Tiger337

I like Torkelson's process stats, but his job is to get results. I probably sound negative saying that, but I am actually encouraged by his hard hit rate. I just see a trend where people are starting to judge players on process stats rather than results. It reminds me of the early BABIP phase when people were using BABIP as an automatic indicator of future performance. As it turned out, there are some players where a high or low BABIP is part of their skillset. I think we will find that with statcast stats as well.

I would guess yes.

I pay for Fangraphs (to limit the ads) and Baseball Reference (in order to get stathead). That is the extent of my baseball subscriptions. I used to subscribe to Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America. Baseball Prospectus wasn't giving me much that I wasn't already getting at FG and BREF and their stats pages are an embarrassment. I used to like BA because of the hard copy magazine, but it's not as extensive as it used to be and their Tigers writer is terrible.

I see the opposite in profiles in Massachusetts where a substantial proportion of women say they won't date a Trump supporter. It is very rare instance where I see a profile speaking favorably of Trump.

I was justing saying that if a woman is single, it's not necessarily because she wants to be single. Men (and women) of all political ideologies can be mediocre. Also, being successful in some areas of life does not necessarily make someone a suitable match.

I would guess that they liked his defense at a position where they didn't really have a replacement if anything happened to Baez. It's hard to believe they knew his first 70 at bats would be productive. Let's see how it works out in a larger sample size.

The NYT has never been good at sports, so I would think their readers would not be the ideal demographic for the Athletic.

I didn't think the Athletic would keep growing. I got a subscription for a short time and there were some good articles here and there, but not enough for me to keep the subscription. I think most people would prefer to subscribe to a site with a narrow focus rather than a site that tries to cover everything.

Good point. I am sure it varies hugely geographically. Forida is WAY more conservative than Massachusetts for example. A question I have for you though is has it changed even in Florida? Looking at the chart, the percent of liberals went from like 22% pre-Trump to 32% now. Maybe, Florida is still low but not as low as before (maybe 12% up to 20%)

I will never buy Bird Dog shorts.

I don't think most young liberal women want to remain single. They don't want to settle for mediocrity.

Solak has been in the majors before and he will be back with the Tigers. He plays pretty much every position, doesn't hit much, but can draw a walk which makes him the perfect Hinch/Harris player. Edit: Actually doesn't draw that many walks, but hits better than I thought! .327 lifetime OBP.

Nick the Stick Solack

Scaramucci once said Trump is smart in some ways, but he thinks has a learning disability which makes it difficult for him to read or concentrate on anything. Thus, he resents anyone who has those kinds of academic abilities. It made sense.

But he might throw them some paper towels.

Or maybe trade Cabrera to a contender, so he can play in the World Series.

That is my hope as well, but I have no idea if that's the case. It seems that some people love or hate him already, but I don't think we have nearly enough info. I remember when Randy Smith was supposed to be some whiz kid.

Republicans strongly supported law enforcement and the military before Trump. I think they are just transferring their image of the Republican president as a strong military leader to Trump. And Trump has done a great job BSing them to that end.

So, I guess if a young guy want to find a woman, he better be a liberal. Of course, clueless young males are going in the other direction!

I doubt the big name free agents signed in Texas because of Jung, Duran and Taveras. They were not exceptional and the team was performing poorly. They came for the money. The Tigers had no young core when they signed Ordonez and Rodriguez. Ever since the 70s, there has always been teams willing to spend a lot of money. Sometimes it was good teams and big market teams, but other times it was poor teams taking a risk.

The Rangers were as bad as the The Tigers and they were able to attract big time free agents. If a team wants to spend money, the players will come. Some of it worked out for the Rangers and some of it didn't, but they are doing really well this year. Back in 2004, 2005, the Tigers were able to sign Rodriguez and Ordonez and that worked out great. If a team doesn't want to spend money, that is their business. As a fan, I don't care about team finances. It's not my problem. Also, as a fan, I am not sure I even want a team with a core of free agents. I would rather see them build a home grown roster for the most part. If they want to do it that way, the players will be glad to take the money though.

I am not suggesting they should have signed any free agent last off-season or that they should sign anyone this off-season. I am just saying that I think the difficulty Detroit has in attracting free agents is over blown.

Bullpens are more important than they used to be, but you still can't rely on them long term. If you aren't a contender, you should always be marketing good relievers and in-season is when they are most valuable.

The unabomber was brilliant and was right about some things, but he was insane and a terrible human being. The world is a better place without him in it.

They will like it here if they are offered $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$