2025-2026 Tigers Off Season Thread

[casimir]

3 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

Too bad Scherzer just signed.  Perhap McCosky can help us identify some more “old friends”

I don’t think they’re going to find MLB type options right now.  Not unless one of the current rotation goes down.

[Longgone]

9 hours ago, tiger2022 said:

Meadows is not going to hit much.  He doesn't have the skills with the bat.  I think his avg will be around .210 and maybe 15 home runs.  Is that enough to keep him in the lineup?  Probably depends on how the other guys do.

Aren't you a joy. Meadows is already a .232 hitter in his young mlb career. He hit .215 last year, injured, with a .280 babip. If he's healthy and maintains his swing adjustments, he should be fine, anyway, I don't see the rationale for your pessimism.

[tiger2022]

19 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Aren't you a joy. Meadows is already a .232 hitter in his young mlb career. He hit .215 last year, injured, with a .280 babip. If he's healthy and maintains his swing adjustments, he should be fine, anyway, I don't see the rationale for your pessimism.

It's a message board.  If you get all bent out of shape because someone says something you don't agree with, you might want to disconnect from the internet.

[Longgone]

3 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

It's a message board.  If you get all bent out of shape because someone says something you don't agree with, you might want to disconnect from the internet.

Who's bent? I said I don't see the rationale. If you get all bent out of shape if someone questions your rationale, maybe you should disconnect from the internet.

[Screwball]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

I had none of the 5 tools.  A reverse Yahtzee.

It was simple back then. I really get a kick out of the stats you guys use. I think Earl Weaver was ahead of his time using index cards. Now look what we have.

You can't teach speed. That was my real point. They timed me with a sun dial.

[Shades of Deivi Cruz]

I have very little confidence in Parker Meadows as a contributor on offense. (I almost used Offensive Contributor, but that could be interpreted either way... LOL)  I hope I'm wrong about that, but I just haven't seen it from him on a consistent basis. You can blame injuries if you want, but it still remains that he has been largely a disappointment at the plate when he's been out there. He's certainly still young enough to get back to the stretch where he was a fantastic looking leadoff hitter, but for me that leash is getting pretty short.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Shades of Deivi Cruz said:

I have very little confidence in Parker Meadows as a contributor on offense. (I almost used Offensive Contributor, but that could be interpreted either way... LOL)  I hope I'm wrong about that, but I just haven't seen it from him on a consistent basis. You can blame injuries if you want, but it still remains that he has been largely a disappointment at the plate when he's been out there. He's certainly still young enough to get back to the stretch where he was a fantastic looking leadoff hitter, but for me that leash is getting pretty short.

I'm waiting to see if he has changed his stance at all. He could not get to strikes at the bottom of the zone last season so I'll be less pessimistic if we see an attempt at a setup change.

[casimir]

Are we sleeping on Trei Cruz making the roster?

[casimir]

12 hours ago, Screwball said:

It was simple back then. I really get a kick out of the stats you guys use. I think Earl Weaver was ahead of his time using index cards. Now look what we have.

You can't teach speed. That was my real point. They timed me with a sun dial.

There was a guy on here (MTS at the time) that went to an amateur Tiger try out.  I think he tried 2B or LF.  I think he knew nothing would come of it, but wanted to go anyway.  That was a while ago.

I think the grade scale was 20-80.  I never understood why it started at 20 and ended at 80.  Somebody has that answer.  @gehringer_2?  @Edman85?

[Hongbit]

25 minutes ago, casimir said:

There was a guy on here (MTS at the time) that went to an amateur Tiger try out.  I think he tried 2B or LF.  I think he knew nothing would come of it, but wanted to go anyway.  That was a while ago.

I think the grade scale was 20-80.  I never understood why it started at 20 and ended at 80.  Somebody has that answer.  @gehringer_2?  @Edman85?

They are ranking using the bell curve and it’s easier to scale 20-80 than 0-100.   It’s more of a math and probability thing than baseball.  They used to do the same thing with the SAT test.  

[Screwball]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

There was a guy on here (MTS at the time) that went to an amateur Tiger try out.  I think he tried 2B or LF.  I think he knew nothing would come of it, but wanted to go anyway.  That was a while ago.

I think the grade scale was 20-80.  I never understood why it started at 20 and ended at 80.  Somebody has that answer.  @gehringer_2?  @Edman85?

I only knew about the 40 scale. 5 tools, each worth 2 to 8 points. Hit = 6, hit for power= 5, arm= 6, catch=5, run=7. Total = 29 out of 40. That was how you were rated. 

They had you run a 60 yard dash - the distance from home to second base. IIRC, back in the 70s you had be be under 7.2 or you were immediately gone.

[Tiger337]

31 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

They are ranking using the bell curve and it’s easier to scale 20-80 than 0-100.   It’s more of a math and probability thing than baseball.  They used to do the same thing with the SAT test.  

yes, make 50 the average and 10 the standard deviation because 50 sounds like average between 0 and 100 and 10 is a round number.  

On a bell curve, 68% fall between 40 and 60, so that's thats where most of the players fall.

95% fall between 50 and 70, so 70 is really good

99% fall between 20 and 80, so 80 suggests a very rare player and this is why there are so few 80s.  

A couple of problems with this are:

(1) the scouting scale is not a measurement.  It is a categorical variable where players are placed into buckets rather than a assigned a number like 47 or 47.3.  The most precise numbers are usually in steps of 80, 75, 70, 65, 60., etc.  

(2) The distribution of talent is not normal.  It is skewed with more individuals clustered around lower numbers and fewer at the high end.