Jim Cowan Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 12 hours ago, IdahoBert said: They couldn’t score run starting with a guy on second base against a pitcher who in 17 innings has an astronomical ERA and has walked 17. Maybe he was due for a correction Bert just a heads up, this coming Monday is May Two-Four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) nm Edited May 15 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 11 hours ago, buddha said: pick a triple a shortstop out of a hat and he'll be better than baez. Saying nothing about defense... but Offense-Only (and only 85-150 AB so far so small sample sizes): International League: Dan Schneemann (27 yo, Indians AAA) - '24 OPS 1.041, career (minors) OPS .725 Jack Dunn (27 yo, Wash. AAA) - '24 OPS .904, career (minors) OPS .711 Jeter Downs (25 yo, Yankees AAA) - '24 OPS .886, career (minors) OPS .761 Leo Jimenez (22 yo, Blue Jays AAA) - '24 OPS .851, career (minors) OPS .778 Luis Vasquez (24 yo, Cubs AAA) - '24 OPS .805, career (minors) OPS .664 Diego Castillo (26 yo, Twins AAA) - '24 OPS .777, career (minors) OPS .713 Colson Montgomery (22 yo, White Sox AAA) - '24 OPS .771, career (minors) OPS .835 Pacific Coast League: Jesus Bastidas (25 yo, Astros AAA) - '24 OPS .892, career (minors) OPS .721 Shay Whitcomb (25 yo, Astros AAA) - '24 OPS .866, career (minors) OPS .784 Ryan Bliss (24 yo, Mariners AAA) - '24 OPS .788, career (minors) OPS .786 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: did you see the attendance? Pathetic. There is money to be made by facing up to sunk costs and putting a better product on the field. Maybe they don't want to put a better product on the field. Maybe they want to lose instead. 😒 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 15 minutes ago, chasfh said: Maybe they don't want to put a better product on the field. Maybe they want to lose instead. 😒 I don't doubt for a second that there are teams who have decided: "Better to take whatever record comes at ~$100 million spent and turn a profit, than win with a >$250M payroll and lose money" Baseball has moved toward some revenue sharing, but the winning incentives are still very non-uniform for baseball teams as compared to NFL teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I don't doubt for a second that there are teams who have decided: "Better to take whatever record comes at ~$100 million spent and turn a profit, than win with a >$250M payroll and lose money" Baseball has moved toward some revenue sharing, but the winning incentives are still very non-uniform for baseball teams as compared to NFL teams. OK, so what are you saying here? Are you saying the Tigers are not putting a better product on the field because they can't afford to? Are you saying they're not putting a better product on the field because they don't care about winning as much as they care about money? Or maybe you're saying they're not putting a better product on the field because they're incompetent, or because they're ignorant because they don't know what you know? Because I know you're not saying they're putting the best product on the field they can given our stage of development and the alternatives available to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 29 minutes ago, chasfh said: OK, so what are you saying here? Are you saying the Tigers are not putting a better product on the field because they can't afford to? Are you saying they're not putting a better product on the field because they don't care about winning as much as they care about money? Or maybe you're saying they're not putting a better product on the field because they're incompetent, or because they're ignorant because they don't know what you know? Because I know you're not saying they're putting the best product on the field they can given our stage of development and the alternatives available to us. actually the post didn't say anything about the Tigers, only that it is pretty well accepted around the league that some teams are going to do what they can without spending big and whatever happens is what happens. And to make that specific to the Tigers, the whole push toward excelling at development is aimed at doing exactly that - winning without having to spend big. Of course the problem is that while it's a nice theory, history tell us it is a really hard way to win, not impossible, but spending correlates really well with progress to/through the playoffs. 🤷♀️ But those are all long term general considerations. The initial comment about Javy vs empty stands is a narrower situation about the human tendency to refuse to walk away from dead sunk cost. You are paying Javy either way - you can either pay him and have him be a drag on your ball club making it less a draw to fans, or pay him and still move on to a better player and get more fans in the stands with a better team. I would argue the former is the better strategy whether you are committed to being a low payroll team or not. My criticism of the Tigers was not to recognize that last off season when there was still a better chance to do something about it, because there was nothing but romantic thinking behind the idea that Javy would suddenly be better this season. Edited May 15 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 35 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: actually the post didn't say anything about the Tigers, only that it is pretty well accepted around the league that some teams are going to do what they can without spending big and whatever happens is what happens. And to make that specific to the Tigers, the whole push toward excelling at development is aimed at doing exactly that - winning without having to spend big. Of course the problem is that while it's a nice theory, history tell us it is a really hard way to win, not impossible, but spending correlates really well with progress to/through the playoffs. 🤷♀️ But those are all long term general considerations. The initial comment about Javy vs empty stands is a narrower situation about the human tendency to refuse to walk away from dead sunk cost. You are paying Javy either way - you can either pay him and have him be a drag on your ball club making it less a draw to fans, or pay him and still move on to a better player and get more fans in the stands with a better team. I would argue the former is the better strategy whether you are committed to being a low payroll team or not. My criticism of the Tigers was not to recognize that last off season when there was still a better chance to do something about it, because there was nothing but romantic thinking behind the idea that Javy would suddenly be better this season. I assumed your post was about the Tigers, even without your explicitly saying so, because this is a thread about the Tigers, and Javy Baez was a very hot topic here when you posted it. Nevertheless, everyone loves the idea of Tigers walking away from the presumed sunk cost that is Javy Beaz, but this isn't what economists might refer to as a typical consumer sunk cost. If you buy a lemon