Detroit Tigers World Series Thread

[The Critic]

Congratulations to the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals!!!

If it couldn't be the Sox, at least it was my favorite National League team.

 

But it is with heavy hearts that we all must OFFICIALLY declare the Sox' title reign.....OVA.

 

In my mind, Eckstein is the MVP of this series.

[greasywheels121]

Congrats Cardinals!

 

[The Critic]

This celebration is making me jealous that the Sox won on the road.

How great does that have to be for the Cards fans?

[ShoeLessRob]

Watching them win only makes me wish one thing, That we could have won it at home.

[Baines3]

The worst display of baseball (by the Tigers) in a world series I've seen in a long time.

[aboz56]

This is comical, the Cardinals wouldn't even be a playoff team in the AL and they win it.

 

Worst team to ever win the Series by far.

[Rowand44]

Eh?

 

W00T THE OFFSEASON STARTS NOW

[The Critic]

This is comical, the Cardinals wouldn't even be a playoff team in the AL and they win it.

 

Worst team to ever win the Series by far.

Yeah, and it's gonna say that on the trophy, too.

They played well enough to be better than the team they played against.

That's all they needed to do.

[greasywheels121]

I have to say the WS hats are uglier this year. We lucked out there, but I could be bias.

[greasywheels121]

I said this in the other thread.

 

Can I ask why when there is a cinderella story in the NCAA tourney, everyone loves them, but the Cards pull off the huge upset in the playoffs, and its horrible...

 

Good point. And in MLB you could say the most deserving team wins it, as opposed to college basketball. If you have one off night in basketball, you're done (I'm not saying that's a bad thing).

 

However, in baseball you have to prove it night after night through three series; the Cardinals deserve the trophy.

[The Critic]

Eckstein wins the MVP, as he should have.

He was in the middle of everything good that happened to St. Louis in the Series.

[knightni]

Sayonara Tiggers!

 

[ZoomSlowik]

(1) Tonight is a must-win situation for them. They can't think about Game 6 or Game 7 at this point. They have to put their best lineup on the field tonight and win.

 

(2) Rogers is their ace and it's his turn in the rotation to start anyway.

 

(3) Rogers' home/road splits are essentially the same in terms of WHIP (1.25 vs. 1.26).

 

(4) Rogers on the mound tonight takes the pressure of pitching on the road off of the rest of the younger staff.

 

(5) Verlander was awful in Game 1 and was throwing about 4-5 mph slower than usual (most likely a "dead arm"). Why not give him another two days to rest it?

 

I have a lot of respect for Leyland as a manager but unless he knows something that he's not sharing with the rest of us, I think that his decision to pitch Verlander tonight is bone-headed.

 

1) Every game from here on out is a must win situation, so realistically that's pretty irrelevant. Rogers can't pitch in all of them, so you have to pick which must win game he is going to pitch in. You're going to need Verlander to win a game anyways, so you need to decide where he has the best shot. I'm going to assume that Leyland felt that this was his best shot, otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

 

2) That might be the case, but having MORE rest in the playoffs isn't really a concern. In fact you said that it would benefit Verlander in a later point, which is contradicting yourself.

 

3) Home/Road shouldn't really matter at this point at all, and I never brought that up. If Leyland felt that it was a deciding factor, I'd tend to trust his judgement, though I personally wouldn't consider it.

 

4) That one I can buy, and I mentioned that.

 

5) If pitching on 9 DAYS of rest in his last start didn't help, I don't see how it suddenly would now.

 

In this particular case, I can see the logic because I could see why you wouldn't start a rookie on the road. However, that's the conventional wisdom, and I don't really why you'd pitch Rogers in the first potential elimination game automatically. Most of the time you're going to end up screwing yourself down the road.

 

For instance, Gardenhire said before game 3 that Santana would be his guy in game 4, which made no sense to me. If he had done that, he would have been stuck with Boof Bonser going against Barry Zito in game 5 (assuming that they won game 4 of course), which gives you a lower probability of winning than pitching Bonser against Harden in game 4, who hadn't gone a full start in a while.

 

In the end Verlander pitched pretty well. You're not going to win too many games when you only score 2 runs, especially when you also commit 2 errors. If they had won this game, they would have been in pretty good shape to win the series with Rogers and Bonderman going in the last two, which is your ultimate goal. Winning game 5 at all costs doesn't really get you anywhere in the long run, that's kind of like using your closer in the 7th inning.

Edited October 28, 2006 by ZoomSlowik

[The Ginger Kid]

Leyland should've pitched Rogers tonight. Worse, for him to say the reason he's not is because of the heat he would catch from Cardinal fans says a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of Kenny Rogers.

 

But I have to say that Leyland is a terrific manager. What he did with this team this year is amazing. He damn near won it all. He got career years out of some guys and made them believe they could do it. But he couldn't overcome the sloppy play that has been their trademark all year.

