Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[Sports_Freak]

1 minute ago, NorthWoods said:

I don't consider it cherry picking because I remember well how excited I was about all the wonderful things Rozema was going to do in the future and of course the trajectory took a decided turn down after 1978, he did make a meaningful contribution to the 1984 team.   He threw 100 innings with a 3.74 ERA that year so.   

A similar turn down is what scares me about Skubal.   I don't think  he's built to last, we'll see.

And no matter your strawman arguments, 2 years does not make a "generational talent".

Rozema flamed out. Skubal is still going. Like I said, get back to me in 10 years. In my opinion, it takes around 15 years for a player to be considered a generational player. It may vary a bit but Tarik still has a good chance of getting there. But...I'm still waiting on a list of pitchers who won back to back Cy Young Awards. Maybe that list would change your mind....

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Rozema flamed out. Skubal is still going. Like I said, get back to me in 10 years. In my opinion, it takes around 15 years for a player to be considered a generational player. It may vary a bit but Tarik still has a good chance of getting there. But...I'm still waiting on a list of pitchers who won back to back Cy Young Awards. Maybe that list would change your mind....

You're still not getting it.  

[Sports_Freak]

2 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

Of course I didn't say that.  But then again the proof of a losing argument is lying to "win" it.

You're offering nothing to support your "generational talent" bloviation. 

Throwing up Nolan Ryan as a comparison to what Skubal is going to be is laughable.   He didn't make MLB at 19 and he sure as hell won't be pitching in MLB at age 46.

You asked me who I would rather have on my team by comparing 2 seasons of Rozema to Skubal. I would rather have an active pitcher over some flake who flamed out. But yeah, Jake...I'm done with ignorant trolling strawman comparisons.

[Sports_Freak]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

You're still not getting it.  

I get it...it's talk of a generational talent. Judging somebody with a very short career by showing stats from his best 2 seasons doesnt make him a generational talent. Rosie was a fun but flaky player. Skubal has much more talent that may play for 10 more seasons, we just don't know.

[NorthWoods]

Just now, Sports_Freak said:

But...I'm still waiting on a list of pitchers who won back to back Cy Young Awards. Maybe that list would change your mind....

Go ahead and create that list.   If you want to use awards voted on by sportswriters as your criteria.

So you agree that:

Arrietta deserved it over Greinke in 2015?

Porcello over  JV in '16

Palmer over the Bird in '76?

'90 Welch over Clemens?

'12 Price over JV?

Using awards based on ignorant voters as criteria is silly.

 

[Sports_Freak]

7 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

Go ahead and create that list.   If you want to use awards voted on by sportswriters as your criteria.

So you agree that:

Arrietta deserved it over Greinke in 2015?

Porcello over  JV in '16

Palmer over the Bird in '76?

'90 Welch over Clemens?

'12 Price over JV?

Using awards based on ignorant voters as criteria is silly.

 

OK Jake. Skubal stinks because a pitcher from the 70's had 2 better statistical seasons..maybe we can trade him for a Shane Halter type utility player. 🤔🤔

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I get it...it's talk of a generational talent. Judging somebody with a very short career by showing stats from his best 2 seasons doesnt make him a generational talent. Rosie was a fun but flaky player. Skubal has much more talent that may play for 10 more seasons, we just don't know.

How many wins did Skubal have at age 20?  

 

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

How many wins did Skubal have at age 20?  

 

So this is Skubals 7th year in the league. In 1960 Koufax had been a pro for 6 sesasons and had generated a whopping 6.7 WAR. What kind of talent was that? The kind that collected 46 WAR, 3 cy youngs, 5 ERA titles, and 4 SO titles in the next 6 seasons. So many different combinations of great for a time, good for long time, great for a long time and everything in between. Then again, if Skubal had come up in 1960 he'd have been done in college when he blew out his UCL and no-one but his mom would know his name.🤔

Edited July 1 by gehringer_2

[NorthWoods]

26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Then again, if Skubal had come up in 1960 he'd have been done in college when he blew out his UCL and no-one but his mom would know his name.🤔

It would seem logical that part of the old time starters going longer in games and per season is simply that  ^^.     If their arms held up through the hard usage to get to the majors they more likely to hold up in MLB.    A high percentage of weaker elbows, shoulders, etc got weeded out younger.  

Kinda crazy that the last 300+ inning year was 1980 by Steve Carlton.   It was common before then for the leaders to top 300.....then boom it ended.

