2025-2026 Tigers Off Season Thread

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I'm with Chas on this one.

-1.7 WAR for a DH reads as stupid.

Here's an easy fix:

Instead of assigning negatives for positions (1B -12???, DH -1.7???), add bonus points for more important positions.

DH starts at 0, finishes at 0.

1B starts at 0, actual results give actual numbers (speaking only to defensive WAR that is...).

Catcher, SS, and CF get +6, +12, +8 for positional value?

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

That would be fine.  In terms of ranking players which is what I use it for, you would end up with the same result if you added instead of subtracted.  

The key is you have to have a way of rewarding players for playing more difficult positilons.   The subtracting of -17 for a DH is not a logical flaw.  It could be argued that it's a presentation flaw though.  

 

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

...  It could be argued that it's a presentation flaw though.  

I think that's the issue.

It befuddles me to see a negative dWAR for a DH.

Even though it's a positional value assignment...

I would prefer the plus PV instead of negative PV.

IMO.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

WAR is not about many runs a player cost his team.  It's about how easy it is to replace a player.  If a slick fielding shortstop and a DH with the same offensive statistics both get injured, which one is easier to is easier to replace?

 

 

OK - I;m going to argue the terminology here just to ornery 😜

I don't think your comparison is fair. A slick fielding big hitting SS is a relative outlier. So I thought we were just talking the defensive side here anyway. Let's talk about an average SS and an average 1B because that where your positional adjustment hits the baseline. By definition, half the shortstops out there field better than your guy,  just like half the 1Bs out there field better than your guy, From that view the ease of replacing either isn't that different. I think the basic weakness is the attempt to normalize across positions. I understand the motivation, but it's just another example of why some of this gets mis or over applied. I think in the real world you have to value a 1b by how much he is an outlier among 1Bs. irrespective of the fact that all SSs are better fielders, because that is the actual marginal value he brings to the team wrt to an average 1B (or replace 'average' with 'replacement', it only a matter of where on the same scale). Or another way to put is just that shortstops don't play 1st, and even if they did, you don't get enough chances at 1st to produce the same fielding value even you if are literally a SS playing 1st, So fielding comparisons across the position measures something which is more abstract than real.

Edited Sunday at 11:40 PM by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

The key is you have to have a way of rewarding players for playing more difficult positilons.

Yes - this is reasonable. I think from a presentation POV, all you need to do in the case of what Fangraphs does it is make the positional adjustment after the O and D piece are given instead of before.

[casimir]

3 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

I'm with Chas on this one.

-1.7 WAR for a DH reads as stupid.

Here's an easy fix:

Instead of assigning negatives for positions (1B -12???, DH -1.7???), add bonus points for more important positions.

DH starts at 0, finishes at 0.

1B starts at 0, actual results give actual numbers (speaking only to defensive WAR that is...).

Catcher, SS, and CF get +6, +12, +8 for positional value?

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

But then how do you handle multi positional players?  How does a guy like McKinstry get evaluated?

[Screwball]

52 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

OK - I;m going to argue the terminology here just to ornery 😜

I don't think your comparison is fair. A slick fielding big hitting SS is a relative outlier. So I thought we were just talking the defensive side here anyway. Let's talk about an average SS and an average 1B because that where your positional adjustment hits the baseline. By definition, half the shortstops out there field better than your guy,  just like half the 1Bs out there field better than your guy, From that view the ease of replacing either isn't that different. I think the basic weakness is the attempt to normalize across positions. I understand the motivation, but it's just another example of why some of this gets mis or over applied. I think in the real world you have to value a 1b by how much he is an outlier among 1Bs. irrespective of the fact that all SSs are better fielders, because that is the actual marginal value he brings to the team wrt to an average 1B (or replace 'average' with 'replacement', it only a matter of where on the same scale). Or another way to put is just that shortstops don't play 1st, and even if they did, you don't get enough chances at 1st to produce the same fielding value even you if are literally a SS playing 1st, So fielding comparisons across the position measures something which is more abstract than real.

No. First off, I think 337 said 

Quote

If a slick fielding shortstop and a DH with the same offensive statistics both get injured, which one is easier to is easier to replace?

