Tiger337

He's a modern day Scott Lusader.

That depends on how long the duration is. If it's one year, then you would have chaos. I am thinking more like four or five years. Assuming a team can still hold a player for the first six years, then they can extend him another four or five years and there aren't a lot of players you really want to keep longer than that. A few superstars maybe, but players aren't staying with their same team throughout their career even the way it is now.

From a fan's standpoint, I love the idea of limited duration contracts. I don't really care how much money a player makes, but I hate seeing a team sign a player to a long-term deal and then having watch the player keep playing years even after he loses all his value.

I definitely can relate to finding old videos of great moments. I recently found a video from a game in 1983 where Kirk Gibson hit the ball out of the stadium in one at bat and then tripled (doubled?) and scored and knocked down the umpire in his next at bat. I had been wanting to see that for 40 years.

Nook Logan's entire amazing career was like a dream. There is no way to sufficiently replicate his existence on a video. Was he even real or was it just something we imagined?

I don't think you can ever say that which much certainty in a short series.

Flaherty's career has been inconsistent, but he seems to be a good comeback candidate given his under the hood numbers this year. They still need another good healthy starter along with a right-handed bat and bullpen help.

I think a likely contender with the best pitcher in the league has to try to win now. You don't know when that opportunity will happen again. You don't know what kind of team they'll have in a couple of years. Maybe the hitters are slower to develop than expected. Maybe they do just fine, but they don't have enough pitching after Skubal leaves. They have a chance to win now. Opportunities like this are why teams go through re-building processes. They need to take advantage of it. That, of course, means making some meaningful additions in the off-season to maximize their chances.

King and Imanaga are both interesting options which the Tigers might regard as more affordable.

I understood your point the first time. I just don't understand what Bill James has to do with it.

What does Bill James have to do with it?

He just left one lof the teams you mentioned. He is looking for money.

He'll get us more than socks. Maybe some pajamas.

That is accurate, so then you have to calculate the probability of getting a bye. Suppose they have a 60% chance of making playoffs which seems about right looking at last years pre-season odds on fangraphs. Suppose they have a 30% chance of a bye assuming they make the playoffs. Then, they have a 12.5% of winning WS if they have a bye and and 6.25% chance without a bye. P(win)= P(playoffs)*(P(bye/playoffs)*P(win/bye) + P(no bye/playoffs)*P(win/no bye)) = .60 (.30*.125 + .70*.0625) = .04875 or just under 5%

I am not sure winning the World Series makes it more likely he stays, but their chance of winning the World Series is probably a lot lower than 15%. All things being equal, the chance of winning the World Series once you make the playoffs is 1 in 12 or 8% and you have to make the playoffs first.

Greg Maddux also had four consecutive, but it came earlier

Not his fault. He got bad advice from Bobby Higginson.

I agree

That gets back to the local fan thing you were talking about. Fans don't care what happens to other teams. I think the problem with the Dodgers being too good is overblown. Regardless of who wins, the fans of 96.7% of teams are going to be disappointed. That is going to be true regardless of whether or not there is parity.

Oh well...Amazing game though. Now, back to some serious roster talk!

He's too slow to get injured?

true

Do we know that framing statistics are the result of framing or could it be something else? For example, perhaps some teams know that you need to pitch to certain locations way with a certain umpire behind the plate? I know that framing is part of it, but maybe not as much as we think.

Of course not, but odds are being made now. As of now, I wouldn't project the Tigers to finish behind the Orioles. Then again, the betting odds likely look at things a very different way than I would.

They've still got quite a bit of young talent that could develop, but it seems a stretch to project them higher than the Tigers.