chasfh Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Tiger337 said: I was thinking 1.7 WAR over 140 games because hardly anyone plays 162 games anymore. Right, that's closer to reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: He'll be back in Sptember. They didn't want to lose McKinstry. I guess he is their Tom Brookens. A weak LH bat, I don't get it. The Tigers don't really need his glove anywhere on the field and his bat is mostly useless. It would be nice to have at least one RH bat in the OF. Hinch loves the guy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 7 minutes ago, chasfh said: I'd forgotten how the Pennsylvania Poker had played all over the field. He is cemented in my mind as a third baseman. He was a useful player when he was used as a utlity player. They tried too long to make him a full-time third baseman. McKinstry is similar in that way. A long time ago in another forum, I ran into a big Brookens fans. I suggested that Brookens really wasn't that good and the guy went ape ****. He went through all the usual stuff - Brookens was clutch, he hit into a lot of tough outs, knew how to move to runner over and thart I needed to get my head out of my spreadsheets and watch the games. We had some "good debates". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleMike Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 5 hours ago, Tiger337 said: He was a useful player when he was used as a utlity player. They tried too long to make him a full-time third baseman. McKinstry is similar in that way. A long time ago in another forum, I ran into a big Brookens fans. I suggested that Brookens really wasn't that good and the guy went ape ****. He went through all the usual stuff - Brookens was clutch, he hit into a lot of tough outs, knew how to move to runner over and thart I needed to get my head out of my spreadsheets and watch the games. We had some "good debates". Brookens was my father’s favorite Tiger, for all the reasons you would expect. I knew it was fruitless to pick at his flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMU97 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Brookens wasn't that good, but wasn't that bad either. Good enough to accrue 11 years service time and a full pension. 2 favorite brookens moments: I don't re.ember who they were playing, but Morris was pitching, Parrish behind the plate and Brookens at third. There was a bunt down the third base line and all 3 converged on the ball at the same time. Lance absolutely ran Tom over and crushed him to make the play. And the time he was the emergency catcher and came out in Parrish's gear. Very funny sight. I was upset when he was traded because it was solely because he was about to become a 10-5 guy and the Tigers did not want that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 6 hours ago, Tiger337 said: He was a useful player when he was used as a utlity player. They tried too long to make him a full-time third baseman. McKinstry is similar in that way. A long time ago in another forum, I ran into a big Brookens fans. I suggested that Brookens really wasn't that good and the guy went ape ****. He went through all the usual stuff - Brookens was clutch, he hit into a lot of tough outs, knew how to move to runner over and thart I needed to get my head out of my spreadsheets and watch the games. We had some "good debates". I know that argument. I've lost it enough..lol My son always tries to tell me that there's no such thing as "injury prone." I can't ever come up with a good example of some player who is. Clutch...lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.