2025-2026 Tigers Off Season Thread

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, buddha said:

war has always overly benefitted starting pitchers who accumulate innings.

the fact that park effects can change year to year without any physical change to the park itself or change to the general weather patterns tells me that players who play in the park have as much or more influence on the "park effect" that season than the modelers would have you believe.

two comments on that: 

Weather is local, changes from year to year, and is what drives some of the park effect anomalies you see. The year Target opened we were in MnStP, everyone was paranoid by August that the park was playing way too huge. It was just a really weird year in Mineapolis - lots and lots of cool nights in a place where summer is usually really hot. It's never played that big again.

I agree there does seem to be something to a team effect on park factors. COPA definitely seems to play big when the Tigers are bad, more average when the team is average to good. I'd guess that when the home team is lousy, visitors with a lead just feel less pressure to score more so I believe in some cases you do get a certain amount of cross correlation that you don't want to be there.

Edited 18 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

war has gone from being a really interesting statistical way to analyze player value to overrated gospel.  

it places too much emphasis on things like park effects, fielding, and base running, and not enough emphasis on hitting.  

just my .02.

like most stats, i like it when it supports my argument and dislike it when it doesnt.

That's because you're an offensive snob.  

[Tiger337]

 

41 minutes ago, buddha said:

war has always overly benefitted starting pitchers who accumulate innings.

the fact that park effects can change year to year without any physical change to the park itself or change to the general weather patterns tells me that players who play in the park have as much or more influence on the "park effect" that season than the modelers would have you believe.

Park effects are not annual.  They are averaged over 3-5 years.

As for the innings. are you talking annual or career?  Given how difficult it is for pitchers to pitch deep into games now, I believe innings have become more valuable now and should be rewarded more than ever for single seasons.  For historic WAR, the value of the cumulative effect of WAR is questionable.  It depends on whether you favor peak value or career value.  If you like peak value more, then you can use WAA (Wins above average).  In this case, a pitcher can not accumulate value unless he is better than average.  

I do agree WAR should not be gospel and that it is overused

Edited 18 hours ago by Tiger337

[buddha]

31 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That's because you're an offensive snob.  

true.

[NorthWoods]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

That aspect doesn't worry me so much. Even if he is disconnecting mentally from a *future* with Detroit,  if he is angling for a record setting deal, he is going to be driven to perform in the '26 *present* to get it.

You're probably right, just the whole scenario of rooting for a guy that's planning to ditch the team and town is somewhat distasteful.   I know it happens in other sports but *usually* you don't know until after the fact.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

war has always overly benefitted starting pitchers who accumulate innings.

the fact that park effects can change year to year without any physical change to the park itself or change to the general weather patterns tells me that players who play in the park have as much or more influence on the "park effect" that season than the modelers would have you believe.

Because WAR is a cumulative stat. A pitcher with a 4 WAR in 180 innings is not as good on a per-start basis as one who has 4 WAR in 120 innings, although that's not necessarily a bad thing—there is value in good volume, too.

[tiger2022]

Last season Morton had -0.8 and Paddack had -0.6 for the Tigers.  Hard to believe that a replacement player would only suck that much less than those guys did.

[tiger2022]

2 hours ago, NorthWoods said:

You're probably right, just the whole scenario of rooting for a guy that's planning to ditch the team and town is somewhat distasteful.   I know it happens in other sports but *usually* you don't know until after the fact.

Why?  He doesn't owe the Tigers anything.  And hardly anyone plays for one team their entire career.

But why would he want to stay with a franchise that doesn't seem to be serious about winning.  His quote aboutbthinking the World Series should be the standard sure sounded like a shot at the FA's lack of trying 

 

[Stormin]

1 hour ago, tiger2022 said:

But why would he want to stay with a franchise that doesn't seem to be serious about winning. 

I am not a big fan of the "serious about winning" narrative.   Like every other MLB team, the Dodgers ownership group is serious about winning to the degree that winning increases financial return.  The market value of the Dodgers franchise has increased from ~$5B has increased ~$8B dollars since signing Ohtani.   They own most of the Southern California market and have a guaranteed multi billion regional television contract that no other team can match.  Japan and other portions of Asia are now also part of the Dodger market with revenue coming from corporate sponsors and Dodger apparel sales on the other side of the ocean.   Even with a $400M payroll,  the Dodgers generate more annual income than the annual revenue of some other MLB teams.

The primary goal of every  single MLB franchise owner, all valued at over $1B dollars, is generating a positive financial return on their $1B plus investment.

The primary goal of every MLB player is also to be paid $.

Edited 13 hours ago by Stormin

[tiger2022]

And owners have proven they don't have to be serious about winning to make money.

It's obvious.

 

[Stormin]

42 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

And owners have proven they don't have to be serious about winning to make money.

It's obvious.

 

True - but some teams can sign a player to a 10 year $400M contract and they are called "serious about winning" when the team is  more serious about driving up franchise value.  Most teams will encounter a financially detrimental impact for huge contracts so they don't agree to those type of contracts.  In the end, it is more about $ than winning for every owner and every player.

Edited 12 hours ago by Stormin

[Sports_Freak]

51 minutes ago, Stormin said:

I am not a big fan of the "serious about winning" narrative.   Like every other MLB team, the Dodgers ownership group is serious about winning to the degree that winning increases financial return.  The market value of the Dodgers franchise has increased from ~$5B has increased ~$8B dollars since signing Ohtani.   They own most of the Southern California market and have a guaranteed multi billion regional television contract that no other team can match.  Japan and other portions of Asia are now also part of the Dodger market with revenue coming from corporate sponsors and Dodger apparel sales on the other side of the ocean.   Even with a $400M payroll,  the Dodgers generate more annual income than the annual revenue of some other MLB teams.

The primary goal of every  single MLB franchise owner, all valued at over $1B dollars, is generating a positive financial return on their $1B plus investment.

The primary goal of every MLB player is also to be paid $.

This is true. When folks remember that baseball is a business, they realize the goal of every business is to make as much money as possible. 

The Dodgers merch sales are split among all teams, aren't they? I thought I read that but it may be football and not baseball.

[tiger2022]

33 minutes ago, Stormin said:

True - but some teams can sign a player to a 10 year $400M contract and they are called "serious about winning" when the team is  more serious about driving up franchise value.  Most teams will encounter a financially detrimental impact for huge contracts so they don't agree to those type of contracts.  In the end, it is more about $ than winning for every owner and every player.

This is stuff that 99% of people in the board already know.

But people get irrational when a player leaves to make more money as though that player owes the franchise something.

Edited 12 hours ago by tiger2022