Evaluate Scott Harris' first year

[Jim Cowan]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Leyland is the kind of guy who would do that. Hinch, I doubt it.

I doubt it 100%.  I tend to believe the people who say that Hinch and Harris are operating together, at least for now.  Hinch has to be smart enough to know that if he gets himself fired by the Tigers he'll never work in the majors again, after the humiliating debacle in Houston.  Hinch and Harris will reach a consensus on every significant addition to, or subtraction from, the major league roster.  Candelario is Exhibit A.

And there is no way that Harris is influencing day-to-day lineup construction, telling Hinch to play certain guys.  Never in a million years.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Jim Cowan

[buddha]

On 9/5/2023 at 9:49 PM, Tenacious D said:

The return that the Nationals received for Candelario removed any concerns with non-tendering him for me.  He was always going to be a stopgap that would have been traded at the deadline.  Yes, we missed his production for four months, but his destiny was always to be shipped.

Next!

exactly.  he was dealt for a middling reliever prospect and a 20 year old shortstop currently hitting .150 in the sally league.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Leyland is the kind of guy who would do that. Hinch, I doubt it.

Hinch helped hire Harris. They are on the same side on things.

Edited September 7, 2023 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:49 PM, Tenacious D said:

The return that the Nationals received for Candelario removed any concerns with non-tendering him for me.  He was always going to be a stopgap that would have been traded at the deadline.  Yes, we missed his production for four months, but his destiny was always to be shipped.

Next!

I don't ever want to see my favorite team sign players in order to trade them later.  That is a loser philosophy.  I wanted Candelario on the Tigers because I thought he would make them a better team.  Trading players at the deadline is a consolation prize.  It should not be the goal.  It turns out that he would have made them a much better team.  he has 4.4 WAR this year.  The Tigers combined WAR is -2.0.  That is a 6.4 WAR difference.  That has the same value as adding a star to your line-up.    

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't ever want to see my favorite team sign players in order to trade them later.  That is a loser philosophy.  I wanted Candelario on the Tigers because I thought he would make them a better team.  Trading players at the deadline is a consolation prize.  It should not be the goal.  It turns out that he would have made them a much better team.  he has 4.4 WAR this year.  The Tigers combined WAR is -2.0.  That is a 6.4 WAR difference.  That has the same value as adding a star to your line-up.    

It seems like more than one baseball management around the league has stumbled - getting stuck in 'rebuild' mode - unable to make the transition out of planning to be better to actually being better.

[chasfh]

23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't ever want to see my favorite team sign players in order to trade them later.  That is a loser philosophy.  I wanted Candelario on the Tigers because I thought he would make them a better team.  Trading players at the deadline is a consolation prize.  It should not be the goal.  It turns out that he would have made them a much better team.  he has 4.4 WAR this year.  The Tigers combined WAR is -2.0.  That is a 6.4 WAR difference.  That has the same value as adding a star to your line-up.    

Given where we are in the process, I don't think it's a case of either get good players to win or get good players to flip, choose only one or the other, as much as it's a case of Plan A/Plan B.

[Dan Gilmore]

Hesitant as I am to prolong the Candelario debate, where are you getting the 4.4 WAR for 2023? I see lower numbers. @Tiger337 Are you extrapolating for the full year? 
 

To me, the debate of whether to keep in was related to a judgement of how well he was likely to do this year, with a range of possible outcomes. Suck/minor improvement, but still poor/medium improvement, but still mediocre/significant improvement, but some inconsistency/major improvement, great season/Awesomeness. I think based on his recent past, as well as a pattern of inconsistency, that the Tigers determined that the first sets of outcomes were more likely than the later set. He wasn’t going to either suck or be a very good player as the only two paths forward.  I think a discussion of the merits of projections comes into play here. Whose projections? Degree of certainty, caveats and hedges. I now return to trying to ignore this topic…

[Tiger337]

17 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

Hesitant as I am to prolong the Candelario debate, where are you getting the 4.4 WAR for 2023? I see lower numbers. @Tiger337 Are you extrapolating for the full year? 
 

