2025 Detroit Tigers General Discussion Thread

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

After scoring 30 runs in 3 games against Boston a few weeks ago we have now gone 23 games where the offense has been relatively quiet. Only twice have we scored 6 runs during this run and have scored 3 runs or less in over half the games. Despite that they are still 14-9 during this stretch which is just remarkable given the aforementioned run issues. 

Since the Boston series, we are 24th in run-scoring and 26th in OPS and wRC+. I was going to comment "shades of post-8/11", but that's not really true: after August 11th last year we were middle of the pack on offense. So what we're seeing now is very different from post-8/11. Probably a lot of it's timing: five of those games we won, we scored three or fewer runs, and when we lost, we were frequently blown out (11-4, 7-0, 8-1, 6-1).

I wouldn't say pity the poor Rangers or anything like that, but they've been 28th in run-scoring during the same span (67 vs our 81), but second in run prevention (65 vs our 75), and yet they've gone 8-14 vs our 14-9.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

Recent opponents have been the Cards, the Cubs, Cleveland, the Royals, the Giants, and the White Sox. All those teams other than the White Sox have better than average Team ERA's, with KC and the Giants being in the top 5. Two of the games against the Pale Hose, chasfh was there. Not to worry.

fixed

[gehringer_2]

36 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Probably a lot of it's timing: five of those games we won, we scored three or fewer runs, and when we lost, we were frequently blown out (11-4, 7-0, 8-1, 6-1).

and for all that, we are still sitting dead on our Pythagorean for the season.

[Tiger337]

52 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I see what you're doing here. 😉

I'm going to go out on a limb and say 12-6. Who wants to come out here with me? We can talk baseball while everyone points and laughs at us ...

13-5

[LongLiveMaroth]

 

[monkeytargets39]

22 minutes ago, LongLiveMaroth said:

 

The Judge one is amazing

[KL2]

14 hours ago, chasfh said:

I agree with Oblong in that as a fan, I don’t give a s***. I’m watching to watch the game. I also believe teams shoot themselves in the foot some when they parade empty seats in front of cameras for literally half the time a game is on. That’s a real problem for them, and I think it’s interesting to contemplate.

Expect they were alreayd bought. Why does the team care if anyone shows up or not. They got the money. 

[chasfh]

21 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Expect they were alreayd bought. Why does the team care if anyone shows up or not. They got the money. 

Because it's a bad look that could potentially cost them ticket buyers in the future. As a marketer, I can attest that they have a concern about it.

Ever go to a game in iffy weather, and/or for an iffy team, where they announce 30,000 tickets sold but clearly less than half of them showed up? It could be said why should the team care, they got the money, mwah hah hah hah. But even beyond the loss of in-game revenue, no-shows also creates bad energy both in the ballpark and on TV, and that can affect excitement for the team and, consequently, ticket sales. It's not only about today. It's a long game for them.

Edited Tuesday at 05:18 PM by chasfh

[oblong]

But in this case they aren't no shows. They're just somewhere else.  Sometimes I'm not in my seats, and not even because I wanted food or drink or the restroom.  We decided to go stand out in the outfield or a party deck.  This weekend's series was a sellout.  And a real one because on Friday I could see full rows of people all along the top rows in the upper deck, that's the real test.  A handful of open seats behind the plate doesn't mean anything.  The cameras showed plenty of full seats elsewhere.  I don't really know what the solution is expected to be.  They've sold premium seats that include things that involve NOT being in your seats to enjoy.  If they don't sell them then fine, fix that piece of it.  But if they are selling them then what can you do?  

I will say that one thing that can't be fixed that might be leading to people not being in those seats is Comerica's terrible sight lines for the 'best' seats... meaning the first 10-15 rows all along the lower bowl.  You can't see the field. You almost are looking up at the players.  Maybe the people that get those seats experience that and figure "Let's go talk in the club and watch on TV and have free food/drinks while we're at it"

 

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, oblong said:

I will say that one thing that can't be fixed that might be leading to people not being in those seats is Comerica's terrible sight lines for the 'best' seats... meaning the first 10-15 rows all along the lower bowl.  You can't see the field. You almost are looking up at the players.  Maybe the people that get those seats experience that and figure "Let's go talk in the club and watch on TV and have free food/drinks while we're at it"

this is definitely an issue with Comerica. Even though the upper deck is much further away than at Tiger stadium, I still prefer the upper deck boxes or at least as close to the front as is available rather than the lower bowl. No comparison to an upper deck box at the old ball park, but OTOH I don't get a pole if I don't buy early enough!