 

 

[papalawrence]

I was 10 in 1976 and baseball and basketball were more important to me than Burger Chef, and I loved their burger bar. It's difficult to compare eras, especially considering innings pitched because of velocity, spin rate etc- pitchers are all-in from pitch 1 now. That said, during Rozema's early rise I certainly thought he'd have an excellent career. About the same hype I felt early in Porcello's career. I realize now that Rozema's WAR was much better early than Porcello, but given my "eye test" that's a good early comparison for me. Skubal had potential ace hype in the minors. Mize was drafted 1:1 and Manning was a hi pick. Even though Skubal was a 9th rd pick, guys like Morris and Petry said there was something different about Skubal. They hyped Skubal above the 1:1 draft pick because his "stuff" looked potentially elite. I never heard that about Rozema. I never thought Rozema was going to win a CY, even during his first 2 seasons. Even though I loved Rozema and met his aunt and uncle several times, and heard what a great, but "naughty" young man he was. Skubal's "stuff is clearly on another level. It was evident in the minors. It took longer to translate to mlb success, but injuries played a big role in that. Took Koufax several years too. Stats aside, I never saw Rozema as a potential generational talent. I was hopeful he might have an excellent career, much the same hope I had for Porcello. But for Skubal I was hopeful he would win a CY. I thought that because of his "stuff" and I started to see that as early as 2023. CY doesn't come from "stuff," it requires the stats. And I agree that in this day of WAR, Rozema's early success would have created more buzz. His "1 of 1" baseball cards would have been in the $thousands after his second year. Don't believe me? Look up what McGonigle's 1 of 1 card commands. But because of "stuff" I would never have seen Rozema as having generational talent. Whereas I did see that potential in Skubal even before he won his first CY. 

[NorthWoods]

22 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

I was 10 in 1976 and baseball and basketball were more important to me than Burger Chef, and I loved their burger bar. It's difficult to compare eras, especially considering innings pitched because of velocity, spin rate etc- pitchers are all-in from pitch 1 now. That said, during Rozema's early rise I certainly thought he'd have an excellent career. About the same hype I felt early in Porcello's career. I realize now that Rozema's WAR was much better early than Porcello, but given my "eye test" that's a good early comparison for me. Skubal had potential ace hype in the minors. Mize was drafted 1:1 and Manning was a hi pick. Even though Skubal was a 9th rd pick, guys like Morris and Petry said there was something different about Skubal. They hyped Skubal above the 1:1 draft pick because his "stuff" looked potentially elite. I never heard that about Rozema. I never thought Rozema was going to win a CY, even during his first 2 seasons. Even though I loved Rozema and met his aunt and uncle several times, and heard what a great, but "naughty" young man he was. Skubal's "stuff is clearly on another level. It was evident in the minors. It took longer to translate to mlb success, but injuries played a big role in that. Took Koufax several years too. Stats aside, I never saw Rozema as a potential generational talent. I was hopeful he might have an excellent career, much the same hope I had for Porcello. But for Skubal I was hopeful he would win a CY. I thought that because of his "stuff" and I started to see that as early as 2023. CY doesn't come from "stuff," it requires the stats. And I agree that in this day of WAR, Rozema's early success would have created more buzz. His "1 of 1" baseball cards would have been in the $thousands after his second year. Don't believe me? Look up what McGonigle's 1 of 1 card commands. But because of "stuff" I would never have seen Rozema as having generational talent. Whereas I did see that potential in Skubal even before he won his first CY. 

Sorry man I have to question everything after "burger bar"    It was the "Works Bar" or "Fixins Bar" depending on where you were.

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

Even though Skubal was a 9th rd pick, guys like Morris and Petry said there was something different about Skubal. They hyped Skubal above the 1:1 draft pick because his "stuff" looked potentially elite

People knew it was potentially a big arm, but Skubal's stock fell because he his college  resume was short with the time missed for TJ, and then when he did come backup his Sr yr his command lagged -WHIP was up around 1.5. The Ks were there but too many walks. I imagine If it had been today with the constantly improving surgical techniques and higher probability outcomes he probably would have gone higher.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, NorthWoods said:

It would seem logical that part of the old time starters going longer in games and per season is simply that  ^^.     If their arms held up through the hard usage to get to the majors they more likely to hold up in MLB.    A high percentage of weaker elbows, shoulders, etc got weeded out younger.  

Kinda crazy that the last 300+ inning year was 1980 by Steve Carlton.   It was common before then for the leaders to top 300.....then boom it ended.

 

 

I think this is exactly true. The old system selected for pitchers that could go 250->300 IP. If you couldn't you washed out before you ever sniffed the majors. But expansion is what probably put an end to that. The league needed more pitchers. So I would guess you could put guys back on 4 day rotations and push up their inning totals, and some % percentage would thrive and some percentage would wash out hurt, but the teams don't want to risk finding out because they probably wouldn't have enough left.

But the irony is that you put guys on shorter outings and longer rest and you find out they can go harder- which is great until it makes the injury rates start climbing again despite the longer rest and pitch limits!

[Tiger337]

 

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think this is exactly true. The old system selected for pitchers that could go 250->300 IP. If you couldn't you washed out before you ever sniffed the majors. But expansion is what probably put an end to that. The league needed more pitchers. So I would guess you could put guys back on 4 day rotations and push up their inning totals, and some % percentage would thrive and some percentage would wash out hurt, but the teams don't want to risk finding out because they probably wouldn't have enough left.