The keyword there is "and" not one and the same. You are correct a slick fielding big hitting SS is an outlier. But you don't want Boog Powell at shortstop. Those slick fielding guys are so fast they turn off the light and are in bed before it's dark. I don't know who said that but I still love it.

Edited Monday at 12:23 AM by Screwball

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

OK - I;m going to argue the terminology here just to ornery 😜

I don't think your comparison is fair. A slick fielding big hitting SS is a relative outlier. So I thought we were just talking the defensive side here anyway. Let's talk about an average SS and an average 1B because that where your positional adjustment hits the baseline. By definition, half the shortstops out there field better than your guy,  just like half the 1Bs out there field better than your guy, From that view the ease of replacing either isn't that different. I think the basic weakness is the attempt to normalize across positions. I understand the motivation, but it's just another example of why some of this gets mis or over applied. I think in the real world you have to value a 1b by how much he is an outlier among 1Bs. irrespective of the fact that all SSs are better fielders, because that is the actual marginal value he brings to the team wrt to an average 1B (or replace 'average' with 'replacement', it only a matter of where on the same scale). Or another way to put is just that shortstops don't play 1st, and even if they did, you don't get enough chances at 1st to produce the same fielding value even you if are literally a SS playing 1st, So fielding comparisons across the position measures something which is more abstract than real.

In the real world, players are drafted and start in the lower minors as shortstops or catchers or the the most challenging position they can handle.  Then they get moved to less challenging positions as they move up the ladder.  I don't think there is any doubt that a lot more MLB players could play first base competently than play shortstop competently.  If a shortstop and first baseman have the same offensive statistics and are both average fielders at their positions, the shortstop is going to make more money in free agency and will bring back more in a trade.  He has more value than the first baseman and that's why he gets the higher WAR.  

Edited Monday at 12:40 AM by Tiger337

[casimir]

41 minutes ago, Screwball said:

Those slick fielding guys are so fast they turn off the light and are in bed before it's dark. I don't know who said that but I still love it.

I think Satchel Paige said that about Cool Papa Bell.  It’s such a good line.  And such a good nickname.

[papalawrence]

41 minutes ago, casimir said:

I think Satchel Paige said that about Cool Papa Bell.  It’s such a good line.  And such a good nickname.

Ali said it too

 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

If a shortstop and first baseman have the same offensive statistics and are both average fielders at their positions, the shortstop is going to make more money in free agency and will bring back more in a trade.  He has more value than the first baseman and that's why he gets the higher WAR.  

you circled back the SS that hits like a 1b, but most SS don't hit like 1Bs. Those guys are the outliers, so sure they are most valuable, but the positional adjustment applies between 1b's and SS that hit like SS's too. So I grant you that, but since shortstops don't hit like a 1st baseman a 950 OPS 1B with an average glove still gets paid as much or more than a league average O/D SS.

Edited Monday at 03:21 AM by gehringer_2

[Screwball]

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you circled back the SS that hits like a 1b, but most SS don't hit like 1Bs. Those guys are the outliers, so sure they are most valuable, but the positional adjustment applies between 1b's and SS that hit like SS's too. So I grant you that, but since shortstops don't hit like a 1st baseman a 950 OPS 1B with an average glove still gets paid as much or more than a league average O/D SS.

Because they hit more home runs

[Tiger337]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you circle back the SS that hits like a 1b, but most SS don't hit like 1Bs. Those guys are the outliers, so sure they are most valuable, but the positional adjustment applies between 1b's and SS that hit like SS's too. So I grant you that, but most shortstops don't hit like a 1st baseman so a 950 OPS 1B with an average glove still gets paid as much or more than a league average O/D SS.

I don't think it's relevant either way, but I think shortstops are closer to first basemen offensively than you think.  

Average OPS for SS .711 (98 OPS+)

Average OPS for 1B .744 (107 OPS+)

So, there seems like there would be a lot of overlap and for that group which overlaps or comes close to overlapping, shortstops are a lot more valuable because of the position they play.  

