2022 DETROIT TIGERS REGULAR SEASON THREAD

[sabretooth]

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

baseball history is full of one year wonders.  baddoo could very well be on the joe charboneau path.

Absolutely

[sabretooth]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I get that argument that bad coaching shouldn't affect everyone because there are a lot of guys who are self coached to the point where they aren't going to be paying much attention to team coaching anyway and so you should get a distribution of guys having normal years. But on the other hand I also believe there is a team synergy to hitting. The more men on base and the more scoring pressure a team puts on the opposition pitcher, the more that stress should result in improved opportunities for your hitters. I don't know how many BA points it might be worth, but I think the effect is probably real.

That said, one of the Tigers' biggest single problems this season is either not swinging at or not barreling up the opposition pitcher's hittable mistakes - I don't know how you explain that.

Oustanding points, I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

The last time I checked, it seemed that most/nearly all of the guys who have been struggling have seen a reduction in Ks and lower LA, fewer barrels and softer hits.

It **may** be that they have been coached/encouraged to emphasize contact, which may have had they consequence of canceling out the mediocre power they started out with.

[Tiger337]

39 minutes ago, buddha said:

baseball history is full of one year wonders.  baddoo could very well be on the joe charboneau path.

Charboneau was a legend!  He was 25 when he did it though.  I would bet that there are more 25 year old one year wonders than 22 year old.  

[buddha]

robbie grossman: 200/302/307 with atlanta.

maybe the braves need to fix their video machine?

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I get that argument that bad coaching shouldn't affect everyone because there are a lot of guys who are self coached to the point where they aren't going to be paying much attention to team coaching anyway and so you should get a distribution of guys having normal years. But on the other hand I also believe there is a team synergy to hitting. The more men on base and the more scoring pressure a team puts on the opposition pitcher, the more that stress should result in improved opportunities for your hitters. I don't know how many BA points it might be worth, but I think the effect is probably real.

That said, one of the Tigers' biggest single problems this season is either not swinging at or not barreling up the opposition pitcher's hittable mistakes - I don't know how you explain that.

I think where bad coaching can manifest itself is when things start going wrong.

A lot of players, perhaps most of them, already come into a situation with their own high level of hitting proficiency and when things are going well, everything is great. But eventually, everybody gets a hitch in their swing that gets reinforced with repitition, causes them to stop hitting the ball so well, and they start making more outs. When that happens, the ability of the staff’s hitting coach to identify and help them repair their swing is crucial. If he can’t do that, especially in-season, the hitter may be screwed until at least the winter when he has time to work things out for himself, or with his Driveline guy.

And if everyone on a team gets the swing hitch bug at the same time and the hitting coach isn’t capable of helping, it might be a case of guys just trying to help each other out with whatever is helping themselves, but inevitably failing because every ballplayer’s needs re: hitting instruction are unique and different.

I’ve been wondering for some time whether this is the case with the Tigers.

Edited September 6, 2022 by chasfh

[Dan Gilmore]

While it doesn’t really explain the widespread failure of most of the current teams hitters, I think minor or chronic injuries account for some of it. Candy had his wrist injury a few years ago, and couldn’t hit until it got better. Is it back, in a lesser form? We know about Miggy. Do enough of the other players experiencing power outages have lingering issues that account for down years? Schoop is one we have talked about-the thought was that he is still fielding well, so he’s okay. Hitting is different.
 

Since athletes tend to want to keep playing and “work through it” coupled with a long season, getting them to let things heal isn’t going to happen that often. We had the reduced Spring Training this year, and maybe poorer conditioning/more injury as a result. A good team with depth could overcome much of that. A poor team without depth…

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

robbie grossman: 200/302/307 with atlanta.

maybe the braves need to fix their video machine?

The recent results from Robbie make the small hot stretch he had after the trade look a lot like the couple of games he had against the Rangers when he was still with the Tigers.... a small dead cat bounce with water reaching level afterward.

I do think the Braves may have been a little too quick to declare victory on this one....

[buddha]

Just now, mtutiger said:

The recent results from Robbie make the small hot stretch he had after the trade look a lot like the couple of games he had against the Rangers when he was still with the Tigers.... a small dead cat bounce with water reaching level afterward.