 

Sorry I don't know how I got 4.4 other than being too distracted!  , It's 3.4 on B-ref, not 4.4.  That's still 5+ more WAR for the year than they got from their third basemen.  

[Tiger337]

33 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

To me, the debate of whether to keep in was related to a judgement of how well he was likely to do this year, with a range of possible outcomes. Suck/minor improvement, but still poor/medium improvement, but still mediocre/significant improvement, but some inconsistency/major improvement, great season/Awesomeness. I think based on his recent past, as well as a pattern of inconsistency, that the Tigers determined that the first sets of outcomes were more likely than the later set. He wasn’t going to either suck or be a very good player as the only two paths forward.  I think a discussion of the merits of projections comes into play here. Whose projections? Degree of certainty, caveats and hedges. I now return to trying to ignore this topic…

I think it was not unreasonable to think that he had a good chance to be a 3 WAR player based on what he did in 2020-2021.  I would have wanted him back even at 2-3 WAR.  

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I think it was not unreasonable to think that he had a good chance to be a 3 WAR player based on what he did in 2020-2021.  I would have wanted him back even at 2-3 WAR.  

That would be worth $7 million.

[alex]

All IMHO: Instead of posting several times I will be try to cover most of my thoughts, ideas and perspectives here 🙂.

First and foremost the 'game has changed' and I would like to see MLB 'catch up' to what is going on and get the 26/40 man rosters numbers to 28-30/45. More than likely this will take a few more seasons and 'if' smart maybe cut the season to 150 games. Add in scheduled DHs and have a few more scheduled off days during season (and I am a throw back fan but feel this would be best for the players health and the game).

With said this thread is about 'Evaluating Scott Harris' first year' for Motown Forum fans & contributors.

I tend to think Scott Harris and AJ (Hinch) are understanding of how the game has changed. I have heard AJ make comments about 'so and so' becoming an 'option' as a starting pitcher. He has also mentioned the idea today of 'bridge' relievers ex a pitcher who can pitch 2-4 innings twice a week on avg. and have 3-4 of these types on the roster who can also start/open games if need be (maybe 80-90 IP a year).

Harris has signed SPs in nos. before especially his last year in SF where he gave out several one year deals to potential 'bounce back' type candidates. Some made an impact some did not. It is a nos. game. This makes sense. DCone and others in the MLB media arena have repeatedly said each team has to have say roughly 10 SP types in the organization who could potentially go 150 innings. This does not mean all innings are at the MLB level however. Yet, in order for this to work - some of the players have to understand themselves that the game has changed. This is where 'opt' outs on MiLB deals could come in handy, etc.

Let's look at the Tigers as an example. Mize, Manning and Skubal were going to be the 'big three' for 5-8 years? Again, baseball no longer works that way. For the past two years we have barely gotten 150 innings combined from the three (this type of projection can go back further to the Norris, Fulmer and Boyd expectations). For the last 10+ years or so this change in innings has come about in MLB.

Most teams simply no longer have 3-4 SPs throwing 175 IP (ex apx 10 years ago Max, Verlander, Fister, Porcello, Sanchez did this during certain years. Go back 30-40 yrs Morris, Petry & Wilcox had 200 IPs and back further 250 IP from Lolich, McLain & Wilson). Again many teams have a similar history in relation to these types of numbers with SPs over the same past years.

Interesting Data Facts (apx nos.):

MLB years with SPs throwing 175+ innings:
- 1993 72
- 2003 83
- 2013 70
- 2022 34

MLB years with SPs throwing 200+ innings
- 1973 64
- 1993 52
- 2013 34
- 2022 8

MLB years with total Complete Games by SPs:
- 1973 1105
- 1993 377
- 2013 124
- 2022 29

(sources: baseball-reference.com and mlb.com)

It is obvious here how the game has changed in this particular aspect (and others).

