Useful Idiot

Because you say so? ROTFLMBHAO!! OH GEE, I hopes you don't start calling me bad names again that would suxxors to the maxx. Baez didn't matter to me when he was a cubbie, neither did Perez

That was before pitchers figured him out

I think you are overlooking one very important aspect. I've got nothing to lose. I can continue to grouse and he can continue to sukk...and I can brag how I've been right all along But if he turns it around, I gotta shut up, but I'll be watching better baseball....so I win either way. And, in no scenario, is he gonna invite me to his bungalo for barbeque....so it's not like I gotta walk on egg shells or risk having him say "you were almost one of the cool guys, but you blew it, so get lost" etc. My position is bullet proof 😇

Let him prove me wrong, the onus is on him. Until he does, he's my Neifi.

49 pitches in 2+ innings...walked 3 plus a HBP.......I'd say that qualifies for not hitting one's mark

So, I see that Manning was pulled from today's game after 2 innings.. Not specific to arm problems, just couldn't hit his mark

Baez HAS YET to prove to me that he's streaky as a Tiger....the burden of proof rests with him, not me

The second I heard that Baez was a free agent, I began chanting "Just say no, to former Cubbie shortstops" because I suspected we would find him more affordable than other available shortstops. And, once we signed him, I pretty much just started biting my lip....hoping he'd blossom. Don't wanna trash a tiger before he's deserving...etc. Well, now that the first month has come and gone, he's awful "neifi perezish" if you ask me.... Let him prove me wrong, AND ONLY THEN WILL I EAT MY WORDS. I'm a fan, and he owes me better than he's been giving.

Perhaps we could arrange a little one-on-one coaching from Brandon Inge, sharing the finer points of the checked swing third strike, as he perfected it?

exactly!!

prescience

I'm about ready to award Baez the Neifi Perez award for offensive prowess by a former cubbie shortstop And just for the record, those were the first two words to come to mind when I heard we signed him.

I'll concede there are a host of variables in the draft order valuation process, as well as criteria both arbitrary and capricious in the hall voting....just saying.

How important is the #1 pick? In the history of the draft, only 6 #1 picks Made it to the HOF (including your two "honorable mention" candidates) That's what I'm thinking.

Actually, my interest lay mostly with "fleshing out" comments I faintly remember to the effect of #1 overall picks reaching the heights everyone set for them. And including your generosity, it appears that 19 of the 47 (including your two roiders) were first rounders...and only 6 were #1 overall....in the history of the draft as we commonly regard it. Hey, I hope that Mize becomes #7 But I am forced to ponder how I might have fared in my vocation if I made a habit out of recommending we bet the farm on a 6 out of 49 chance of success?

They probably try harder, too🙂

So out of that list, we are talking 15 out of 43 being first rounders...with only 3 being #1 overall?...and Harold Baines is one of those.

Although this list is dated, since it ends in 2009. It is still informative. In that (as of that time) only 8 of 23 draft era inductees were first round draft picks (only 5 of them from the traditional june draft) https://www.perfectgame.org/articles/View.aspx?article=395#:~:text=--Only five of the,first round of the draft.

Gee, I forgot all about Baines,...my bad. 😈

Out of the last 50 inductees to the MLB hall of fame, how many were formerly first round draft picks? ⚓

Not just the Tigers, but MLB in general, isn't there a fairly small correlation between "first round pick" vs players who go on to be enduring superstars? I don't have it at my fingertips , but it seems as though I recall an analysis along those lines and the overlap was surprisingly small. So, while the owners might be winning the "cheap and controllable" sweepstakes by tanking, how the eventual payoff plays-out is anything but dependable. Meaning the Who was wrong....we can be fooled again.

I jokingly refer to the players who are blessed with enhanced durability as having "the Jethro gene"

I suspect we'll have to wait for Mize to decide that TJ is his best option. 😢

Separate from the above.. I also believe that it's just human nature that most individuals typically "give" about 95% of what we are physically capable of...and call that "100%" There are a number of metaphors I could use to illustrate the concept, and I think we've even argued about them before......but let me play it saf(er) this time and just say that most pros know their limits, and try to not "over throw" the ball...there's a concept I'm sure you'll be familiar with. For the guys with an abundance of talent.... 95% of their intrinsic maximum is often good enough to get them through an entire career.. But for a kid with too big a burden put on him to perform, I think they might abandon caution and throw everything they have into it...and injure themselves in the process., A rook on the cusp of a no hitter, for example (** cough cough**)

I think we are essentially talking about the same things, with one distinction. I believe that there is a "genetic lottery" that can be won, just with certain individuals, perhaps they are "mutant" whatever you want to call it. Slight deviations in the way their tendons are bonded....or "whatever" Something that gives them a freakish resistance (notice I did not say "immunity) to frailties more common with the other 98% of us..... a "prime specimen" if you'll indulge the idea When you are lucky enough to find one of those "freaks" that also refines his talent (a sub set, of a sub set)...then only a fool squanders something like that away thinking "oh this guy is gonna cost a fortune to re-sign, lets trade him for prospects, and hope we find another gem". That's my crackpot theory anyway. I'm sure the usual suspects will feel compelled to chime in now throwing their typical flaming bag of crap at it. I've grown accustomed to that here.