between an 80 and a 95 win team. It's less than one win every ten games, and a playoff series is only 7 at the most. You can get a long way before such a small difference in odds catches up to you.

To me, letting lower performing teams into the playoffs is less an issue because they can't win, than because they can.

Lakers say hi as well lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Artificial race for the division. Whoever wins this division will just get swept away in the 1st round of the playoffs. MLB had to break teams into 6 divisions just to keep fans interested. Pretty soon we'll have 10 divisions with 3 teams in each division. Won't that be fun, every team playing meaningful games into October?

It's going to eventually be eight divisions with four teams each, which won't be all that much better.

I get that the playoffs are a crapshoot and all, but I would prefer not to have sub-.500 teams making them in the first place. The 1987-88 San Antonio Spurs made the NBA playoffs with a 31-51 record. I wouldn't want MLB to become that.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling Harris wants to get this ship headed in right direction before he makes any major aquistions. Right now it's still basically the same team as last year, just a few deck chairs rearranged.

Although if they are in the thick of a playoff race come the trade deadline that probably changes the math a little. They may hang onto a piece or two, but they won't sacrifice a nice prospect to help the team either.

Edited by Stanley70
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oblong said:

This was a good win.  It's still may and you need to stomp out losing streaks in order to prevent a spiral.

 

Yes.  They were also able to overcome a bumpy start and losing the lead twice.  2 of 3 vs Kansas City and 3 of 4 vs underachieving  Chicago would put them at 25-26 going into Memorial Day.  15-36 seemed more likely at the beginning of the season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Panthers and Heat send their regards.

I think it's easy to lose sight of how little difference there is between an 80 and a 95 win team. It's less than one win every ten games, and a playoff series is only 7 at the most. You can get a long way before such a small difference in odds catches up to you.

To me, letting lower performing teams into the playoffs is less an issue because they can't win, than because they can.

It makes the 162 game season meaningless, other than home field advantage. I think we all agree, it's about the money. A team 20 games out if 1st place on July 1st suddenly finds themselves 1 game out of a diluted talented artifical race. Fans buy tickets, merchandise and the TV networks sign a billion dollar deal with the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

It's going to eventually be eight divisions with four teams each, which won't be all that much better.

I get that the playoffs are a crapshoot and all, but I would prefer not to have sub-.500 teams making them in the first place. The 1987-88 San Antonio Spurs made the NBA playoffs with a 31-51 record. I wouldn't want MLB to become that.

 

I agree. It's bad enough that we have so many teams with not enough great players to go around. There are players making ungodly amounts of money in MLB that wouldn't even make Toledo's roster back in baseball's glory years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

It's going to eventually be eight divisions with four teams each, which won't be all that much better.

I get that the playoffs are a crapshoot and all, but I would prefer not to have sub-.500 teams making them in the first place. The 1987-88 San Antonio Spurs made the NBA playoffs with a 31-51 record. I wouldn't want MLB to become that.

 

It is going to be come that because "Americans love brackets".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

It is going to be come that because "Americans love brackets".  

I found an even worse example than the 68 Bulls: the 1952-53 Baltimore Bullets, with a record of 16-54, made the playoffs, and that's only because they were in the same division as the 12-57 Philadelphia Warriors! The Bullets were in fourth place, 29.5 games behind the third-place Boston Celtics. That's gotta be close to a record spread between third and fourth-place teams. That may not have happened even in baseball, with double the games.

So how could this happen? The NBA allowed eight of their ten teams to make the playoffs. Talk about the meaninglessness of regular season games.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I found an even worse example than the 68 Bulls: the 1952-53 Baltimore Bullets, with a record of 16-54, made the playoffs, and that's only because they were in the same division as the 12-57 Philadelphia Warriors! The Bullets were in fourth place, 29.5 games behind the third-place Boston Celtics. That's gotta be close to a record spread between third and fourth-place teams. That may not have happened even in baseball, with double the games.

So how could this happen? The NBA allowed eight of their ten teams to make the playoffs. Talk about the meaninglessness of regular season games.

 

For the first half of the history of the NHL, there were 6 teams and 4 played for the Stanley cup. This in the day when one Al and one NL team competed for the World Series. 

I would put it this way - the problem with American sports leagues is not that they let too many teams into post season tournaments - it's the weird notion that broad post season tournaments should be how seasonal champions are crowned. They should not be. A widely inclusive post-season tournament is a fine thing - very entertaining and lot's of good rivalries and story angles, but in baseball in particular, they are not going to tell you who the season's best team is/was. It's that need for fans and media to take that last wrong step that turns what should be an entertaining event into the travesty of crowning some mediocre team that got through a tournament as a 'seasonal' champion.

Or the short form would be - their needs to be bigger 'payoffs' in all ways in baseball for A) having the best record b) winning whatever league subdivision you are in.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

For the first half of the history of the NHL, there were 6 teams and 4 played for the Stanley cup. This in the day when one Al and one NL team competed for the World Series. 

I would put it this way - the problem with American sports leagues is not that they let too many teams into post season tournaments - it's the weird notion that broad post season tournaments should be how seasonal champions are crowned. They should not be. A widely inclusive post-season tournament is a fine thing - very entertaining and lot's of good rivalries and story angles, but in baseball in particular, they are not going to tell you who the season's best team is/was. It's that need for fans and media to take that last wrong step that turns what should be an entertaining event into the travesty of crowning some mediocre team that got through a tournament as a 'seasonal' champion.

Or the short form would be - their needs to be bigger 'payoffs' in all ways in baseball for A) having the best record b) winning whatever league subdivision you are in.

Is it weird, though? Back when the World Series was the only really sports championship, you really did the best teams in baseball, or at least one of them was based on the win-loss record (pythag and cume WAR aside). So America had a running start with the idea before the dilution of playoffs from other sports and, ultimately, from baseball itself. I think people are always going to believe a league's finals winners are really the best team, regardless of regular season record, if for no other reason than they were the best when it counted. And without looking too deeply into it, they may be right in some cases.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...