Fans, coaches, team personnel from top to bottom all need to understand this. It seems fans are the last to perhaps 'acknowledge' and/or become aware of this as most are casual and it takes time to break what was once imprinted.

It would seem for a team to win today you have to have several SPs with the onset ability to throw 125-150 total innings. Personally, I do not see how it is going to work today without. If you look at stats - the Tigers do not have these projected nos. right now and hence less chances of winning. Too many bullpen days and position players pitching will not work. Injuries are a major factor for this. It can be called 'bad luck' but a good GM will know this going to take place and is where the game is now. Yes, some 'luck' is needed and there may always be a team or two that is an outlier, however it is Harris' job to find SPs that can help.

I feel this can be done without too many 'top' draft pick resources going towards that goal.

In other words draft mostly positional talent with 'some' pitching (scouts are big here), develop the arms drafted and then acquire other SP/RPs, pick them up via FAs, trades and/or the waiver wire. We have been fortunate to develop 'some' pitching talent (ex Fetter/Lund/Nieves and staff especially with bullpen arms) but we need to cover more innings.

I do like the player development personnel changes throughout the system (RGarko, etc.), their approach, the changes implemented with exercise physiology, nutrition, rest, etc. Knowledge is being applied (and we are learning more about the body and in particular tendon and ligament recovery/regeneration which BTW, is behind muscle recovery data).

..

The positional area may not be as tricky. Yet, there are still numbers that support the days of 6-7 positional players on the same team starting 150+ games has also changed dramatically. A true baseball fan could easily spat off a teams starting players (say 6-8 positions) 10, 20, 30+ years ago, especially their home club and the good teams. This again is no longer and positional 'depth' is very much needed as well.

I do like the fact that Scott Harris does churn a bit. In other words aquire someone, take a look at them, try to help and see who may develop (say for a year or even a couple mos.). If not move on ex all the INFs brought in: JRizzo, NMaton, NSolek, SMcKinstry, JCamargo, IDiaz, ELeonard, AIbanez, TNevin, etc., to go with Short, Kriedler. Yet, remember we did similar with Goodrum, JJones, the Castros, etc. recently.

However, it remains to be seen 'if' Harris & staff can come up with (identify) and develop more 'quality' types and even everyday players. I do understand the first year of churning. I was one who felt an experienced MLB type ex a Wil Myers, Brian Anderson type could have helped this past off season. That in retrospect was not so important. However, this upcoming off season we are losing some MLB experience with Miggy and these young players may need 'some' help and guidance from an actual player or two (again, all IMHO).

I am not sure 'who', but a player (or two) who still has something left (can contribute on the field) while also offering some experience might be a good get ex a DJ LeMahieu, etc. type and/or get a player who can grow with the team ex GTorres (again just examples).

Also, perhaps there may be a GM announced or someone with more responsibility appointed to help in this area.

On another note, the team has to find a way to get better playing at home. There may be some psychology involved here...

Grades:

Being aware that the game has changed and depth will be of utmost importance.
Grade:  B

Upgrading the development and scouting department (this will be the key to sustained success).
Grade:  A

Draft, the last one looks good but only time will tell. I like the position player emphasis.
Grade:  A-

One year with current team. I believe the team has taken steps in that there are some 'core' types here now and some possible help in the upcoming year. With said it 'seems' too much emphasis on 'versatile' type players is being done. I think you need starting players for say 6+ positions then the rest can be more platoon and bench types with the bench players being versatile as to help with the starters (ex rest, injuries, etc.).
Grade: Current team - B

Maybe the old adage of 'Add the big guns last' applies with player acquisition from outside - but it still remains to be seen if Scott Harris and staff can add impact players (IMHO, Comerica Park is not exactly a first choice to have a rebound offensive minded season). The team should compete next year for the division (unless extreme injuries) and even the time this year that they felt they had a chance (say up to end of August) was good for player development.
Grade: Outside player acquisition - Incomplete

 

[oblong]

Without any deep analysis I just go by my gut and say that it's been a lot of fun watching the team this year.  The good times feel legitimate and earned.  The bad times exist but it's easy to think there'd be fewer of them with some tweaks that he should be capable of doing.  They aren't THAT much better but I feel like I am watching more of the future than just retreads.  Rather than go on about individual deals or non deals it's better to take a macro view.  Expecting him to pull an expedited Dombrowski and get the team to the WS in one year rather than 3-4 is unreasonable.  Not saying anybody here is doing that but some on twitter already make fun of him and think he's in over his head.  Absurd.