I do think the Braves may have been a little too quick to declare victory on this one....

maybe cody will write a correction in the athletic?

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

While it doesn’t really explain the widespread failure of most of the current teams hitters, I think minor or chronic injuries account for some of it. Candy had his wrist injury a few years ago, and couldn’t hit until it got better. Is it back, in a lesser form? We know about Miggy. Do enough of the other players experiencing power outages have lingering issues that account for down years? Schoop is one we have talked about-the thought was that he is still fielding well, so he’s okay. Hitting is different.
 

Since athletes tend to want to keep playing and “work through it” coupled with a long season, getting them to let things heal isn’t going to happen that often. We had the reduced Spring Training this year, and maybe poorer conditioning/more injury as a result. A good team with depth could overcome much of that. A poor team without depth…

Injuries could be part of it for a couple of players - Candelario, Baez and Grossman (before he was traded) all had stints on the IL and one wonders whether there has been any impact there. (Not an excuse, but perhaps a partial explanation).

Again to preface that this isn't an excuse either, but for some of the hitters perceived to be more impact players coming into the season, it may just be harder to hit in a lineup when doesn't scare the other team. Javy would be Exhibit "A".... in the past, he's always been more of a complementary piece rather than being the guy. If he's on the Mets again this year, he likely blends in and might end up seeing better pitches to hit, not so much with this lineup.... there's no place to hide when you're being backed up with the Castro Brothers

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

maybe cody will write a correction in the athletic?

I doubt it, I believe he explained on last week's podcast that even the fact that he was talking to the media and suggesting that the Braves had been proactive coming to him with ways to address issues in his swing still reflected poorly on the Tigers even if he had cooled down.

Obviously do not disagree with him on that, but knowing that, I do think The Athletic may have been too quick to swallow the narrative put forward by the Braves/Grossman as well.

[buddha]

Just now, mtutiger said:

I doubt it, I believe he explained on last week's podcast that even the fact that he was talking to the media and suggesting that the Braves had been proactive coming to him with ways to address issues in his swing still reflected poorly on the Tigers even if he had cooled down.

Obviously do not disagree with him on that, but knowing that, I do think The Athletic may have been too quick to swallow the narrative put forward by the Braves/Grossman as well.

i think cody (and/or his organizational sources) dont think much of al avila.

which is understandable for all the reasons stated here for the last decade, but he comes across as a little biased against al and very pro aj.

[chasfh]

Cody didn’t like Al because he thought Al didn’t make himself available enough to the media, especially as the team was spiraling downward. Same as it ever was. Although this doesn’t mean Cody is wrong, necessarily …

[bobrob2004]

The Tigers have a .288 winning% over their last 52 games.  If they continue at that pace for the rest of the year, they'll finish at 59-103.  

[mtutiger]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think cody (and/or his organizational sources) dont think much of al avila.

which is understandable for all the reasons stated here for the last decade, but he comes across as a little biased against al and very pro aj.

Cody is the best writer on the beat and I don't have much to criticize him for, tbh. To the extent that I do, I think there's a tendency to pass along comments like the ones about Grossman or to share the comment he heard about the draft room being 80/20 for drafting Neto without much of the context that comes with it. And the readership / listenership just tends to accept that as fact without thinking about the greater context.

The latter comment is a particularly good example, the difficulty I have with just swallowing that uncritically are the power dynamics at play inside the Tigers right now; with Al gone, and not without reason, he makes a pretty convenient scapegoat, particularly for employees who are still employed by the team and may be worried about their future given all the changes on the horizon (in other words, current employees wanting to differentiate / launder themselves of the Avila era).

To be clear, I am not saying that what was said isn't true or, at the very least doesn't have some truth to it. But as we should all know by now, whether it's politics or sports, people talk anonymously to the media for a reason.

Edited September 6, 2022 by mtutiger

[Jim Cowan]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

maybe cody will write a correction in the athletic?

I hope so.  Maybe Hinch will retract what he said about the Tigers' capabilities?

