2016 Tigers

[SpartyNash]

I had this team going 84-78 at the beginning of the year, so technically speaking I suppose they did exceed my expectations. However, if you would have told me that JV would have a Cy Young type season, Fulmer would be ROY and one of the top pitchers in the AL, Castellanos would finally break out, Norris/Boyd would be decent, Vmart would have a solid comeback season, then yes, I would call this an underachieving season. injuries didn't help this team (JD, Casty, Zimmerman) but when your division rival is banged up all season even more than the Tigers were and without their best player in Brantley and still whoops our ass 14 out of 16 times then yes I call this a disappointing year.

 

[tomdalton22]

I had this team going 84-78 at the beginning of the year, so technically speaking I suppose they did exceed my expectations. However, if you would have told me that JV would have a Cy Young type season, Fulmer would be ROY and one of the top pitchers in the AL, Castellanos would finally break out, Norris/Boyd would be decent, Vmart would have a solid comeback season, then yes, I would call this an underachieving season. injuries didn't help this team (JD, Casty, Zimmerman) but when your division rival is banged up all season even more than the Tigers were and without their best player in Brantley and still whoops our ass 14 out of 16 times then yes I call this a disappointing year.

you could go the other way as well

what if you were told that 3 rookie starters were starting the final 6 weeks of the season because of injuries and lack of performance by the original starters, not a single HR out of the 3B position the final 2 months of the season due to injury to Nick, Upton was an absolute dud for 80% of the season; every BP addition except for the closer was terrible, after April, Zimmerman would post a 6.82 ERA?

 

[LGRW_9]

I expected this team to win 90 games and the division. Foolishly optimistic? I suppose so, but my heart sometimes overrules my brain.

So to me they underachieved, to answer the original question posed.

And while injuries played a part, so did sub par leadership. Poor personnel decisions in trying to rebuild the bullpen, bad base coaching and perhaps lack of focus on base running fundamentals, and questionable decisions in terms of bullpen utilization. But AA and Brad are returning, so I guess it'll be more of the same next year.

 

[tomdalton22]

I expected this team to win 90 games and the division. Foolishly optimistic? I suppose so, but my heart sometimes overrules my brain.

So to me they underachieved, to answer the original question posed.

And while injuries played a part, so did sub par leadership. Poor personnel decisions in trying to rebuild the bullpen, bad base coaching and perhaps lack of focus on base running fundamentals, and questionable decisions in terms of bullpen utilization. But AA and Brad are returning, so I guess it'll be more of the same next year.

yes...your heart did overrule your brain!

 

[Sbee]

Injuries were a main culprit, so were some horrible FA signings. Lowe and Sanchez were abysmal, I'd consider Zimmerman more of an injury issue than a bad signing. Acquiring Maybin turned out better than expected but of course he battled injuries all year.

I still can't believe that Avila signed Pelfrey..........for TWO SEASONS

 

[lonesometiger]

Injuries were a main culprit, so were some horrible FA signings. Lowe and Sanchez were abysmal, I'd consider Zimmerman more of an injury issue than a bad signing. Acquiring Maybin turned out better than expected but of course he battled injuries all year.

I still can't believe that Avila signed Pelfrey..........for TWO SEASONS

The Titanic had a better chance of being successful than Pelfrey. After all it took an Iceburg to take down the ship. Pelfrey was bad on arrival and the ship was taking on water from the start!.

 

[manchild98]

Overachieved. Before the season I though we'd finish under .500. I just didn't think we had good enough starting pitching and the bullpen would still be a problem. If you would have told me Zimmerman would have been junk after the first month and a half and Sanchez was going to be awful then I would have thought we would have never been anywhere near a playoff spot.

This team has some really nice pieces. The problem is they keep coming back with the same team year after year and we're stuck in this not quite good enough but not bad enough limbo. They just think everything is fine and eventually they are going to magically get over the hump by doing nothing else.

 

[turok]

I pegged the Tigers @ ~.500 pre-season, but they overachieved vs outside their division, performed about as well as I expected vs div rivals, with the obvious exception of the Indians. Had they been more equal, as well as vs the worse than expected Royals, then the Tigers would have won the division title, and had home-field throughout the postseason.

