Rosenthal Has Tigers #1 Overall

[Slick]

picks them to win the Series over D-Backs....doesn't mean much seeing as he was 1 for 6 last year on division winners.


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...rediction-detroit-tigers-to-win-it-all-032612

 

[kalinecountry]

picks them to win the Series over D-Backs....doesn't mean much seeing as he was 1 for 6 last year on division winners.


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...rediction-detroit-tigers-to-win-it-all-032612

Thanks for posting Slick,
I hope rosenthal is right this year.

 

[Thumb]

I hope he's right too, but I still think he's a little bow-tie wearing prick that I would love to see in a cage fight with a (hungry) Bengal Tiger.

 

[kalinecountry]

I hope he's right too, but I still think he's a little bow-tie wearing prick that I would love to see in a cage fight with a (hungry) Bengal Tiger.

I would like to watch that too, but make it a tag team...throw that other big nose putz jon heyman previously of SI and now with CBS sports in there with him against the hungry Bengal Tiger

 

[jdeb]

He is like the SI and madden cover....

 

[turok]

I would much prefer it if the Tigers were flying a bit more stealthier under the sports MSM's radar, but obviously no chance of that happening, due to what happened last year and the off-season acquisition of Fielder. Plenty of preseason hype to live up to, which tends to make me a bit anxious for the Tigers to measure up to it, and will be all we hope that they can be this season, if not more.

Even the Motown Tigers board, which is more populated with Tigers fan members than our relatively puny membership here, are predicting ~98 wins for the team this season on average, from what I read when I lurked on there yesterday, which surprised me a little bit. Most of their members there tend to be a bit less homerish and they have quite a few sabermetric statheads amongst the regulars (even the very respectable "Microline" from TigsTown posts there once and a while) than the average ESPN Tigers fans members were/are.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I don't want them stealthier. That just means they might not be good every year. I want them talked about the next 20 years, and talked about a lot. Be the NYY for awhile.

 

[motownwebguy]

It's obvious the local analysts know the team better than the national guys. I take anything the national guys predict - or analyze over, with a grain of salt.

The Tigers need to stay healthy, to reach a mid / upper 90s win-total. Only one position hasn't adequate depth -- the catcher spot.

Please stay off the 60-day DL Alex!

 

[jdeb]

Laird is more than adequate as is Santos. I think the depth is fine providing AJ can hit close to .300. What we don't want is Laird, poor hitting AJ, and Inge in the same lineup. I still think Inge is gone for what it is Worth.

 

[Thumb]

Laird is more than adequate as is Santos. I think the depth is fine providing AJ can hit close to .300. What we don't want is Laird, poor hitting AJ, and Inge in the same lineup. I still think Inge is gone for what it is Worth.

That's a hell of a jump for Ajax to hit close to .300, he only hit .293 his rookie season because of his fluke BABIP, and his K rate seem to be going up.

I think he hits around .265 -.270 if we're lucky.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That's a hell of a jump for Ajax to hit close to .300, he only hit .293 his rookie season because of his fluke BABIP, and his K rate seem to be going up.

I think he hits around .265 -.270 if we're lucky.

How can you have a fluke babip? It is what it is.., .396. He was .340 last season but hit 44 points below his '11 average. So its not too far off. With his speed etc he should have a healthy % babip above his real average..

 

[motownwebguy]

Laird is more than adequate as is Santos. I think the depth is fine providing AJ can hit close to .300. What we don't want is Laird, poor hitting AJ, and Inge in the same lineup. I still think Inge is gone for what it is Worth.

Defensively I agree!
I speak highly of Santos ability to handle the pitchers. We held opponents to minimal runs whenever Santos played.

However, both of these guys reek with a bat in their hands. The last two AL seasons of Laird's saw an OPS of about .590

REPEAT - please stay healthy Alex!

 

[Rebbiv]

How can you have a fluke babip? It is what it is.., .396. He was .340 last season but hit 44 points below his '11 average. So its not too far off. With his speed etc he should have a healthy % babip above his real average..

BABIP is a horrible stat.

2011 Pujols .299 BAVG vs .277 BABIP (- .022)

2010 Pujols .312 BAVG vs .297 BABIP (- .015)

2009 Pujols .327 BAVG vs .299 BAVG (- .028)

CAREER .328 BAVG vs .311 BAVG (- 0.17)


2011 Jackson .249 BAVG vs .340 BABIP (+ .091)

2010 Jackson .293 BAVG vs .396 BABIP (+ .103)

CAREER .271 BAVG vs .369 BABIP (+ .098)



BABIP = (Hits - Home Runs)/(At Bats - SO - HR + Sac Flies)


Players that hit a lot of HRs and do not strike out very much, tend to have a lower BABIP than BAVG.

2011 Kinsler .255 BAVG .243 BABIP 32 HR
2010 Kinsler .286 BAVG .313 BABIP 9 HR
2009 Kinsler .253 BAVG .241 BABIP 31 HR


In Jackson's case, he strikes out far too many times for such a low HR total.

BABIP does not accurately reflect anything. I know what it is supposed to do, but it doesn't.

 

[Mitchrapp]

BABIP is a horrible stat.

2011 Pujols .299 BAVG vs .277 BABIP (- .022)

2010 Pujols .312 BAVG vs .297 BABIP (- .015)

2009 Pujols .327 BAVG vs .299 BAVG (- .028)

CAREER .328 BAVG vs .311 BAVG (- 0.17)


2011 Jackson .249 BAVG vs .340 BABIP (+ .091)

2010 Jackson .293 BAVG vs .396 BABIP (+ .103)

CAREER .271 BAVG vs .369 BABIP (+ .098)



BABIP = (Hits - Home Runs)/(At Bats - SO - HR + Sac Flies)


Players that hit a lot of HRs and do not strike out very much, tend to have a lower BABIP than BAVG.

2011 Kinsler .255 BAVG .243 BABIP 32 HR
2010 Kinsler .286 BAVG .313 BABIP 9 HR
2009 Kinsler .253 BAVG .241 BABIP 31 HR


In Jackson's case, he strikes out far too many times for such a low HR total.

BABIP does not accurately reflect anything. I know what it is supposed to do, but it doesn't.

Not saying its a good stat. It is what it is..