I'd say a solid B.  It's probably an easy B considering the state but that's the reality.

[Tiger337]

I definitely agree that this year feels more like real progress than any year in a long time.  I am just not sure how much is Harris and how much is natural progression.  

[casimir]

19 hours ago, alex said:

All IMHO: Instead of posting several times I will be try to cover most of my thoughts, ideas and perspectives here 🙂.

First and foremost the 'game has changed' and I would like to see MLB 'catch up' to what is going on and get the 26/40 man rosters numbers to 28-30/45. More than likely this will take a few more seasons and 'if' smart maybe cut the season to 150 games. Add in scheduled DHs and have a few more scheduled off days during season (and I am a throw back fan but feel this would be best for the players health and the game).

With said this thread is about 'Evaluating Scott Harris' first year' for Motown Forum fans & contributors.

I tend to think Scott Harris and AJ (Hinch) are understanding of how the game has changed. I have heard AJ make comments about 'so and so' becoming an 'option' as a starting pitcher. He has also mentioned the idea today of 'bridge' relievers ex a pitcher who can pitch 2-4 innings twice a week on avg. and have 3-4 of these types on the roster who can also start/open games if need be (maybe 80-90 IP a year).

Harris has signed SPs in nos. before especially his last year in SF where he gave out several one year deals to potential 'bounce back' type candidates. Some made an impact some did not. It is a nos. game. This makes sense. DCone and others in the MLB media arena have repeatedly said each team has to have say roughly 10 SP types in the organization who could potentially go 150 innings. This does not mean all innings are at the MLB level however. Yet, in order for this to work - some of the players have to understand themselves that the game has changed. This is where 'opt' outs on MiLB deals could come in handy, etc.

Let's look at the Tigers as an example. Mize, Manning and Skubal were going to be the 'big three' for 5-8 years? Again, baseball no longer works that way. For the past two years we have barely gotten 150 innings combined from the three (this type of projection can go back further to the Norris, Fulmer and Boyd expectations). For the last 10+ years or so this change in innings has come about in MLB.

Most teams simply no longer have 3-4 SPs throwing 175 IP (ex apx 10 years ago Max, Verlander, Fister, Porcello, Sanchez did this during certain years. Go back 30-40 yrs Morris, Petry & Wilcox had 200 IPs and back further 250 IP from Lolich, McLain & Wilson). Again many teams have a similar history in relation to these types of numbers with SPs over the same past years.

Interesting Data Facts (apx nos.):

MLB years with SPs throwing 175+ innings:
- 1993 72
- 2003 83
- 2013 70
- 2022 34

MLB years with SPs throwing 200+ innings
- 1973 64
- 1993 52
- 2013 34
- 2022 8

MLB years with total Complete Games by SPs:
- 1973 1105
- 1993 377
- 2013 124
- 2022 29

(sources: baseball-reference.com and mlb.com)

It is obvious here how the game has changed in this particular aspect (and others).

Fans, coaches, team personnel from top to bottom all need to understand this. It seems fans are the last to perhaps 'acknowledge' and/or become aware of this as most are casual and it takes time to break what was once imprinted.

It would seem for a team to win today you have to have several SPs with the onset ability to throw 125-150 total innings. Personally, I do not see how it is going to work today without. If you look at stats - the Tigers do not have these projected nos. right now and hence less chances of winning. Too many bullpen days and position players pitching will not work. Injuries are a major factor for this. It can be called 'bad luck' but a good GM will know this going to take place and is where the game is now. Yes, some 'luck' is needed and there may always be a team or two that is an outlier, however it is Harris' job to find SPs that can help.