By losing late-season series to the White Sox, Orioles, and Braves, they eliminated themselves.

 

[turok]

Worst and best trades of mid-70s to mid-80s

1) Ron LeFlore CF for Dan Shitzeater SP.

2) Ben Oglivie LF for Jim Slaton SP/FA.

3) Steve Kemp LF for Chet Lemon CF.

4) Dan Shitzeater and Mike Chris SP/RP for Larry Herndon LF.

5) John Wockenfuss C and Glenn Wilson OF for Dave Bergman UT and Willie
Hernandez CL.

 

[Rebbiv]

Career or near career years:

Castellanos
Maybin
Kinsler (34 years old)

Cy Young caliber season

Verlander

Rookie of the Year caliber season

Fulmer

Zimmermann 8-2 after first 10 starts


If someone would have told me these things before the season, I would have guessed a solid playoff season. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. While injuries were a concern, all teams deal with injuries. We had young pitchers step it up, but have no positional players worth noting and our backup/bench players are scrubs.

The Tigers overachieved

Pitching = 5th AL in FIP (3 of top 4 in playoffs)

Offense = 7th AL in BB% (3 of top 4 in playoffs)

Defense = 13th AL in UZR/150, 14th is DRS

Baserunning = 14th AL in BsR


WPA/LI Pitching (DET 7th)
1. BOS
2. CLE
3. TOR
4. HOU

WPA/LI Offense
1. BOS
2. CLE
3. SEA
4. DET

 

[turok]

IIRC, the rookie SP Dave Rozema bought a new car to celebrate making it to the bigs in '77, the same year that I also had purchased my first, being a '77.5 black/white Camaro z/28. Although I no longer remember what the make-model that Rozema bought, it was also black or dark blue.


The first time that he washed it by hand, he used scouring pads, and completely scratched up and ruined its finish!! I loled for a few weeks after reading that in our newspaper.

 

[Sbee]

Career or near career years:

Castellanos
Maybin
Kinsler (34 years old)

Cy Young caliber season

Verlander

Rookie of the Year caliber season

Fulmer

Zimmermann 8-2 after first 10 starts


If someone would have told me these things before the season, I would have guessed a solid playoff season. Instead, we were on the outside looking in. While injuries were a concern, all teams deal with injuries. We had young pitchers step it up, but have no positional players worth noting and our backup/bench players are scrubs.

The Tigers overachieved

Pitching = 5th AL in FIP (3 of top 4 in playoffs)

Offense = 7th AL in BB% (3 of top 4 in playoffs)

Defense = 13th AL in UZR/150, 14th is DRS

Baserunning = 14th AL in BsR


WPA/LI Pitching (DET 7th)
1. BOS
2. CLE
3. TOR
4. HOU

WPA/LI Offense
1. BOS
2. CLE
3. SEA
4. DET

as always, the inverse is true.

Major chucks of the season lost to injury

JD
Zimmerman
Castellanos
Maybin
McCann

below WAR seasons

Sanchez
Pelfrey
Lowe (to be 1 game below replacement level pitching only 49 innings is astonishing)

Reb, I think you're guilty of motivated reasoning here. You start with your conclusion and then look to back it up with analysis after the fact. We are all do it from time to time. You selectively point out half of the picture to back up your pre conceived notions.

If you looked at this roster out of ST, you'd think that winning 86 out of 161 games would be exceeding expectations for this team as it was constructed, at least if your expectations were in line. I don't see a rational argument to the contrary.

 

[Rebbiv]

as always, the inverse is true.

Major chucks of the season lost to injury

JD
Zimmerman
Castellanos
Maybin
McCann

below WAR seasons

Sanchez
Pelfrey
Lowe (to be 1 game below replacement level pitching only 49 innings is astonishing)

Reb, I think you're guilty of motivated reasoning here. You start with your conclusion and then look to back it up with analysis after the fact. We are all do it from time to time. You selectively point out half of the picture to back up your pre conceived notions.