 

On paper, the 2007 Tigers will be better. But so were the 2006 White Sox, and they didn't wet their pants in the world series like the kitties just did. Detroit had their shot....and missed.

[CWSGuy406]

No, my basis is watching them during the regular season. They weren't good defensively then and they've been looking horrible recently.

 

Oh, right. No hard evidence, just your eyes. Right....

 

LOL. Are you joking? Igne is NOT one of the top defensive third basemen in the league.

 

Well, you're just flat-out wrong on that. Ranked the top 3B in ZR.

 

 

Look -- honestly, it's really tough to debate with someone who is ignorant to or doesn't believe in the stats I use. Detroit had an awful defensive series, you won't get an argument out of me there. Just look at Inge's throw against Eck in the game yesterday -- had plenty of time, but STILL threw it away. Defensive Efficiency is the best way to measure team defense, whether or not you believe it. Detroit was a good defensive team who had an awful series, and that's all my drunk ass can say at the moment.

[3 BeWareTheNewSox 5]

And finally, no more 05 Sox comparisons! (as far as Detroit goes btw. I personally will be referencing 05 for the rest of my life : )

Edited October 28, 2006 by 3 BeWareTheNewSox 5

[Balta1701]

Leyland should've pitched Rogers tonight. Worse, for him to say the reason he's not is because of the heat he would catch from Cardinal fans says a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of Kenny Rogers.

 

But I have to say that Leyland is a terrific manager. What he did with this team this year is amazing. He damn near won it all. He got career years out of some guys and made them believe they could do it. But he couldn't overcome the sloppy play that has been their trademark all year.

 

On paper, the 2007 Tigers will be better. But so were the 2006 White Sox, and they didn't wet their pants in the world series like the kitties just did. Detroit had their shot....and missed.

In hindsight alone, yes Rogers should have pitched tonight, but only because Verlander couldnt' out-pitch 2 runs in 8 innings. Aside from the White Sox last year, that's a rough task to ask any pitcher to make, especially if no one else on that pitching staff knows how to throw the ball to a base.

 

Verlander was not bad tonight. Weaver was just better. Do you not pitch your possible best pitcher just because some guy who was cut by the Angels might have pitched better? Do you pitch Verlander against Carpenter or Reyes in game 6?

 

Rogers could have pitched tonight and lost just as easily, pitching without the crowd behind him. Fact is, during the regular season, Rogers had an ERA of 3.26 at home and 4.41 on the road. Verlander put up a 3.31 at Detroit and a 3.91 away. Those numbers favor Verlander. Rogers pitching doesn't have the crowd behind him, doesn't have emotion behind him, and doesn't have the umps helping him.

 

You can debate Rogers Vs. Verlander ad nauseum, but the reality is both of them had to win, and Verlander was better on the road than Rogers this season, and Rogers was better in Detroit.

[Baines3]

What the Tigers did was the biggest choke job of all time.

[WCSox]

Winning game 5 at all costs doesn't really get you anywhere in the long run, that's kind of like using your closer in the 7th inning.

 

Winning Game 5 at all costs puts you in the best possible position to stay alive in the series... and that's the most important thing at that point. I wouldn't have pitched Rogers on three days rest or anything, but since it was his spot in the rotation, I would've given him the nod. Agreed that Verlander pitched pretty well. But I wouldn't have started him last night. JMO.

 

Leyland should've pitched Rogers tonight. Worse, for him to say the reason he's not is because of the heat he would catch from Cardinal fans says a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of Kenny Rogers.

 

Kenny Rogers is a hot-headed douche. All the talent in the world, but nothing between the ears. No wonder he's never won anything.

 

But I have to say that Leyland is a terrific manager. What he did with this team this year is amazing. He damn near won it all. He got career years out of some guys and made them believe they could do it.

 

[WCSox]

Oh, right. No hard evidence, just your eyes. Right....

 

Anyone who knows anything about baseball will tell you that you can't gauge defensive prowess by only looking at stats. You have to actually watch the games. From the 15 or so Tigers games that I watched on the Extra Innings package this summer, I concluded that the Tigers are a below-average defensive team. Their outfielders get bad reads on balls, their middle infield is average at best, and Inge does surprisingly little with his very good range. And when the pressure was on in the WS, they corroborated my analysis by playing the worst defense I've ever seen from a league champion.

 

Well, you're just flat-out wrong on that. Ranked the top 3B in ZR.

 

LOL, when will you stat-heads ever learn?

 

Inge is good, but certainly not in the same category as Crede or Rolen. He's not an elite defensive 3B.

 

Look -- honestly, it's really tough to debate with someone who is ignorant to or doesn't believe in the stats I use.

