2023 Detroit Tigers Regular Season Discussion Thread

[mtutiger]

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Either did Mike Cameron. Didn't help Daz. 

I am all on board with Harris pulling the trigger quicker than Al used to do, and I'm not adverse to calling anyone up given the O is already on its way to another epic fail, I just have very limited anticipation Nevin is going to do anything. But that's not the same thing as being averse to trying it anyway. This team is two years past worrying about still being at the 'throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" point.

Understood.... my point is that I don't think anyone looks at Tyler Nevin as a "savior" for this club or will solve all the ills this team has, or that anyone is going to have additional "hope" because of him being called up. Looking at how most people regard this club nine games in, "hope" doesn't seem to be in anyone's vocabulary. But rather that at some point they need to be trying different options and that, if it keeps going in this direction, that oughtta be sooner rather than later.

Edited April 11, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

Not gonna happen for a variety of reasons, but Cody Stavenhagen's galaxy brain take on his podcast of bringing back Lorenzen to pitch in the bullpen and keeping Wentz makes a ton of sense.... Wentz had a bad outing obviously, but when the best performing parts of your bullpen are Trey Wingenter and the Rule 5 guy, it's clear that is where help is needed the most.

Edited April 11, 2023 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Not gonna happen for a variety of reasons, but Cody Stavenhagen's galaxy brain take on his podcast of bringing back Lorenzen to pitch in the bullpen and keeping Wentz makes a ton of sense.... Wentz had a bad outing obviously, but when the best performing parts of your bullpen are Trey Wingenter and the Rule 5 guy, it's clear that is where help is needed the most.

Hinch seems pretty committed to Lorenzen starting, so it is what it is. I'm really leaning into the idea that the next paradigm is the going to be 5 inning starter every 5th day, 3 inning reliever every 3rd day, and couple of short/closer guys. Or in other words, sort pitchers into 1, 2, and >2 two times through the order boxes depending on the variety of stuff they can present, then sort them into long/med/short roles and just once and for all stop worrying about pushing your starters. Take them out on a schedule instead of waiting till he gives up 3 or 4 runs and you are forced to take him out. If he's cruising you can always leave him in an extra inning and take that off the workload of the short guys at the end, but managers need to flip their thinking to where that is the unexpected result instead of the expected one. I'm beyond tired of watching baseball teams (and particularly mine) keep fighting the last war on pitching - and Hinch is just at bad as any old schooler with his 'got to go 7 mantra'.

Edited April 11, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Hinch seems pretty committed to Lorenzen starting, so it is what it is. I'm really leaning into the idea that the next paradigm is the going to be 5 inning starter every 5th day, 3 inning reliever every 3rd day, and couple of short/closer guys. Or in other words, sort pitchers into 1, 2, and >2 two times through the order boxes depending on the variety of stuff they can present, then sort them into long/med/short roles and just once and for all stop worrying about pushing your starters. Take them out on a schedule instead of waiting till he gives up 3 or 4 runs and you are forced to take him out. If he's cruising you can always leave him in an extra inning and take that off the workload of the short guys at the end, but managers need to flip their thinking to where that is the unexpected result instead of the expected one. I'm beyond tired of watching baseball teams (and particularly mine) keep fighting the last war on pitching.

I think most teams have stopped pushing their starters for the most part.  What I is missing I think is the secondary group which you mentioned - the consistent three inning relievers.  I don't think there are enough humans capable of pitching in the majors where you can keep on bringing in a new reliever in every inning after the the fifth inning like we are seeing regularly in baseball today.  

[SoCalTiger]

But doesn't more pitchers needed per game equal more opportunities to have one of them fail ? Kind of like Russian roulette ? 

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

But doesn't more pitchers needed per game equal more opportunities to have one of them fail ? Kind of like Russian roulette ? 

yeah, that's a good point.  That is why I'd like to see more usage of long relievers.  That way you don't leave the starter in to pitch through the order too many times and you don't have a parade of relievers.  

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

But doesn't more pitchers needed per game equal more opportunities to have one of them fail ? Kind of like Russian roulette ? 

I think there is an element of that risk if your starter goes five and you then use 4 more guys for 1 inning. Doesn't seem like the best idea to me anyway.

The other unintended issue is tie games. The use of 4 and 5 pitchers in a *normal* game is what generates the pressure to get an extra inning affair over quickly. Stop going so deep for a normal game and the dislocation risk of an extra-inning game goes down. And this is not a trivial issue if they do eventually play with a deader ball. The deader ball will reduce total scoring and that will lead to more tie games at the end of regulation.