I feel this can be done without too many 'top' draft pick resources going towards that goal.

In other words draft mostly positional talent with 'some' pitching (scouts are big here), develop the arms drafted and then acquire other SP/RPs, pick them up via FAs, trades and/or the waiver wire. We have been fortunate to develop 'some' pitching talent (ex Fetter/Lund/Nieves and staff especially with bullpen arms) but we need to cover more innings.

I do like the player development personnel changes throughout the system (RGarko, etc.), their approach, the changes implemented with exercise physiology, nutrition, rest, etc. Knowledge is being applied (and we are learning more about the body and in particular tendon and ligament recovery/regeneration which BTW, is behind muscle recovery data).

..

The positional area may not be as tricky. Yet, there are still numbers that support the days of 6-7 positional players on the same team starting 150+ games has also changed dramatically. A true baseball fan could easily spat off a teams starting players (say 6-8 positions) 10, 20, 30+ years ago, especially their home club and the good teams. This again is no longer and positional 'depth' is very much needed as well.

I do like the fact that Scott Harris does churn a bit. In other words aquire someone, take a look at them, try to help and see who may develop (say for a year or even a couple mos.). If not move on ex all the INFs brought in: JRizzo, NMaton, NSolek, SMcKinstry, JCamargo, IDiaz, ELeonard, AIbanez, TNevin, etc., to go with Short, Kriedler. Yet, remember we did similar with Goodrum, JJones, the Castros, etc. recently.

However, it remains to be seen 'if' Harris & staff can come up with (identify) and develop more 'quality' types and even everyday players. I do understand the first year of churning. I was one who felt an experienced MLB type ex a Wil Myers, Brian Anderson type could have helped this past off season. That in retrospect was not so important. However, this upcoming off season we are losing some MLB experience with Miggy and these young players may need 'some' help and guidance from an actual player or two (again, all IMHO).

I am not sure 'who', but a player (or two) who still has something left (can contribute on the field) while also offering some experience might be a good get ex a DJ LeMahieu, etc. type and/or get a player who can grow with the team ex GTorres (again just examples).

Also, perhaps there may be a GM announced or someone with more responsibility appointed to help in this area.

On another note, the team has to find a way to get better playing at home. There may be some psychology involved here...

Grades:

Being aware that the game has changed and depth will be of utmost importance.
Grade:  B

Upgrading the development and scouting department (this will be the key to sustained success).
Grade:  A

Draft, the last one looks good but only time will tell. I like the position player emphasis.
Grade:  A-

One year with current team. I believe the team has taken steps in that there are some 'core' types here now and some possible help in the upcoming year. With said it 'seems' too much emphasis on 'versatile' type players is being done. I think you need starting players for say 6+ positions then the rest can be more platoon and bench types with the bench players being versatile as to help with the starters (ex rest, injuries, etc.).
Grade: Current team - B

Maybe the old adage of 'Add the big guns last' applies with player acquisition from outside - but it still remains to be seen if Scott Harris and staff can add impact players (IMHO, Comerica Park is not exactly a first choice to have a rebound offensive minded season). The team should compete next year for the division (unless extreme injuries) and even the time this year that they felt they had a chance (say up to end of August) was good for player development.
Grade: Outside player acquisition - Incomplete

 

This is probably a more comprehensive of a review than Harris will actually receive by the Tigers.  😆  You put a lot into this, nice effort.

[alex]

2 hours ago, casimir said:

This is probably a more comprehensive of a review than Harris will actually receive by the Tigers.  😆  You put a lot into this, nice effort.

Thank you much  🙏 🙂

[Cruzer1]

There's an excellent interview of Harris by Johnny Kane on this month's Inside Tigers, if you get a chance to catch it on Ballys, or you can watch it here...

https://www.motowntigers.com/2023/09/09/inside-the-tigers-progression/

[casimir]

23 hours ago, alex said:

Thank you much  🙏 🙂

I would probably take a little exception with what was mentioned about position players.