[buddha]

3 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

I hope so.  Maybe Hinch will retract what he said about the Tigers' capabilities?

the only thing less likely than cody praising avila is you praising aj.  😉

[casimir]

Cumulative regular season records since Opening Day 2017:

The Tigers have clinched the worst or next to worst record over that time frame.

Yes, I'm saying there's a chance.

[oblong]

and Baltimore would be in first place in the AL Central... but they are clearly the outlier for the bottom 8 on that list, relative to today's standins.

 

[chasfh]

That puts these LA Dodgers in the conversation of greatest team of the modern era:

Team	W	L	Pct	Start	Finish
CHC	621	295	.678	1905	1910
CHC	621	296	.677	1906	1911
CHC	610	305	.667	1904	1909
STL	606	319	.655	1941	1946
CHC	588	312	.653	1903	1908
NYY	599	320	.652	1937	1942
CHC	597	319	.652	1907	1912
NYY	598	320	.651	1936	1941
PHA	596	321	.650	1927	1932
NYY	592	321	.648	1934	1939
NYY	595	324	.647	1938	1943
STL	598	328	.646	1942	1947
LAD	545	300	.645	2017	2022
STL	592	330	.642	1940	1945
NYY	586	327	.642	1935	1940
PHA	585	328	.641	1926	1931
NYY	590	331	.641	1949	1954
NYY	585	329	.640	1932	1937
PHA	582	328	.640	1909	1914
STL	589	332	.640	1939	1944
NYY	589	332	.640	1950	1955

What makes them more remarkable is that they are the most recent team on this list by some seven decades. Every other team listed here played in an eight-team league, not a fifteen-team league.

[Tenacious D]

On 9/6/2022 at 9:31 AM, bobrob2004 said:

The Tigers have a .288 winning% over their last 52 games.  If they continue at that pace for the rest of the year, they'll finish at 59-103.  

59 wins feels like a reach. 

[casimir]

One would think with all of that losing, the Tigers would have a pretty darn good farm system, what with all of the benefits of drafting high and bonus dollars that come with those slots.

[buddha]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

That puts these LA Dodgers in the conversation of greatest team of the modern era:

Team	W	L	Pct	Start	Finish
CHC	621	295	.678	1905	1910
CHC	621	296	.677	1906	1911
CHC	610	305	.667	1904	1909
STL	606	319	.655	1941	1946
CHC	588	312	.653	1903	1908
NYY	599	320	.652	1937	1942
CHC	597	319	.652	1907	1912
NYY	598	320	.651	1936	1941
PHA	596	321	.650	1927	1932
NYY	592	321	.648	1934	1939
NYY	595	324	.647	1938	1943
STL	598	328	.646	1942	1947
LAD	545	300	.645	2017	2022
STL	592	330	.642	1940	1945
NYY	586	327	.642	1935	1940
PHA	585	328	.641	1926	1931
NYY	590	331	.641	1949	1954
NYY	585	329	.640	1932	1937
PHA	582	328	.640	1909	1914
STL	589	332	.640	1939	1944
NYY	589	332	.640	1950	1955

What makes them more remarkable is that they are the most recent team on this list by some seven decades. Every other team listed here played in an eight-team league, not a fifteen-team league.

turn of the century cubs count as "modern baseball"?

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

turn of the century cubs count as "modern baseball"?

Incredibly, yes. Anything 1901 or later is "modern baseball".

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Incredibly, yes. Anything 1901 or later is "modern baseball".

I have seen that definition of modern baseball most frequently, but is it still widely recognized as such?  The Hall of Fame  considers anything from 1980 forward to be contemporary and anything prior to be classic.  I am also seeing more and more people refer to 1947 as the beginning of the modern era.     

[buddha]

7 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I have seen that definition of modern baseball most frequently, but is it still widely recognized as such?  The Hall of Fame  considers anything from 1980 forward to be contemporary and anything prior to be classic.  I am also seeing more and more people refer to 1947 as the beginning of the modern era.     

i guess you could use 1947 because of jackie robinson.  i would probably put it in the 1920s with ruth and the beginning of the movement away from the cobb era of small ball.