Edited April 11, 2023 by gehringer_2

[SoCalTiger]

So it seems that starting pitchers that can go a consistent 6 or 7..and 3 times through the order, are more valuable than ever ( which last years free agency prices paid showed) and those that can not are worth less than before since they are just long relievers for the most part. Which is what our entire starting staff are made of.

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So it seems that starting pitchers that can go a consistent 6 or 7..and 3 times through the order, are more valuable than ever ( which last years free agency prices paid showed) and those that can not are worth less than before since they are just long relievers for the most part. Which is what our entire starting staff are made of.

Yes, there are still pitchers who are capable of doing that and they are very valuable.  I think there are 7 inning pitchers, 5 inning pitchers, 3 inning pitchers, 1 inning pitchers.  For years, it seems like teams have gone with the model of  6+ inning starters and a bunch of 1 inning relievers, with nothing in between.  

[mtutiger]

20 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So it seems that starting pitchers that can go a consistent 6 or 7..and 3 times through the order, are more valuable than ever ( which last years free agency prices paid showed) and those that can not are worth less than before since they are just long relievers for the most part. Which is what our entire starting staff are made of.

To the extent that this season is evaluating assets they have, from a starting pitching standpoint (and that includes when, presumably, Tarik Skubal comes back as well), definitely the question we should all have is whether any of the guys they have as a long term piece (Manning and Wentz, primarily)  can develop into that consistent 6-7 IP starter.

They badly need Manning to make that leap, but he's given plenty of reason for skepticism with his inconsistency.

Edited April 11, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

55 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Hinch seems pretty committed to Lorenzen starting, so it is what it is. I'm really leaning into the idea that the next paradigm is the going to be 5 inning starter every 5th day, 3 inning reliever every 3rd day, and couple of short/closer guys. Or in other words, sort pitchers into 1, 2, and >2 two times through the order boxes depending on the variety of stuff they can present, then sort them into long/med/short roles and just once and for all stop worrying about pushing your starters. Take them out on a schedule instead of waiting till he gives up 3 or 4 runs and you are forced to take him out. If he's cruising you can always leave him in an extra inning and take that off the workload of the short guys at the end, but managers need to flip their thinking to where that is the unexpected result instead of the expected one. I'm beyond tired of watching baseball teams (and particularly mine) keep fighting the last war on pitching - and Hinch is just at bad as any old schooler with his 'got to go 7 mantra'.

The points here are good in the macro, but given the problems the Tigers face in the bullpen, at the micro level, they are going to need to try some different things in order to bring stability to that group regardless of whatever strategy they use in terms of how they use their pitching staff. I guess that's more what I was thinking.

To be clear, some of the parts in the pen have shown flashes and that gets lost in the performance of the whole (Wingenter, Shreve, Englert have all been decent given the circumstances, Foley looked good in last outing), but largely they just haven't gotten the job done. And a couple of them (Cisnero probably highest among them) should probably be concerned about their role.

[gehringer_2]

49 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Yes, there are still pitchers who are capable of doing that and they are very valuable.  I think there are 7 inning pitchers, 5 inning pitchers, 3 inning pitchers, 1 inning pitchers.  For years, it seems like teams have gone with the model of  6+ inning starters and a bunch of 1 inning relievers, with nothing in between.  

And I think you have to let guys prove that over extended time. If you have a young JV on your staff and you find that he consistently gets to his scheduled 5 and he's not taxed or in trouble, they you start scheduling *him* go 6, and maybe that evolves into 7 in say the 3rd year of his career, etc. So sure, you let it happen as the guy proves he can do it over time without being taxed or developing arm trouble. My issue is with teams, and Hinch absolutely puts the Tigers in this camp, that want to take that 7 inning start as the normative target for all their starters instead of starting with the assumption they will not be 100+ pitch guys and planning their outings on that basis. Let them prove the counterfactual over time if they happen to be in the *minority* of modern pitchers who can *consistently* pitch deeper without either losing effectiveness --- or their UCL.

Edited April 11, 2023 by gehringer_2

[SoCalTiger]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

To the extent that this season is evaluating assets they have, from a starting pitching standpoint (and that includes when, presumably, Tarik Skubal comes back as well), definitely the question we should all have is whether any of the guys they have as a long term piece (Manning and Wentz, primarily)  can develop into that consistent 6-7 IP starter.

They badly need Manning to make that leap, but he's given plenty of reason for skepticism with his inconsistency.

It is starting to seem like Skull might be the only one assuming he returns to normal after his surgery. I used to think Wentz would be better than Manning but now I believe if that does come true then neither rather than both will be solid starters. Hopefully by seasons end that's not the case but as for controlling the strike zone it's not looking good.