If you looked at this roster out of ST, you'd think that winning 86 out of 161 games would be exceeding expectations for this team as it was constructed, at least if your expectations were in line. I don't see a rational argument to the contrary.

Your obsession with the injuries is mind-blowing. And missing McCann was a plus.

If not for the injuries, Boyd and/or Norris do not see any or significant time as a starter.

Statistically speaking, the Tigers overachieved. How is that not a true statement?

 

[tomdalton22]

Your obsession with the injuries is mind-blowing. And missing McCann was a plus.

If not for the injuries, Boyd and/or Norris do not see any or significant time as a starter.

Statistically speaking, the Tigers overachieved. How is that not a true statement?

aren't you both saying they overachieved?

 

[Sbee]

Your obsession with the injuries is mind-blowing. And missing McCann was a plus.

If not for the injuries, Boyd and/or Norris do not see any or significant time as a starter.

Statistically speaking, the Tigers overachieved. How is that not a true statement?

Far from obsessed with injuries but they are part of the argument for saying the team over achieved. It seems like the real obsession is with the Tigers manager, whoever that may be, and making them the fall guy for the shortcomings of the team.

 

[kmd47]

Your obsession with the injuries is mind-blowing. And missing McCann was a plus.

If not for the injuries, Boyd and/or Norris do not see any or significant time as a starter.

Statistically speaking, the Tigers overachieved. How is that not a true statement?

Pretty sure even if Sanchez didn't get injured and pitched like he did, the kids STILL would have gotten a chance to pitch considering how bad Sanchez is now...

 

[Rebbiv]

Far from obsessed with injuries but they are part of the argument for saying the team over achieved. It seems like the real obsession is with the Tigers manager, whoever that may be, and making them the fall guy for the shortcomings of the team.

Did I mention Ausmus recently? Nope.

And for the record...if players are the soul reason why a team wins or losses, then I could be manager and get the same results, right?

 

[Rebbiv]

Pretty sure even if Sanchez didn't get injured and pitched like he did, the kids STILL would have gotten a chance to pitch considering how bad Sanchez is now...

Really? You do know that Norris doesn't start without Zimmermann and Pelfrey being hurt? Because Sanchez was starting at the same time as Norris and Boyd.

Granted. Boyd probably does not get his starts without Sanchez being out.

 

[Sbee]

Did I mention Ausmus recently? Nope.

And for the record...if players are the soul reason why a team wins or losses, then I could be manager and get the same results, right?

I doubt anyone on these boards could be the manager. You need to have a baseline understanding of strategy and pretty much all managers have that. There are some that are better that others but it's very difficult to quantify. Managerial strategy is similar to playing blackjack by the book, moves either work or they don't but for the most part managers make the smart percentage play. I think given an understanding of basic strategy the managers most important job is to keep the players happy and the clubhouse together. It's just astounding the disproportionate amount of conversation there is about the impact of ausmus or Leyland vs the players.

 

[Rebbiv]

I doubt anyone on these boards could be the manager. You need to have a baseline understanding of strategy and pretty much all managers have that. There are some that are better that others but it's very difficult to quantify. Managerial strategy is similar to playing blackjack by the book, moves either work or they don't but for the most part managers make the smart percentage play. I think given an understanding of basic strategy the managers most important job is to keep the players happy and the clubhouse together. It's just astounding the disproportionate amount of conversation there is about the impact of ausmus or Leyland vs the players.

So Ausmus was a rookie manager when he started and never coached or managed at any level before. Did being a player give him this baseline understanding? If so, then any past player could be a MLB manager and not face criticism.

Actually, they don't make the smart percentage play. An example is bunt sacrifices. Run expectancy diminishes if employed, but many still use it. That is just one. Francona is bucking all tradition and using Andrew Miller in a non-traditional role. But statistically speaking, that is when you want to use your best reliever, the high leverage situations.

You and I agree on many aspects. Players need to perform and a vast majority of this is on them. I have never said otherwise. You put more importance on injuries than I do. But to not say a manager has an impact is being short-sighted. You cannot control injuries and who or when they will happen in a general sense. You can control who manages.