Funny that in Tiger Stadium and Olympia, Detroit had two of the best upper decks ever in sports. At Olympia the front or the upper deck reached all the way the 1st or 2nd row of the lower deck.

Edited Tuesday at 06:52 PM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

It just looks really bush league for the seats behind the plate to be mostly empty, and most people watching don't have any clue as to what seats they are, how much they go for, that the people with those seats are in the ballpark anyway, or any of that. All they know is that they heard the Tigers are good but look, no one's coming to the games, probably because baseball is boring, isn't there an NBA playoff game we can put on?

[Motor City Sonics]

10 hours ago, davidsb623 said:

12-6

You're weak.   Anything less than 16-2 is unacceptable. 

[chasfh]

I wonder what the plan with Trey Sweeney is. Clearly Javy is the hot hand and Sweeney got in over his head lately, but Trey has played only four of the nine June games so far, and he was pinch-hit for early in two of those and was a sub in another. As a former first-rounder, the kid presumably has a lot of potential, so sitting him on the bench for the rest of the year won’t help either him or us. But, also, his long-term prospects with the Tigers was already limited given the shortstop depth we have in the system (which, hopefully, still includes Rainer at the top).

I think the team would like to package him in a trade for a back-of-the-pen strikeout guy, but they’re going to have to get him some trigger time somewhere, whether it’s here or down I-75. I think they would rather he figure it out up here because he would be more valuable trade chip as a serviceable major leaguer who will be eventually squeezed out by circumstances than as a minor leaguer with an uncertain prognosis.

[RandyMarsh]

According to ESPNs WAR McKinstry leads all Tiger position players in WAR with a relatively modest 1.6.

I say modest cause that doesn't even crack the top 30 in the AL so they haven't gotten elite production(atleast by WAR) from any non pitcher. 

But what they have gotten is plus production from a bunch of players, yeah the Tigers don't have any bats in the top 30 but they have 7 between 30 and 50 with an 8th(Carpenter) being just .1 behind number 50.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

so sitting him on the bench for the rest of the year won’t help either him or us

yeah - who would have picked Javy and McKinstry as two guys we had to keep in the line-up every day?

At Toledo SS, Unroe is org filler, Navigato is likely on his way to release, Workman is getting most of the reps but he looks like the same guy he always was, i.e. low contract, high K and unlikely to handle MLB pitching. So I don't see any logjam  in terms of him getting his work in there. I'd guess they are just more comfortable with 2 primary SS on the roster.

[chasfh]

32 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

McKinstry 

McKinstry is so interesting because I always thought of him in the vein of, say, Mike Fontenot: a fine guy to run out there for 250 or 300 ABs, but once you give him 500 or so, then you start to see all the things he can't do, and every day. Some guys are just made for the utility role.

Of course, Fontenot had only the one really good year as a utility guy, and McStnky had a better year at 500 ABs for us in '23 than he did with 300 ABs for us last year, so, what the hell do I know.

Edited Wednesday at 03:37 PM by chasfh

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

McKinstry is so interesting because I always thought of him in the vein of, say, Mike Fontenot: a fine guy to run out there for 250 or 300 ABs, but once you give him 500 or so, then you start to see all the things he can't do, and every day. Some guys are just made for the utility role.

Of course, Fontenot had only the one really good year as a utility guy, and McStnky had a better year at 500 ABs for us in '23 than he did with 300 ABs for us last year, so, what the hell do I know.

He is still sporting a higher BaBIP than he has ever had before and his EV has not gone up, which argues he's been lucky.  OTOH he has improved his LD rate and he absolutely has made some kind of approach change that's allowing him to stand in better against LHP. So maybe some  luck and some real improvement adding up.

