Free Agent Targets

[tomdalton22]

Average helps the OBP. And don't forget Miggy huge OBP which skews the number as a whole.

They would still be 2nd in OBP without Miggy (rest of team .335)

 

[Mitchrapp]

They would still be 2nd in OBP without Miggy (rest of team .335)

I might have a different opinion but if all 9 starters had a .335 OBP I'd puke.

 

[tomdalton22]

I might have a different opinion but if all 9 starters had a .335 OBP I'd puke.

you have to remember that this incudes all bench players too. All Tigers "regulars" had an OBP over .335 except for Avila (.317) and Iglesias (.306) Dirks was .323 but he was part time.

 

[spockmaster]

DET was 6th in OBP Away and 15th in Walk Rate Away. Take out Cabrera, and they are 16th in Away OBP and 26th in Walk Rate Away.

And yes, they are just as bad in HR Rate, with and without Cabrera. But, given the two, good walk rate is what you need when facing playoff pitching. You might not see it in actual walks, but it runs the opposing pitch counts up. HR Rate does not increase pitch counts.

Yep. See: the Red Sox.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Exactly. Lets be like the World Champs. Who know how to work a count.

 

[tomdalton22]

Yep. See: the Red Sox.

the Red Sox were good because of balance up and down the lineup.

 

[Mitchrapp]

the Red Sox were good because of balance up and down the lineup.

Well, yeahhh.

 

[turok]

the Red Sox were good because of balance up and down the lineup.

Also b/c our BP decided to suck overall at the most inopportune times.

 

[tomdalton22]

Also b/c our BP decided to suck overall at the most inopportune times.

I was just talking about their overall offense....not them vs. the Tigers in the post season.

 

[Thumb]

Also b/c our BP decided to suck overall at the most inopportune times.

Bullpen would not have mattered if our approach at the plate did not elevate their pitching to nearly the level of ours.

 

[Mitchrapp]

They always say pitching and defense wins championships? I guess not..

 

[Thumb]

They always say pitching and defense wins championships? I guess not..

I have never heard anyone say that.

I have heard pitching wins championships said before.

And I have heard defense wins championships, but in football, not baseball.

Never heard them both together used about baseball.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I have never heard anyone say that.

I have heard pitching wins championships said before.

And I have heard defense wins championships, but in football, not baseball.

Never heard them both together used about baseball.

Really? I've heard it a lot.

 

[Thundercats]

Defense and pitching gets you the Seattle Mariners. Without an offense, you're not even going to the postseason.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Defense and pitching gets you the Seattle Mariners. Without an offense, you're not even going to the postseason.

Hitting but no pitching and you get the 2013 Baltimore Orioles. It works both ways but the saying goes pitching wins championships..

Or the new motto: Pitching and Defense Wins, As Long As You Can Also Hit ...

 

[Rebbiv]

I can say the earth is flat and others can also subscribe and promote that believe. But if I have no evidence to back it up, then it is just what it is, a claim.

1. Take someone else's "opinion

2. Do the research and formulate your own opinion

Most people, especially sports fans, are too lazy or don't have the time to do the research. They rely on the types like Peter Gammons, Rob Parker, John Lowe and Ken Rosenthal to formulate their opinion. Or even ex-players like McCarver or Rod Allen.

Sabermatics people often subscribe to Bill James, Tom Tango and others. And they take what they spew as gospel, without verifying the data. That is just as bad.

My personal opinion is that it is 60-30-10. 60% offense, 30% pitching and 10% defense. In most games in the playoffs, you rarely see the #4 or even the #5 starters, even in relief. So really, once you make it through the regular season, your offense is facing probably the #1 and #2 types. There was nothing wrong with DET's starting pitching throughout this year's (and even last) playoffs. It was the lack of offense and/or ability to have the opposing starter throw more pitches. That does not necessarily mean scoring more runs. It is putting "stress" on the opposing pitching. One pitch hitting is not putting stress on the opposing pitching. Yet, if players do that for 162-games, it is hard not to change once the playoffs start.

 

[byco42]

Playoff success correlations: 1972-2005

High correlations

Summary
W-L %
Pythagorean W-L%
Runs allowed

Pitching (only low correlation was pitchers' walk rate)
VORP for starting pitchers (and top three starters)
K/9
Closer WXRL (Win expectancy replacement level)
Opponent's batting average
Fielding runs above average

Low correlations (no high correlations to mention)

Offense
Team BAVG
ISO
IBB
K/9 (Curious that it's a high correlative for success for pitchers)
Team speed (I had a Quentin Berry discussion with someone ... I retract my statement)
VORP for top 3 hitters

Looks like pitching and defense do win championships.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I can say the earth is flat and others can also subscribe and promote that believe. But if I have no evidence to back it up, then it is just what it is, a claim.

1. Take someone else's "opinion

2. Do the research and formulate your own opinion

Most people, especially sports fans, are too lazy or don't have the time to do the research. They rely on the types like Peter Gammons, Rob Parker, John Lowe and Ken Rosenthal to formulate their opinion. Or even ex-players like McCarver or Rod Allen.

Sabermatics people often subscribe to Bill James, Tom Tango and others. And they take what they spew as gospel, without verifying the data. That is just as bad.

My personal opinion is that it is 60-30-10. 60% offense, 30% pitching and 10% defense. In most games in the playoffs, you rarely see the #4 or even the #5 starters, even in relief. So really, once you make it through the regular season, your offense is facing probably the #1 and #2 types. There was nothing wrong with DET's starting pitching throughout this year's (and even last) playoffs. It was the lack of offense and/or ability to have the opposing starter throw more pitches. That does not necessarily mean scoring more runs. It is putting "stress" on the opposing pitching. One pitch hitting is not putting stress on the opposing pitching. Yet, if players do that for 162-games, it is hard not to change once the playoffs start.

I'm not sure I'd call it lazy. I just don't feel like being in math class again. For me, my opinion isn't based on the aforementioned Peter Gammons, Rob Parker types not the Bill James, Tom Tango types.

Its based on what I see with my eyes..right or wrong I value that more than anyone else. Of could if someone does do the "work" I won't overlook it and will give it some merit. But its my eyes I trust.

 

[Rebbiv]

Playoff success correlations: 1972-2005

High correlations

Summary
W-L %
Pythagorean W-L%
Runs allowed

Pitching (only low correlation was pitchers' walk rate)
VORP for starting pitchers (and top three starters)
K/9
Closer WXRL (Win expectancy replacement level)
Opponent's batting average
Fielding runs above average

Low correlations (no high correlations to mention)

Offense
Team BAVG
ISO
IBB
K/9 (Curious that it's a high correlative for success for pitchers)
Team speed (I had a Quentin Berry discussion with someone ... I retract my statement)
VORP for top 3 hitters

Looks like pitching and defense do win championships.

Very questionable predictive stat categories.

 

[byco42]

Very questionable predictive stat categories.

Okay. Why?