Of course a 1b who hits .950 gets paid more than a SS who hits .711, but his WAR would be better too, so I don't understand your point.  

 

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

It doesn't suggest he lost two games with his glove.  It's all about valuation.  It means that he has a lot less defensive value (when he's not pitching) than someone that actually plays a position.  Do you think that a shortstop and DH with the same exact offensive statistics have the same value to a team?   

 

Are you asking me that because you think I think that?

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Are you asking me that because you think I think that?

No, I am asking that because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  You and Gehringer are both very smart and I am pretty sure you understand that playing a challenging position has value.   I understood Echoes point and thought that perhaps that is what you were saying too, but apparently not.  

[gehringer_2]

24 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

No, I am asking that because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  You and Gehringer are both very smart and I am pretty sure you understand that playing a challenging position has value.   I understood Echoes point and thought that perhaps that is what you were saying too, but apparently not.  

I think you answered it  here: 

 

I understand the number have to do what the numbers have to do in the model, but I think the terminology used creates some odd implications - i.e.that all 1Bs are bad fielders *at-their-position*. 

To your answer about 1b vs SS OPS, does it seem to you that there is a general compression taking place across the league?  Or maybe it's a covergence? SSs are certainly getting bigger, so their power potential is up, and maybe pitching is so hard to hit that the big guys who used to play 1B/3B  have lost some of the power advantage they used to have because hitting has to be done at so much higher reaction speed where brute strength is less determinative? 

Edited Monday at 03:59 PM by gehringer_2

[alex]

Asked (by Chasfh): "What makes you believe Bregman would seriously consider coming here?" 

All IMHO.

I do think Bregman did really think about coming to Detroit last year. He said as much. I also think his wife needs to be on board with this destination. Not a 'Yes, lets go there!' but at least a 'If that is what you really want to do, I am behind you.'

Bregman has the A.J. connection also.

More so, from the Tigers standpoint, they will have to overpay any bigger FA it would seem to come here. With Bregman, IMHO, he does check off many areas. For instance, he has plenty of post season and championship pedigree. A RHB, middle of order hitter and hi-contact rate. Maybe most importantly, he is also a labeled a good teammate and a leader on and off the field. He can be a mentor for young players with his true baseball work ethic. All of the aforementioned were thought to be just that before last season. From all told he was exactly that in Boston.

If Alex's goal is more HOF oriented, he may be best in Boston or Philly. However, I am somewhat surprised Boston had not already extended him. Why? I am not sure they wish to go to the extent of the contract wise he (and Boras) desire. Why did Boston not go 6 years last off season? If they would have given the same proposal the Tigers gave - we probably would not even be talking again about this. One thing though, they did move the Dever's contract.

I can see other teams looking at him as well ex again Philly, the NYM, etc.

I think maybe a 5-6 year 160 million deal might work (with an opt-out after the first year). This way Alex and Boras get the 6-7 total year deal for 200 mil that was rumored to be sought last year (if you include last years earnings). Bregman has already thought deeply about Detroit. They are contenders right now. IF the Tigers still feel he is 'the guy' they want and they know they are going to have to overpay 'one' guy at some point in the foreseeable future regardless, then they might go after him again. However, unlike last year they cannot wait on him.

So, if they like Bichette and/or Kim (again some of this depends on Gleyber) or whoever else - then they go after that player as well.

I think A.J and Harris may have really thought Bregman was coiming here last year. Just listen to the Harris interview when he was addressing that situation last ST. Even Alex thought they (his family) were coming here during a very early season interview. Again, what the Tigers perhaps should not do this year is just 'wait' too long for his decision. This is where the potential Torres deal may help and IF they like Bichette (and/or Kim), go for them simultaneously. They will have to over pay Bichette even more so of course - but he could be a guy that really fits long term and he can play multi positions (as can Kim for short term). It seems on the surface that Toronto (and of course Vlad) do really want Bo back - the question is how much payroll will they allocate and they still need to spend elsewhere with a heavy payroll to begin with. The Tigers have very little long term commitments. Toronto does. 

McGonigle will play regardless (and perhaps Rainer as well a bit later). Bregman (or Bichette), again IMHO, would be a good mentor for this core and the next. Kim would be a 'guy' that should help at this time (if healthy).