 

Funny, I consider those who don't watch baseball games to be the "ignorant" ones.

 

Defensive Efficiency is the best way to measure team defense, whether or not you believe it.

 

Watching baseball games is the best way to measure team defense, whether or not you believe it.

 

Detroit was a good mediocre defensive team who had an awful series, and that's all my drunk ass can say at the moment.

 

Fixed

Edited October 28, 2006 by WCSox

[CWSGuy406]

Anyone who knows anything about baseball will tell you that you can't gauge defensive prowess by looking at stats.

 

Let me fix that for you:

 

"I don't know what the hell your stats mean, and I don't care to actually learn and find out. By saying 'Anyone who knows anyone about baseball', I'm talking about other people like me who are ignorant to the stats as well."

 

their middle infield is average at best, and Inge does surprisingly little with his very good range.

 

Placido Polanco is 'average'? I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no f***ing clue what you're talking about.

 

Since you don't believe the stats, let's see what the 'fans', who watched that Tiger team day-in, day-out had to say. Based on Tango Tiger's Fan Scouting Report, 60 fans cast ballots for Inge's overall defensive play. He rated a 79 in a system where 50 is average. And, if you choose to click my link, you won't have to worry about new fangled stats or anything of the like.

 

So, let's see -- a combined group of over 110 people believe that Polanco and Inge are above average. The stats say the two are above average. But, by golly, your eyes tell you they're not that good, so damnit, you must be right!

 

 

And when the pressure was on in the WS, they corroborated my analysis by playing the worst defense I've ever seen from a league champion.

 

I can't argue with that; they choked hard in the Series.

 

Inge is good, but certainly not in the same category as Crede or Rolen. He's not an elite defensive 3B.

 

I'm not going to say who's better out of Crede and Inge. I think most would say Rolen is better than both. I'd say that Crede has better 'hands', but Inge has more range. From the short time I've seen Inge, I think his arm is stronger -- that'd make sense, seeing that he was a catcher just a couple of years prior -- but Crede's is more accurate.

 

Funny, I consider those who don't watch baseball games to be the "ignorant" ones.

 

Oh, right, cause stat-heads don't actually watch the games. They just look at the spreadsheets, right? Did you come up with that one all by your wittle self?

 

Watching baseball games is the best way to measure team defense, whether or not you believe it.

 

Watching baseball goes into it, as do stats. Just because your too ignorant to realize that the study in defensive statistics is getting better and is light-years ahead of where it was just five years ago, that's not my problem.

 

Let's see: the fans who watch the Tigers more often than either of us tend to believe their team is a top defensive team. The stats back up the fact that they're a top defensive team. But you know what -- your eyes tell you they're bad, so you MUST be right.

 

I really can't argue with someone who chooses to be as hard-headed as you are being at the moment.

[Baines3]

Unless Detroit really improves that team no way will they repeat. Tigers were the most overrated team to ever play in the World Series.

 

 

The 2006 White Sox could have beat both teams in the WS!

[WCSox]

Let me fix that for you:

 

"I don't know what the hell your stats mean, and I don't care to actually learn and find out. By saying 'Anyone who knows anyone about baseball', I'm talking about other people like me who are ignorant to the stats as well."

 

I know what your stats mean and agree that they have some value, but I'm also intelligent enough to know that they don't tell the entire story and that there's no substitute for watching the game.

 

Placido Polanco is 'average'? I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no f***ing clue what you're talking about.

 

The "middle infield" is average, half of which consists of Carlos Guillen. You know, the guy who misplayed Eckstein's routine ground ball last night, allowing him to reach and eventually score? You're not reading my posts very carefully.

 

So, let's see -- a combined group of over 110 people believe that Polanco and Inge are above average. The stats say the two are above average. But, by golly, your eyes tell you they're not that good, so damnit, you must be right!

 

I never said that they weren't. In fact, I said that Inge was pretty good. Why don't you try reading my posts next time.

 

Did you come up with that one all by your wittle self?

 

Typical condesceding comment from a teenage know-it-all. I realize that you're incredibly immature and have no idea how to debate an issue like an adult, so here's a little tip: ad hominem attacks don't help prove your point.

 

Watching baseball goes into it, as do stats. Just because your too ignorant to realize that the study in defensive statistics is getting better and is light-years ahead of where it was just five years ago, that's not my problem.

 

No doubt that Sabermetrics are useful and informative, but there's no substitute for sitting down and watching the games. That's why baseball teams paty scouts tons of money to do just that. Or did you forget about that?

 

Let's see: the fans who watch the Tigers more often than either of us tend to believe their team is a top defensive team....

 

... and who are completely unbiased. Good one!

