Detroit Tigers World Series Thread

[greasywheels121]

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.

 

The AL Central (and the AL as a whole) will have to have a HUGE drop off if 83 wins qualifies a position in the playoffs. The Sox finished with 90 wins, good for the 6th best record in all of baseball. All that did was give us 3rd place in the division.

 

So that's a gynormous maybe.

[tigerfan]

I didn't mean that, I meant win a world title as they did, having been through one now.

[WCSox]

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.

 

OK, then we're cool.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

No problem with that. People are allowed to play "scout" and give their opinion. And if I think that I may have better analysis skills than them because, say, I've been watching baseball longer than most of them have been alive (despite watching fewer Tigers games), you'll have to forgive me for putting higher stock in my own opinion. I'm not saying that they're wrong, per se. I'm just reporting what I see.

 

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.

 

Yes, but even if you take out the five pitcher errors, there were still three by position players and, by my count, three additional defensive miscues that lead to runs (Granderson falling on his ass [i don't care if the grass was wet, you can't do that in a tight game], Monroe playing too shallow then misreading Eckstein's fly ball, Guillen bobbling Eckstein's routine grounder).

 

Also consider that teams tend not to slump defensively in the way that, say, the Tigers' hitters (except for Casey) or the '04 WS Cards hitters (except for Walker) did. Good overall team defense is typicaly very reliable. We're not talking about A-Rod or Chuck Knoblauch losing it in a pressure situation, while the rest of the team plays their normal solid defense. We're talking about the left side of their infield committing four miscues, their CF and LF biting it twice in critical situations, and four different pitchers throwing the ball away. If a team commits EIGHT errors in a WS and botches three other plays that lead to runs, they're most likely not a Top 5 defensive team.

 

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?

 

Pudge - Gold Glover. Not as good as he was 5 or 10 years ago, but still awesome.

 

Casey - Below average would be putting it nicely.

 

Polanco - Above average

 

Guillen - Average to below average. Not that great in either facet of the game, IMO. Considering that the SS position is more important defensively than 2B, I'd characterize their middle infield as "average" overall.

 

Inge - Good. Not elite, but arguably in the Top 5.

 

Monroe - Below average. Horrible at reading fly balls.

 

Granderson - Average. Dude has all of the skills to get an elite CF, but gets terrible reads on balls. IIRC, he single-handedly lost tight a game against the Sox back in late August when he misplayed a deep fly ball.

 

Maggs - Below average. No range after the knee surgery, has less zip on his throws than he did in his prime, and has always been average with his reads.

 

So, what I see there is a good infield who are dragged down to the "above average" level by pitchers who can't field the ball and a below-average outfield. Overall, I think that they're a mediocre defensive squad. That's what my biased and unscientific analysis of 15 random games during the regular season suggested and that's what the Tigers showed in the WS.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Edited October 29, 2006 by WCSox

[The Critic]

The Tigers will be motivated next year by their World Series failures.

The AL Central division will be double-tough again in 2007, and the Sox will have to address some of the things they failed at in 2006 if they want to compete. I fully expect KW and the organization to make the changes they feel they need.

It's going to be a lot of fun at the Cell next year, for sure.

[Milkman delivers]

Casey - Below average would be putting it nicely.

 

Watching Casey in the WS, I was pretty unimpressed with him play at 1B. Nothing he did seemed too good. I think I'd label him average, at best. I remember one play where they might've gotten the runner out on a close play (probably was Eckstein, but not sure), but he didn't seem to extend his body far enough to allow the ball to beat the runner.

 

I didn't mean that, I meant win a world title as they did, having been through one now.

 

Hey, I'm cool with that as long as the same thing happens between when said team fails and eventually wins the WS.