Quote

First and foremost the 'game has changed' and I would like to see MLB 'catch up' to what is going on and get the 26/40 man rosters numbers to 28-30/45. More than likely this will take a few more seasons and 'if' smart maybe cut the season to 150 games. Add in scheduled DHs and have a few more scheduled off days during season (and I am a throw back fan but feel this would be best for the players health and the game).

Quote

The positional area may not be as tricky. Yet, there are still numbers that support the days of 6-7 positional players on the same team starting 150+ games has also changed dramatically. A true baseball fan could easily spat off a teams starting players (say 6-8 positions) 10, 20, 30+ years ago, especially their home club and the good teams. This again is no longer and positional 'depth' is very much needed as well.

I don't think we'll see additional roster spots and/or reduced games anytime soon.  That's added cost and/or reduced revenue.  Ain't happening.

I understand what you are saying with the day-to-day lineup and position players.  But the Tigers might actually be closer to what used to be than we think. 

First, I would throw out C as a discussion point.  Its too much of a daily grind, day game after night game, more concern about head injuries, etc, etc.  Unless a team has top tier catcher, its too much to ask for 150 starts.  Its such an outlier, its almost like extra credit is a team has a Rutschman or someone like that.

So now we're talking essentially 8 offensive spots, 7 defensive spots from 11 nonC nonP roster spots.  OK, well, barring any unforeseen catastrophic injuries or unlikely transactions, the Tigers are looking at beginning next season with everyday contributions from Greene, Carpenter, Torkelson, and Baez.  That leaves 4 offensive spots left to deal with from among 7 nonC nonP roster spots.  With Cabrera leaving, that opens up a bit more DH time for that group (sans Baez because if he's getting a day off from the field, there's no need to keep the bat in the lineup) to get the occasional day off.  Greene's health and the fielding of Carpenter and Torkelson might mean more DH time for these guys than I think it will.  But I think more often than not we'll see all 3 starting games in the field.

The Tigers need offense, no question about it.  I think Malloy gets a shot beginning next season to supply a bat.  How he is deployed defensively, I don't know.  Sparingly might be the best answer.  But with Cabrera gone and with 4 of the aforementioned players donning horsehide more often than not, there shouldn't be a reason Malloy cannot be the starting DH.  And even when one of the aforementioned 3 of 4 are at DH, is it going to be often enough that it pushes Malloy to the bench rather than starting a game out at 3B/OF?  I don't know.  My gut tells me Malloy sits more than he starts in games where one of Greene/Carpenter/Torkelson DH.  I guess I wonder how often that will actually occur, but I suspect Harris/Hinch has that possible plan in place for next season. 

If that balancing act can work, now we're talking everyday players at DH, 1B, SS, LF, RF.  I think it covers the top half of the lineup (Malloy is probably at the top somewhere with his OBP) with Baez dropping toward the bottom.  It also allows Harris to seek one everyday player via trade (or a free agent like 3B Matt Chapman) to fill a spot elsewhere.

DH Malloy

LF Greene

1B Torkelson

RF Carpenter

3B Chapman (sure, its a dream, but let's spend money that ain't ours)

2B 

SS Baez

CF Meadows / Vierling

C Rogers / ??

Is this too much a stretch for next season?  Sure, Chapman probably is.  But can Harris find an everyday 2B or 3B that can handle the defense and add depth to the lineup?  I think from the offensive side, that's his biggest offseason task.  I think that kind of a lineup pushes guys like McKinstry, Short, Maton, to the bench where they should be. 

And who knows, maybe they feel Keith is far enough along to fill one of those holes, but I kind of question that to begin for next season.  But towards the end of next season, maybe he is the 2B in the lineup.

[Jim Cowan]

I count 5 every day players already including Meadows.  That leaves 2B, 3B, and one more OF/DH (Malloy is first in line).  Maybe Keith can fill a hole at 2B or 3B. 