 

Granted, I only watched about 15 Tigers game this season and most of them were against good teams (White/Red Sox, Yankees, etc.). Perhaps my analysis is biased in that regard. Then again, they proved my point in the WS by playing even worse (much worse) defense than I had seen during the regular season. If the Tigers really are as strong of a defensive team as you've suggested, they most likely wouldn't have committed EIGHT errors in a five-game series (not to mention several misplays that weren't recorded as errors). Or perhaps they only play solid defense against the Royals and Devil Rays, but fold in big games like Drew Bledsoe facing a blitz. Either way, they're not an elite defensive club.

 

I really can't argue with someone who chooses to be as hard-headed as you are being at the moment.

 

I really can't argue with somebody who is absolutely convinced that he knows everything and uses ad hominem attacks to suport his arguments. Grow up.

Edited October 28, 2006 by WCSox

[CWSGuy406]

The "middle infield" is average, half of which consists of Carlos Guillen. You know, the guy who misplayed Eckstein's routine ground ball last night, allowing him to reach and eventually score?

 

Yes, because one play makes someone a bad defender.

 

I think Guillen is average-to-slightly above average. You know how I feel about Polanco. I think their up-the-middle defense (including Pudge and Granderson) is probably the best in baseball. If it isn't the best, it's close.

 

I never said that they weren't. In fact, I said that Inge was pretty good. Why don't you try reading my posts next time.

 

Touche.

 

I realize that you're incredibly immature and have no idea how to debate an issue like an adult, so here's a little tip: ad hominem attacks don't help prove your point.

 

LOL. I resorted to ad hominem only because you resorted a hasty generalization first by making the typical "stat-heads don't watch the games" comment. I have little tolerance for people who are ignorant to make those types of false assumptions, and if I came off as a little 'over the top', or if you didn't mean it the way I took it as, then I apologize.

 

No doubt that Sabermetrics are useful and informative, but there's no substitute for sitting down and watching the games. That's why baseball teams paty scouts tons of money to do just that. Or did you forget about that?

 

Never said I have a problem with scouts. Both need to be used hand-in-hand.

 

I have evidence that the stats back up my position that the Tigers defense was good, and other people, who watched the team play daily tell me that the Tigers defense was good.

 

... and who are completely unbiased. Good one!

 

I consider the people who participated in the poll not of the detroittigers.com message board variety. I consider the people who participated to be intelligent people. Thus, you'll have to take my word (if you choose to or not is obviously in question) that the people voting in this are reasonably reliable.

 

Then again, they proved my point in the WS by playing even worse (much worse) defense than I had seen during the regular season. If the Tigers really are as strong of a defensive team as you've suggested, they most likely wouldn't have committed EIGHT errors in a five-game series (not to mention several misplays that weren't recorded as errors).

 

I'm not one to consider five games a large enough sample. Did they choke? Maybe. But much of their errors were by pitchers (mainly relievers, who usually aren't out on the mound). I didn't get a chance to sit down and watch every game, but thinking about the errors they showed on the highlights -- the Rodney, Verlander, Jones, and Zumaya errors -- were all obviously made by pitchers.

 

A couple errors seemed to be mental. On Inge's play, it seemed like he had plenty of time, and just rushed it. Ditto the Zumaya error; that had to have been a mental mistake, as I'm pretty sure the play is at second base there.

 

The mistakes made by the outfielders -- well, I don't think you can fault Granderson slipping on wet grass, and on Monroe's error, I never claimed that Monroe was a great OFer. Ditto Maggs.

 

I still don't see how you can call Detroit an 'average' defensive team. You want to break it down position by position?

 

Pudge - Can we agree that he's arguably the best catcher in the game defensively, despite his mishaps on some balls in the dirt this past week?

 

Casey - Can't comment. Don't know enough, and I don't trust the defensive stats for first basemen, as they don't take into account picks on balls in the dirt.

 

Polanco - Above average. Probably one of the top seven (give or take) 2nd basemen in baseball, IMO.

 

Guillen - Average-to-slightly above.

 

Inge - Top five in baseball. I think you can agree with that.

 

Magglio - Below average range and acceleration, except his arm.

 

Granderson - This one is tough. I don't know what to think about him. I've seen him look good before, and I've seen him look bad out there. ZR has him 4th in the AL, and the TT Scouting Report has him above average. I'd say he's slightly above average to real good out there.

 

Monroe - Average range, below average reads, above average arm. I'd a slightly below average LFer.

 

Am I really outrageously wrong on any of these? And, if I'm not, then how can you look at this team and not call them a good defensive team?

[tigerfan]

What the Tigers did was the biggest choke job of all time.

 

I actually kinda disagree. We were sort of like the 04 Cardinals in a way. We hadn't been there in years, just like they hadn't, we had a lot of young talent as they had, and we just got sort of distracted I guess. We'll be back there again I'm sure. Who knows maybe we'll do what the Cardinals of this year did soon.