MVN - Most Valuable Network

9 Responses to “still blaming the bats in Detroit”

1. tiff says:
   

   May 15th, 2008 at 4:57 am

   Sam, I’m sick. I’m so so sick. 40 games in and I WANT TO DIE.

   Unmitigated disaster, indeed.

2. JBOPP says:
   

   May 15th, 2008 at 7:09 am

   This really can’t be blamed on anybody but the injury and slump bug.

3. GRITTY says:
   

   May 15th, 2008 at 7:12 am

   No, it has nothing to do with injuries and everything with them playing with no grit!

   http://grittyandclutch.blogspot.com/2008/05/because-good-teams-form-voltron.html

4. Leslie Monteiro says:
   

   May 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

   This Tigers team is in trouble.

   I like to be optimistic, but the pitching continues to struggle, and the offense is just an enigma.

   I am beyond concerned if I was a Tigers fan.

   They are right in that in the race, but what makes anyone think the Tigers are going to be better.

5. Samara Pearlstein says:
   

   May 15th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

   The unmitigated disaster tag has gotten too much of a workout so far this season. Bleh.

   JBOPP, while injuries have certainly affected the team, they don’t go nearly far enough towards explaining the offensive struggles or, say, the issues of Bondo and Verlander this season. Sure, we can blame ‘em on the slump bug, but that’s the same thing as saying ‘our team temporarily sucks and we just don’t know why’. Which is what I said, but I broke it down by pitching vs hitting. :P

   Gritty, needz moar David Eckstein.

   Leslie, I would say that, for starters, 2007 makes many of us think the Tigers are going to be (have the potential to be?) better.

6. Geoff Beckman says:
   

   May 16th, 2008 at 9:25 am

   Having spent three years in the area during college, I know Tiger fans often have difficulty with intellectual pursuits. But I’m surprised this is so tough to figure out:

   1. The Tigers are third in runs scored (30 runs behind the leader) and last in runs allowed (79 runs behind the leader.

   2. The Tigers are scoring 4.54 runs per game, which is 0.07 runs less than they did in 2007.

   They’re allowing 5.41 runs a game– .49 runs more than they did a year ago.

   3. If we assume that each part of the team has a responsibility to help the team win– and say that four runs is the goal in any game, the components of the club break down this way:

   The offense has scored 4 or more runs 21 times and scored 5 or less 20 times.

   The pitching has allowed 4 runs or less 18 times and 5 or more 23 times.

   4. The offense has scored 8 or more runs– a number that should be sufficient for anyone– in eight games. The pitching has allowed 8 or more runs nine times.

   I don’t believe that pitching is 90% of the game– even though it is currently true for my team of choice The Indians notwithstanding, I think a team can win by scoring a lot of runs or preventing opponents from scoring.

   The Tigers pressed the envelope last year– they were second in runs scored and ninth in runs allowed. Yes, the offense has slipped to third– and, yes, it was expected to be a lot better.

   But the pitching has gone from substandard to dreadful– dead last in the league. The problem is the staff.

   Samars, I don’t really go in for gamesmanship– the practice of logging onto another club’s site and taunting the fans. However, I disagree with your statement that the 2008 club can’t possibly be this much worse than the 2007 team.

   1. The Tigers have a really old lineup. When a player passes the age of 30, there’s a 30% chance that he’s going to have a sudden, dramatic and permanent shift in level of ability. The percentage rises with each passing year.

   Seven of the nine opening day starters were 32 or older. Purging Jacque Jones didn’t help much– Marcus Thames is 31.

   Clete Thomas (24) and Matt Joyce (23) are the only guys besides Cabrera (25) and Granderson (27) who are young and have a chance to continue to play well.

   2. Jim Leyland has been managing for 20 years, covering four teams. Each time, he has overworked his starters to the point where they lost effectiveness or got injured.

   Most teams limit their starters to 100 pitches– a veteran might get 110-115 if the game is really tight and the bullpen isn’t so hot. Here’s a breakdown of the number of pitches Verlander threw per start last year:

   0-79: 1 start
   80-89: 1 start
   90-99: 9 starts
   100-109: 12 starts
   110-119: 7 starts
   120+ 2 starts

   That’s a lot of pitches for a guy who was 24– and he worked the same amount in 2006. And this is what Leyland refers to as protecting his pitcher’s arm.