But the irony is that you put guys on shorter outings and longer rest and you find out they can go harder- which is great until it makes the injury rates start climbing again despite the longer rest and pitch limits!

If you look back at the old pitching staffs, the 4-man rotation was actually pretty rare.  There were usually a couple pitchers on a staff who had that kind of workload and the rest of them had a workload closer to modern day.  I imagine there were some pitchers today who could handle a bigger workload, but you'd have to figure out which ones or else risk injuries.  You would also have to stop having pitchers max out on every pitch.  I am not convinced that having pitchers max out on every pitch and having low pitch counts followed by a parade of relievers is very beneficial to pitchers or to the game.  It sure isn't reducing injuries.     

[papalawrence]

46 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

Sorry man I have to question everything after "burger bar"    It was the "Works Bar" or "Fixins Bar" depending on where you were.

Lol I would pile tomatoes and picked 6-8" hi

[tiger2022]

Innings pitched are beyond a pitcher's control.  In today's environment, an organization is not going to have a guy pitch 250 innings ever.  200 is about the max that a pitcher will get to.  And there is no reason to go over that when a team carries 8 or 9 relief pitchers.  6 innings and then it's about the matchups.  A guy like Hinch loves walking out to the mound and making the call to the bullpen with 2 outs in an inning.  He just loves it.

In 2025, Skubal was 4th in innings pitched, 12 behind the leader.  Not sure what else could be expected of him.  Pitchers are conditioned to throw as hard as they can for about 90-100 pitches and then they are done.  That's the job description for a starting pitcher.  They don't get to decide to stay in the game.

[NorthWoods]

50 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

Lol I would pile tomatoes and picked 6-8" hi

I loved that place.   In the mid 60s they had as many stores as McD's.....then it seemed to stall.

[Tenacious D]

Any more glorious sound than Yankees fans booing their own team?

[papalawrence]

18 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:

I loved that place.   In the mid 60s they had as many stores as McD's.....then it seemed to stall.

There's actually a documentary on their collapse. In part they over expanded and too quickly. Hardee's is the same company and a few times over the years they put the super chef on their menu. In Grand Rapids they had family night on Thursday and you'd get 2 fun meals for a buck.

[monkeytargets39]

The sooner we trade Skubal, the better.  
 

1.) We aren’t making a playoff run until the bullpen is completely overhauled 

2.) Valdez/Mize/Melton/Montero/Flaherty and then Jobe are plenty good enough to keep playing competitive games with.

3.) Can’t risk a Skubal injury or stretch of a couple poor starts to tank value.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, monkeytargets39 said:

The sooner we trade Skubal, the better.  
 

1.) We aren’t making a playoff run until the bullpen is completely overhauled 

2.) Valdez/Mize/Melton/Montero/Flaherty and then Jobe are plenty good enough to keep playing competitive games with.

3.) Can’t risk a Skubal injury or stretch of a couple poor starts to tank value.

If we force a trade of Skubal now, without testing the depth of his market, you will almost certainly not like the return. 

[Tiger337]

You can't really build bullpens.  A lot of it is a crapshoot, but you do need a couple of power arms out there.  

I think the main reason it's going to be difficult to get into the playoffs though is because they fell too far behind due to too many injuries at the same time.  As currently constructed, they are just as good (bad?) as some teams that will eventually make the playoffs.  

Edited July 1 by Tiger337

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

If we force a trade of Skubal now, without testing the depth of his market, you will almost certainly not like the return. 

Well you don’t force it.  Just let it be known that he is available first.  

[Screwball]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

 

If you look back at the old pitching staffs, the 4-man rotation was actually pretty rare.  There were usually a couple pitchers on a staff who had that kind of workload and the rest of them had a workload closer to modern day.  I imagine there were some pitchers today who could handle a bigger workload, but you'd have to figure out which ones or else risk injuries.  You would also have to stop having pitchers max out on every pitch.  I am not convinced that having pitchers max out on every pitch and having low pitch counts followed by a parade of relievers is very beneficial to pitchers or to the game.  It sure isn't reducing injuries.     

The 71 Orioles say hold my beer. That was incredible to watch. 

The game has changed so much since then. All different today. Which always brings up the age old argument - which generation was better. What a can of worms that is. Nothing wrong with that. This is the worlds greatest game after all.

To the last - yes - there is this thing called pitching. But it's easier to find guys who heave it 100 mph. But they do have to get it over the plate - and probably not right down the middle because at some point they will time you - and "clobber" it as Rod Allen would say. And you help generate the speed. You don't have to throw 100 mph to get people out. 

[CMRivdogs]

Yet, the "71 O's lost to the Pirates in the World Series