of a product and you know you're never going to be happy with it, you might as well throw it away and accept that the money is gone. That makes good economic sense in that case. But in the case of Javy, there's another factor to consider: unlike you getting rid of the thing you hate, where you don't even have to get a replacement for it if you don't want, the Tigers definitely do have to get a replacement for Javy, and the replacement might actually be worse than Javy. People will joke, or half-joke, or even seriously state, that no one could possibly be any worse than Javy, but I'm being serious here. If we were to dump Javy this afternoon and replace him with a freely available option from the minors, such as Eddys Leonard or Andrew Navigato, or we sign a currently-available free agent, like Adalberto Mondesi, and they end up doing even worse than Javy—which, again, ha ha, I know, how could anyone do worse, you or I could do better out there for much less money, yuk yuk, but again, let's be serious here—then the front office would get a non-stop ear full of **** from fans for letting Javy go without getting a better replacement. And if you believe that fans will be reasonable and give the Tigers credit just for letting Javy go even if his replacement does worse, then I invite you to refresh your understanding of the nature of emotional fandom by reading some of the posts on this very site. And what would be even worse is that, if Javy were to be cut, and he were to sign with someone else—and really, there are lots of teams who would take a chance on Javy as long as it costs them only the minimum—and he ends up doing better, or even well, someplace else, then the calls for Harris's head will reach a crescendo. And while you're at it, Scotty-poo, take that egghead in the dugout with you, and don't let the door hit either of you on the ass on your way out. Because there is still the reasonable hope, however much it is dimming, that Javy can still be saved and provide acceptable production for the rest of this contract, and we don't want to be holding the bag for someone else who's getting that benefit while we foot the bill. Edited May 15 by chasfh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, chasfh said: I assumed your post was about the Tigers, even without your explicitly saying so, because this is a thread about the Tigers, and Javy Baez was a very hot topic here when you posted it. Nevertheless, everyone loves the idea of Tigers walking away from the presumed sunk cost that is Javy Beaz, but this isn't what economists might refer to as a typical consumer sunk cost. If you buy a lemon of a product and you know you're never going to be happy with it, you might as well throw it away and accept that the money is gone. That makes good economic sense in that case. But in the case of Javy, there's another factor to consider: unlike you getting rid of the thing you hate, where you don't even have to get a replacement for it if you don't want, the Tigers definitely do have to get a replacement for Javy, and the replacement might actually be worse than Javy. People will joke, or half-joke, or even seriously state, that no one could possibly be any worse than Javy, but I'm being serious here. If we were to dump Javy this afternoon and replace him with a freely available option from the minors, such as Eddys Leonard or Andrew Navigato, or we sign a currently-available free agent, like Adalberto Mondesi, and they end up doing even worse than Javy—which, again, ha ha, I know, how could anyone do worse, you or I could do better out there for much less money, yuk yuk, but again, let's be serious here—then the front office would get a non-stop ear full of **** from fans for letting Javy go without getting a better replacement. And if you believe that fans will be reasonable and give the Tigers credit just for letting Javy go even if his replacement does worse, then I invite you to refresh your understanding of the nature of emotional fandom by reading some of the posts on this very site. And what would be even worse is that, if Javy were to be cut, and he were to sign with someone else—and really, there are lots of teams who would take a chance on Javy as long as it costs them only the minimum—and he ends up doing better, or even well, someplace else, then the calls for Harris's head will reach a crescendo. And while you're at it, Scotty-poo, take that egghead in the dugout with you, and don't let the door hit either of you on the ass on your way out. Because there is still the reasonable hope, however much it is dimming, that Javy can still be saved and provide acceptable production for the rest of this contract, and we don't want to be holding the bag for someone else who's getting that benefit while we foot the bill. I agree there isn't much they can do now, which is why my critique was more centered on their off-season inaction. Trades are possible even now, though the Tigers would be dealing out of desperation and that's a bad bargaining position to be in. The other it that as a general proposition you can't let yourself be frozen by the chance of a low probability event (Javy making a miracle recovery) occurring that might embarrass you. Anyone who believes in numbers has to suck it up and accept that sometimes a rare event can happen but you will be better off in the long run playing the better odds. I'll agree with you that such an event creates a PR hurdle to overcome, but if you are seriously hardheaded about building a winner that is exactly the kind of 'don't be swayed by the great washed opinion' decision you have to make. The fans will love you once you win. Ilitch would be wasting his money paying a GM who is swayed by fan opinion. And even if Javy were to be rejuvenated somewhere else, it will most likely only happen if he finds something that works for him there that he can't find here, so what skin is it off the Tigers' nose? I don't see any value in tying him down for spite. At his point, unless the Tigers are going to fire the hitting coaching staff and start over, the odds of him improving if they keep him are not good. If he goes somewhere else and lucks into coaching that works for him, the Tigers can't be swayed by that possibility - it's irrelevant to Tiger outcomes. They have to pay him anyway, be happy for the guy and pocket the refund on the ML minimum. 😇 Plus -- think about the joy you enable when McCoskey can report on his success somewhere else.... Edited May 15 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 Outside of Tork and Keith and Meadows is anybody really surprised by the epically bad hitting from the others? If 2 out of 3 of those guys were just marginally better this team could have 4-5 more wins. You expected the team to move on from Tork after he hit 30HR last year with a later season bloom? Meadows is a rookie and sometimes they don’t pan out. But you have to let them play to be able to say that. Keith is on Harris somewhat because of the extension. That tells me they saw something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.