   When he was managing Pittsburgh, he blew out Doug Drabek’s arm. In his last year with the Pirates (1992), Drabek threw

   100-109 pitches: 12 times
   110-119: 2 times
   120-129 : 7 times
   130-139: 4 times
   140+ 1 time

   His workloads in previous years were nearly as bad. Leyland is certainly responsible for his early decline, and also to the the arm woes that John Smiley had.

   In 1997, with Florida, he had 27-year-old Alex Fernandez throw 123, 128, 140, 137, 121, 124 and 121, with 12 other starts over 100. There were three other starts for which I don’t have pitch counts– since Fernandez went 7.1, 8 and 9 innings, he was (at the very least) over 100 in all three.

   Fernandez had to be shut down and never pitched successfully again.

   In 1999, with Colorado, Pedro Astacio crossed the 100-pitch barrier 26 times. In 19 of them, he made more than 110 pitches. In 10, he was over 120– and in four outings (132, 133, 134 and 153), he was over 130 pitches.

   I wouldn’t blame Leyland for Kenny Rogers– the guy is 43, after all. But Nate Robertson and Jeremy Bonderman have been over 100 pitches consistently, and I don’t see that it’s helped them.

   The danger zone for relievers isn’t as clearly established, but Leyland has worked his bullpens hard, compared to most managers (consecutive days, pitches per appearance).

   Oh, and it isn’t Leyland’s fault, but that’s also the problem with Dontrelle Willis. Wise Old “Trader Jack” McKeon let him throw 3,552 pitches in 2005, at age 23. He had 25 starts over the 100-pitch barrier that year. Joe Girardi had him throw 3,601 the next year; Fredi Gonzales had him throw 3,472.

   You can use the “you can prove anything with statistics” line if you like, but there’s no reason to think that aging veterans and pitchers who’ve been repeatedly pushed past the danger point are going to regain their form. There’s too much evidence to the contrary.

   I’d hope that if I were a Tiger fan… but I sure wouldn’t expect it to happen. I think Chicago is going to drop below Detroit.

   Minnesota and KC, I don’t know. They have a lot of holes, but they also have a lot of interesting players. If Billy Butler and Carlos Gomez hit, and Luke Hochevar and Kevin Slowey pitch, they could end up at or over .500 this year.

   I’m not that sold on the Indians– bad offense and erratic bullpen. But the rotation sure can pitch, and it looks like Grady Sizemore and Victor Martinez will keep them a few games over .500. If some if the young players (Asdrubal Cabrera, Franklin Gutierrez) right themselves, they could go higher.

7. Samara Pearlstein says:
   

   May 16th, 2008 at 10:17 am

   Geoff, you’re making some good points, but you’re also overlooking a lot of things. For one, most of Nate and Bondo’s innings were not pitched on Leyland’s watch. And yup, Verlander threw a lot of pitches last year– many of those pitches in pretty close games. He also had a lot of 5-6 inning starts where he threw 100+ pitches; if Leyland had taken him out after 4 innings in all of those starts, the bullpen would have suffered a lot more than it did last season.

   Of course this season the starters are going to pitch a lot. Leyland’s going to try to get them as deep in games as possible, even if they’re throwing a lot of pitches, because right out of the gate the Tigs lacked their two biggest weapons in relief, and despite some solid stretches the bullpen has been pretty much awful. You can’t blame Leyland for that. Any manager would do more or less the same thing in this situation. There isn’t really anything else you CAN do.

   Anyways (I feel like I’m always having to say this), if you read the actual post here you’ll see that I acknowledge the starting pitching as an issue, possibly The Issue right now, but “when it comes to undermining their own teammates, the bats are certainly the bigger culprits.” What I mean when I say that is that although the pitching has (in some ways inexplicably, and I don’t buy that it’s all pitching count) sucked rancid rat intestine this season, when they ARE good, the bats are majestically failing to help.

   We’ve addressed the age issue here before. It’s not like Tigers fans are unaware of it. Picking up Cabrera was supposed to be a step in the right direction there, because it cut down on our aged infield while at the same time giving us youth that was already, in baseball terms, matured enough to be useful. Hasn’t worked out like that.

   Do you seriously think Thames is not an improvement over Jacque Jones? Seriously? Just because Thames is over 30? Dude. No. I mean, I get that players who are 30+ and not pitchers or freaks of nature have this precipitous decline thing hanging over their heads, but they don’t turn into compost the second they leave their 20s. You could argue that Thames and Jones are a wash career-wise (more power from Thames, more OBP from Jones), and you could argue that neither one of them is exactly lighting up the world this season, but in 2008 Marcus Thames is an improvement over Jacque Jones.