[monkeytargets39]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I wonder what the plan with Trey Sweeney is. Clearly Javy is the hot hand and Sweeney got in over his head lately, but Trey has played only four of the nine June games so far, and he was pinch-hit for early in two of those and was a sub in another. As a former first-rounder, the kid presumably has a lot of potential, so sitting him on the bench for the rest of the year won’t help either him or us. But, also, his long-term prospects with the Tigers was already limited given the shortstop depth we have in the system (which, hopefully, still includes Rainer at the top).

I think the team would like to package him in a trade for a back-of-the-pen strikeout guy, but they’re going to have to get him some trigger time somewhere, whether it’s here or down I-75. I think they would rather he figure it out up here because he would be more valuable trade chip as a serviceable major leaguer who will be eventually squeezed out by circumstances than as a minor leaguer with an uncertain prognosis.

I’m thinking he goes down to Toledo for a bit when Vierling is back.  He needs the regular reps.  I still think he has plenty of potential and can be a solid part of the team- he’s just young and needs to adjust.

[KL2]

23 hours ago, chasfh said:

Because it's a bad look that could potentially cost them ticket buyers in the future. As a marketer, I can attest that they have a concern about it.

Why would a future ticket buyer care what someone did with the seat today?

And the number one thing in ticket sales has been and always will be winning. Not promotions, not energy in a stadium not wether it looks open or not. It's all about wining. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:50 PM by KL2

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Why would a future ticket buyer care what someone did with the seat today?

And the number one thing in ticket sales has been and always will be winning. Not promotions, not energy in a stadium not wether it looks open or not. It's all about wining. 

I agree it's mostly about winning, but some winning teams do better than others as do some losing teams.  I think having an appealing ballpark and having exciting players plays a role.  I woud agree that fans seeing empty seats doesn't matter.  I can't imagine a fan not buying tickets because they they saw empty seats on TV.  

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I agree it's mostly about winning, but some winning teams do better than others as do some losing teams.  I think having an appealing ballpark and having exciting players plays a role.  I woud agree that fans seeing empty seats doesn't matter.  I can't imagine a fan not buying tickets because they they saw empty seats on TV.  

No, there is one place where it matters, and that is if fans see the ballpark is full most of the time, it will drive better advance sales because people will suspect they won't be able to get a decent ticket as a walk up or day of game sale. The extreme case of this is what you had in Boston for along time with a season ticket sale that almost sold out the park, or the Red Wings, for many years they had a wait list for season tickets because no-one wanted to give them up even as the team started getting worse because they wouldn't be able to get a good seat again. That said, none of this relates to the seats behind the plate, but to the the ballpark as a whole. And the team has to be good and stay good for a while for the dynamic to take hold.

Edited Wednesday at 05:19 PM by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

No, there is one place where it matters, and that is if fans see the ballpark is full most of the time, it will drive better advance sales because people will suspect they won't be able to get a decent ticket as a walk up or day of game sale. The extreme case of this is what you had in Boston for along time with a season ticket sale that almost sold out the park, or the Red Wings, for many years they had a wait list for season tickets because no-one wanted to give them up even as the team started getting worse because they wouldn't be able to get a good seat again. That said, none of this relates to the seats behind the plate, but to the the ballpark as a whole. And the team has to be good and stay good for a while for the dynamic to take hold.

Does that come from seeing it on TV, past experience or word of mouth/keyboard?   

[oblong]

I don't think anybody watching a game that's got 35,000 people in the stands is ignorant of that fact because they see a handful of the most expensive seats empty.  People aren't stupid. They show other parts of the stadium all the time. 

This is a fake crisis because podcastsers and radio hosts and "bloggers" need to write something to create content. 

I guarantee you nobody sees those empty seats and thinks "Wow, nobody's at the game?"

 

 

[CMRivdogs]

I'm probably an outlier as far a buying tickets but one of m criteria when buying seats in my price range is looking for sections that are not too crowded. There's nothing I hate worse is to have to stand up several times during a game to let "fans" in or out of rows. I came to enjoy the game and not be distracted by musical chairs during the game, and it's super annoying when it's done during the inning.

I'm not the least bothered by the "optics" on TV, it's less annoying than to see some "fan" on his/her phone trying to show off because they're on TV

 

No get off my lawn 

[Tigeraholic1]

I was there for all three games over the weekend. The crowds seemed even larger than opening day. We sat in section 121 behind the visitors dugout. Never sat there before but I gotta say you have a great view of every angle.