My percent take on certain players signing here IF the Tigers go after them?

* Bregman 40%

* Kim 30%

* Bichette 20%

* Tucker 5%

All would have to be over payed of course. I just feel Bregman is the most realistic of the FAs that could make an impact that really would consider it (again). There are other FAs, I am just not sure how much they could help 'this' team ex Osuna (a DH only), Hader (have Javy and Vierling coming back), Suarez (because of high Ks... yet maybe a one year deal), Hays (see Bader), etc. Would one of Japan's players consider Detroit as a U.S. destiny?

A trade for a young potential big league player is an idea. We have are not seen this avenue from Harris (yes he acquired Malloy but he is a very incomplete player even still). With that said Harris would have to move some prospects at some point you would think. After all how many young INFs can you have? I am not sure this is a 'plus' area of our CEO and GMs abilities. The knack to make a deal - again we have not really seen it. I suppose another GM could help orchestrate a deal if they really like what the Tigers have.

With a bigger FA scenario Ilitch might need to get involved. To push a bit for a 'legit' shot (with the overpay). 

The Tigers are not that far away NOW, especially with Skubal for one more year. Do they wish to push a bit this off season or talk about the 'next core' once again (see Harris' remarks 3 years ago)?

Heck, maybe competing is good enough and let the chips fall where they may. We know the bigger teams (LAD, NYY, Philly, etc.) are still at the forefront. Yet anything can happen (see NYM 2025) and with a good amount of health and some luck (see Milwaukee 2025) things have happened.

Throw in the potential for a lock-out after 2026 and it bodes for an interesting off season that is just starting.

 

[Shinzaki]

So OPS+ is a better stat to measure a DH since it doesn't nick them for not doing something they can't do positionally..

[Tiger337]

10 minutes ago, Shinzaki said:

So OPS+ is a better stat to measure a DH since it doesn't nick them for not doing something they can't do positionally..

OPS+ is kind of a subset of WAR (except WAR uses wOBA, wRC+ instead). 

As to which one is better to use, it depends on the question.  If you are only interested in offensive contribution, then I would not look at WAR.  I would just look at OPS+ or wRC+.  If you are interested in comparing the overall value of players at different positions, then WAR is better, because players who contribute more than just hitting need to get credit for that.   

Edited Monday at 05:13 PM by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think you answered it  here: 

 

I understand the number have to do what the numbers have to do in the model, but I think the terminology used creates some odd implications - i.e.that all 1Bs are bad fielders *at-their-position*. 

To your answer about 1b vs SS OPS, does it seem to you that there is a general compression taking place across the league?  Or maybe it's a covergence? SSs are certainly getting bigger, so their power potential is up, and maybe pitching is so hard to hit that the big guys who used to play 1B/3B  have lost some of the power advantage they used to have because hitting has to be done at so much higher reaction speed where brute strength is less determinative? 

I think that bigger stronger players are staying at shortstop rather than moving to other positions. It could be that modern strength and agility training allows them to do that.  There are also more players playing multiple positions which makes statistical analysis more challenging.  

[TcFlint]

Alex, I hope I am wrong, but I do not see Harris and the Tigers spending this kind of money particularly with 1 year buyouts attached.

[IdahoBert]

This is a cruel time of year to be a fan. During the regular season, you can share in the superstitious group mind fantasy of fandom that somehow you have an effect upon events.

But it’s hard to support that fantasy when it comes to the arcane machinations of wheeling and dealing in the off-season. 

[SoCalTiger]

Did we sign Bregman yet ?

[1984Echoes]

26 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Did we sign Bregman yet ?

Are you on the "Bregman Watch List"?

Let us know ASAP as soon as it happens!!!

[papalawrence]

FYI Murakami hit .095 vs pitches 93+ last year. I do not see Harris bidding on him

[papalawrence]

51 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Did we sign Bregman yet ?

Are players able to sign yet? I forget what the window is post WS conclusion. I still want the Tigers to go for him. A couple upgrades and Detroit has a shot in 2026