   I’m also not willing to write off the rest of the lineup just because they happen to be 30 or older. Sorry. No. I tend to think that Placido Polanco, at the decrepit age of 32, has a much better chance of helping the team than Clete Thomas, who despite his usefully tender sub-30 age is batting something like .210 in AAA.

   //Samars [sic!], I don’t really go in for gamesmanship– the practice of logging onto another club’s site and taunting the fans. However, I disagree with your statement that the 2008 club can’t possibly be this much worse than the 2007 team.//

   Did I say that? Can you disagree with something I didn’t say? I’ve said the ‘08 team shouldn’t be worse than the ‘07 team, and I’ve said they should be playing loads better than they are now, and I know I’ve expressed amazed disbelief that they’re playing like they are right now, but I don’t think I’ve ever said they can’t possibly be worse than the ‘07 team.

   In fact if you go back and read that age-related post I linked earlier in this epic comment, you’ll see that before the season even started I was worried that this might turn out to be something of a rebuilding (ugh) year.

   Also, saying you “don’t really go in for gamesmanship” after starting your comment off by saying “Having spent three years in the area during college, I know Tiger fans often have difficulty with intellectual pursuits,” kind of makes the gamesmanship statement lipstick on a dead and rotting pig corpse, dontcha think? I know I do.

8. Geoff Beckman says:
   

   May 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

   Samara, let me apologize for getting your name wrong. My name is hard to spell too, and I know how annoying that is. if there had been any way I could have edited the post, I would have. I just hit the key next to the key I meant to hit.

   Your point about Roberston and Bonderman is noted. That’s one reason I didn’t chart them. But both guys were worked less hard in the pre-Leyland era.

   In 2005, Bonderman had only 7 games with 110+ pitches. He did have 12 games over 100, but most were 7.0 inning, 102-pitch efforts, where it is clear the manager chose not to remove him a batter early to keep him under a barrier that is admittedly arbitrary (the correct number to avoid abuse might be be 93 or 106, for all we know).

   Under Leyland in 2006, Bonderman had 8 starts over 110 pitches– one more than he did the year before.

   Last year, even though he clearly had issues, he still made 15 starts where he lasted over 100 pitches. .

   Robertson had three starts over 110 pitches in 2005 and eight where he was in the 100-109 range. That’s 11 total. Under Leyland, he had 18.

   Would it have been better to pull them sooner– even if it put more stress on a rickety bullpen? That’s a no-brainer. It’s much easier to obtain middle relievers (who pitch 60-100 innings) than starters. Also, if a starter’s arm goes bad, that’s often a permanent deal– at the very least, a 2-3 year recovery process.

   And, no. any manager wouldn’t ride his starters as hard as he can. Eric Wedge doesn’t, Mike Scioscia doesn’t, Terry Francona doesn’t and the folks in Oakland don’t. I’m trying very hard to be on my best behavior, but almost every manager not named Jim Leyland avoids this approach– the data shows what happens if you do..

   If you’re happy with one pennant-winning year and one season with 87 wins– in exchange for three guys who all look shopworn right now– I guess it was a good strategy.

   As for the age thing, I actually agreed with the decision to make the Marlins trade. My thinking was “The current configuration has 2-3 years before it goes poof. When it does, Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller won’t keep them in contention.

   “If Detroit tries to work them in, while trying to contend, it might work and it might not. The odds of them beating the Twins, Indians and White Sox– each of whom might bust out a 95-win season in the next year or two– are kinda iffy.

   “Going all-in gives Detroit a shot at winning it all– and if they get the farm system in gear, reinforcements might arrive fast enough to help the club avoid the worst part of a collapse.”

   However, if the goal was to get younger, Detroit would have been better going with Maybin and Miller.

   My point is that playing a lineup that’s mostly in its 30’s is a risk. The wheels can come off those guys at any point. To name two guys with ties to both our clubs, the end came for Travis Fryman and Sean Casey a lot faster than anyone expected.

   And, no, I wouldn’t play Thomas over Polanco– I prefer not to play centerfielders at second base (even though you guys did win a World Series doing something like that once).

   Over Thames? In a heartbeat. Thames doesn’t cover much ground and his on-base percentage has never been higher than .333. That’s bad for an outfielder. He’s had only two years (2004 and 2006) where his power was good enough to justify that negative. He’s 31 and the odds of him ever having another decent year are very low.