I don't think that "the game has changed" very much at all.  GM's are still looking for every day players, and "chess pieces" are the unfortunate compromise when drafting and developing is done poorly.  Good teams don't have a bunch of guys who play 6 positions.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Jim Cowan

[Jim Cowan]

1 minute ago, Jim Cowan said:

 

Nm

Edited September 10, 2023 by Jim Cowan

[Tenacious D]

Keith will be in the starting lineup in April, barring some bizarre collapse or injury in Spring Training.  Not sure if he’s the 2B or 3B, but he’ll be in the lineup.  Malloy, too.

We might not see any significant position player additions this offseason.  And maybe just one starting pitcher acquisition, if ERod stays.  I also think there are plenty of bullpen candidates, among the failed starter group.

This could be a very quiet offseason.

[gehringer_2]

in the early part of the season the Tigers were near the bottom in both runs scored and runs allowed. Runs allowed has improved quite a bit with ERod, Skubal, Manning, Olson pitching well and generally decent defensive play other than 3b, but run scoring has remained mired near worst in baseball. They should try to retain or replace ERod with at least comparable talent, but even if Keith and Malloy are both the real deal as MLB hitters they could yet add another hitter or two and still struggle to get to get to 750 runs

[Tiger337]

51 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

I count 5 every day players already including Meadows.  That leaves 2B, 3B, and one more OF/DH (Malloy is first in line).  Maybe Keith can fill a hole at 2B or 3B. 

I don't think that "the game has changed" very much at all.  GM's are still looking for every day players, and "chess pieces" are the unfortunate compromise when drafting and developing is done poorly.  Good teams don't have a bunch of guys who play 6 positions.

The game has changed in that players are getting more rest days and spending more time on the DL.  Thus, depth has become more important.  However, I agree that there is nothing virtuous about putting together a roster of guys that play all different positions and havin not set roles.  Platoons are great when it's Champ Summers and John Wockenfuss at designated hitter on a consistent basis, not so great when you've got a different second baseman and third baseman every day and none of them are elite fielders or hitting enough to be starters.  

The Athletics had a revolving door at second base in the 70s because they didn't have anyone who could play every day, not because they wanted it that way.  It shouldn't be any different today.  

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Tiger337

[SoCalTiger]

39 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

 

This could be a very quiet offseason.

Playing into that is the lack of players to trade given our thin pitching and desire to keep the good young talent. The rest won't bring much plus it's a weak free agent hitter class. They also need to see if Meadows,Mallory and Keith actually can play and where they fit at the MLB level. They could however make a big impact on the pitching staff by signing a frontline pitcher and some are available. Yamamoto being #1. I think they need two. Like a Yamamoto and a Maeda. One stud one ok starter. Assuming Erod is gone.

[Tiger337]

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

in the early part of the season the Tigers were near the bottom in both runs scored and runs allowed. Runs allowed has improved quite a bit with ERod, Skubal, Manning, Olson pitching well and generally decent defensive play other than 3b, but run scoring has remained mired near worst in baseball. They should try to retain or replace ERod with at least comparable talent, but even if Keith and Malloy are both the real deal as MLB hitters they could yet add another hitter or two and still struggle to get to get to 750 runs

You don't know how many of this years starting pitchers will be both good and healthy next year.  Based on past track record, I'll guess some of them won't be. I think they will need another starter even if Rodriguez stays.  

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

You don't know how many of this years starting pitchers will be both good and healthy next year.  Based on past track record, I'll guess some of them won't be. I think they will need another starter even if Rodriguez stays.  

Of course you can never have to much pitching, but my guess is that they won't budget much for a 2nd starter signing (though I won't complain if they do!)  because they expect Mize to be effective and no team wants to put 9 figures into a 6th starter. Turnbull's ambiguous status also adds to the uncertainty in the mix - if they part company with him in the off season you would think that would increase the chances they'd be willing spend for two starters.

Edited September 10, 2023 by gehringer_2