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think most teams have stopped pushing their starters for the most part.  What I is missing I think is the secondary group which you mentioned - the consistent three inning relievers.  I don't think there are enough humans capable of pitching in the majors where you can keep on bringing in a new reliever in every inning after the the fifth inning like we are seeing regularly in baseball today.  

They’ll just keep pushing it down until they get enough bodies to reliably put four or five pitchers in every game. Every organization has at least 20 pitchers on their 40-man for that reason alone. Some have as many as 22 that I’ve seen. Did some guy in the back of my bullpen get hurt? That’s fine, bring up another one. What, he’s gotta go on the 60-day? Fine, move the next pitcher in line onto the 40 to replace him. Teams have plenty of fungible arms they can throw at that strategy. And just think how much money they’re saving merely by moving the bottom of the 40-man in and out of the active roster.

Edited April 11, 2023 by chasfh

[mtutiger]

Right ulnar nerve entrapment.... that's a new one lol

[gehringer_2]

39 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Right ulnar nerve entrapment.... that's a new one lol

Fulmer - 2017.

[casimir]

7 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think most teams have stopped pushing their starters for the most part.  What I is missing I think is the secondary group which you mentioned - the consistent three inning relievers.  I don't think there are enough humans capable of pitching in the majors where you can keep on bringing in a new reliever in every inning after the the fifth inning like we are seeing regularly in baseball today.  

 

7 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

But doesn't more pitchers needed per game equal more opportunities to have one of them fail ? Kind of like Russian roulette ? 

Yes.  Understandable that Andrew Miller was a special case, but I thought his success of stamina and t8ming of game might have altered bullpen usage a bit.  But it obviously didn’t come to fruition.

[SeattleMike]

18 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

or for that matter in his MiLB career. I'm not going to let myself hope for much from a guy who hasn't proven himself by age 26 unless I have some scouting that he's done the "JD" thing - as in been able to recreate himself as a hitter in some major way. (which is the justification with Carpenter) Otherwise a callup based on a 50AB stretch is just setting ourselves up for disappointment and another DFA.

Of course JD hit very well in the minors. 

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, SeattleMike said:

Of course JD hit very well in the minors. 

That fact created a lot of anger on the board several years ago.  He was viewed by some as a player who was purely a scouting acquisition, somebody that the sabers could not have projected.  However, he was actually projected to do well in the majors based on his minor league numbers.  Perhaps, the sabers were not right.  Maybe, he didn't have the right approach at that time and only put up good numbers in the minors because the parks good for hitters and the pitchers were bad.  Maybe, he did need to make an adjustment to become good in the majors.  But he DID do well in the minors.  

Edited April 11, 2023 by Tiger337

[casimir]

57 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That fact created a lot of anger on the board several years ago.  He was viewed by some as a player who was purely a scouting acquisition, somebody that the sabers could not have projected.  However, he was actually projected to do well in the majors based on his minor league numbers.  Perhaps, the sabers were not right.  Maybe, he didn't have the right approach at that time and only put up good numbers in the minors because the parks good for hitters and the pitchers were bad.  Maybe, he did need to make an adjustment to become good in the majors.  But he DID do well in the minors.  

I always got a kick out of him jotting down notes of his previous plate appearance or whatever other thoughts came to mind.  You didn’t see that very often, so it was kind of unique and refreshing.  You see iPads all over the dugout now, but the actual note takimg was fun to see.

[gehringer_2]

7 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Right ulnar nerve entrapment.... that's a new one lol

this sounds pretty cool:

Quote

Brieske was diagnosed with entrapment of the ulnar nerve in his elbow, which can cause pain, weakness, numbness or tingling in the arm, hand or fingers. After consultation with a series of specialists, he received a nerve hydrodissection, a relatively new and minimally invasive procedure that uses ultrasound and solution injections to free the nerve from surrounding tissue or whatever is trapping it. The procedure has been used to treat carpal tunnel syndrome. Brieske is set to resume throwing later this week in Lakeland, Fla.

https://www.mlb.com/tigers/news/tigers-injuries-and-roster-moves

[RandyMarsh]

That's better news than I expected. I figured he'd be gone for the year but until he fully recovers from the procedure I'm not gonna think we're out of the woods. 

Brieske isn't an ace or anything but he could end up being an upgrade over the junk we're throwing out there. 

[Tigeraholic1]

 

[casimir]

16 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

Sure, its early.  But check out these OPS+ numbers.  Its just silly.

[Tigeraholic1]

To think how amazing the 1984 team was. I still don't see they Rays going 35-5