   Thomas isn’t a great prospect, but he can cover some ground (nice to have in your park), he’s hit .311, .257 and .280 in his three years in the minors, he draws some walks, hits some doubles and triples and can steal a base.

   I’d be happy to give him some playing time and see what he can do..He’s hitting .185 in AAA– but I assume he got into a funk when he was sent down despite his .295 average.

   I don’t know if I’d play Thomas over Matt Joyce (a better prospect). But one could argue that I don’t have to make that choice. Gary Sheffield is 39, always getting hurt and hitting .196. He’s not exactly the sort of steady veteran you want on a struggling team and it might be time to consider giving him the Frank Thomas treatment, as well.

   Granted I’ve been warped by the 30 years the Indians spent in the toilet, trading young players like Jay Bell for Felix Fermin. Visit my neck of the woods and you’ll find me arguing for Asdrubal Cabrera over Jamey Carroll and Josh Barfield– and Andy Marte over Casey Blake.

   But I like young players, because they have the capability to surprise you. If Thomas or Joyce isn’t ready, Jeff Larish might be. And I don’t know what Ryan Raburn has to do to get some time either.

   Finally, I’ll plead guilty to warping your words a bit– I should have written that more fairly than I did. But the difference between “they should be playing loads better than they are right now” and what I said you said isn’t that spacious.

   The crack about intellectual pursuits will have to stand. Too many arguments about whether Russ Thomas should be fired (and now Matt Millen) for me to think too highly of the Motown sports fan.

9. Samara Pearlstein says:
   

   May 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

   Let’s not forget that Bondo’s first inning struggles blossomed last year. Again, yesssss, he threw a lot of pitches, but he threw an unusual lot of them in the first inning and then often settled down. Unless Leyland was willing to pull him after an inning in all of his starts, with a pattern like that he was of course going to throw a load of 100+ pitch games.

   Let’s also not forget that Bondo’s issues began way, way before Leyland, and that regardless of what Leyland is doing with/to him now, it’s small peanuts compared to 2003 and all that disaster. Bondo was pitching at the big league level after one season of single-A ball. This is in no way Jim Leyland’s fault.

   When Leyland leaves starters in, this season, he’s not doing so out of some evil conspiracy to load up their arms. Keeping pitchers’ arms safe should be a consideration, of course, but you’re missing the point. Leyland’s choice is not ‘ruin starter arms’ vs. ‘ruin reliever arms’. It’s ‘potentially hurt starters, keep games win-able’ vs. ‘everyone’s arms are happy, lose games’. Winning ballgames is the point. Cleveland isn’t dealing with that kind of decision right now. Nor is Boston, even with their current bullpen issues, in as dire bullpen straits as Detroit. Nor are the Angels. So on and so forth.

   Thames isn’t really a starter. He’s at best a platoon guy and Detroit has always been aware of that. My point wasn’t that he’s a better starting outfielder than, say, Clete Thomas; my point was that he’s a better platoon outfielder than Jacque Jones (since that’s the comparison, purging Jones for Thames, that you had made). Which, even factoring in Jones’ mystical leftyness, he is.

   My point with Clete/Polanco also had nothing to do with fielding and everything to do with the lineup. I don’t think guys like Polanco are dead meat just yet, and I don’t think loading the lineup with mediocre AAAA-types like Clete is the answer, even though the quaddies are, gasp! younger.

   Gary Sheffield should be on the DL. I don’t know why he isn’t, and I’ll grant you that if it’s Leyland keeping him off the DL right now, that’s 100% Leyland’s fault.

   Larish plays a position that the big league club does not need filled right now, that’s the problem with him.

   I reckon the difference between shaking my head in disgust and disbelief and saying ‘they’re better than this, they should be playing better than this’ and someone saying ‘THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN BE WORSE THAN LAST YEAR’ is enough to note. Everyone on the PLANET expected this team to be better than they are right now; evidently those expectations were overblown, but they also weren’t based on magical unicorn candy poops. There’s still plenty of reason to believe that this team has the capacity to play baseball. They just keep finding new and exciting ways to undermine that capacity.

   That, a heaping serving of bad luck and a dash of the Spazzosaurus will get you a sub-.500 season.

   Please don’t conflate football and baseball fans, especially Lions fans, who are all mad from continuous rage and grief anyways. I can’t speak about Russ Thomas, that was before my day, but firing Millen, while it would make us all feel good, won’t do anything so long as we can’t fire the Fords.

Leave a comment