Mize

[Tiger337]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

harder sure, but if it works better isn't that your objective? I'm being facetious of course but I can picture my roster of great hitters growing old and grey waiting for some kind of inter dimensional space/time warp event to deposit a couple of full grown Cy Young candidates in little force field orbs behind the bullpen shelter one day. 

I just don't think the harmonic convergence of enough winning pitching will ever happen if you don't make it happen.

You don't just throw a bunch of crap pitchers out there. Of course you try to get good pitchers, but most pitchers have ups and downs so you can't rely on them to do it every year.  The year all the pitchers do well at the same time is the year you win...if you have hitters in place.    

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

but most pitchers have ups and downs so you can't rely on them to do it every year. 

Serious question - you don't think top starting pitchers are as reliable from year to year as top hitters? I'd agree that the risk of losing them to catastrophic injury in a given year is higher, but it seem to me your top pitchers stay on the leader boards performance wise pretty much as consistently as good hitters. Relievers are for sure a different deal.

[SoCalTiger]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Lolich didn't have a great season until the World Series.  The offense played a big role in them getting to the series.  They led the league in runs scored and home runs.  The second place team in home runs was 50 behind the Tigers!

The 84 team had Whitaker, Trammell, Lemon , Parrish, Gibson and led the league in runs scored and home runs.

Those were two great teams with great balance between hitting and pitching.  

 

Wow I was not aware of that.Thanks.  I know the 68 Tigers won something like 35 games from the 7th inning on which was great and Gator !

[SoCalTiger]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

the 68 team lead the league in runs and run prevention. But my point was that that offense was together a number of years and never produced a winner except that year when Sparma and Wilson had pretty decent years, Lolich had fine year, McLain went supernova and Hiller was excellent relieving and spot starting all together. Plus you expected good run production at Tigers Stadium. Was leading the league by more an 120 runs scored more or less impressive than by 70 in runs prevented in that ballpark?

On the offensive side, Kaline was out half the year and Cash had a down season. 3b, and SS were not strong at the bat and Stanley was not a big stick. Horton, Freehand and Northrup were among league leaders with great seasons and McAulliffe was a good OBP guy.

Ya Ray Oyler and Don Wert did not strike fear in many pitchers hearts. Oylers claim to fame was Stanley playing shortstop in the Series and maybe being a high draft pick in the expansion draft ? Maybe first ? Not sure about that though.

As for Wert .." Wert singles..Kaline has scored. The fans are streaming on the field and the Tigers have won their first pennant since 1945. Let's listen to the bedlam here at Tiger Stadium" - Ernie Harwell...not sure if perfect but I can hear Ernie clear as a bell.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Wow I was not aware of that.Thanks.  I know the 68 Tigers won something like 35 games from the 7th inning on which was great and Gator !

I'd push back some that Lolich wasn't good in '68. He wasn’t used as much (in fact made 7 relief appearances - which I have to say I don't remember at all)  and "only" completed 8 games so Mayo was taking him out of games earlier than later in his career. He was credited with 17 wins but the Tigers won 24 of his starts. So counting totals maybe weren't as high, but his peripherals were mostly quite good. His K rate was the 3nd best of his career and his FIP was 2.99 which was well better than his average FIP of 3.2 while in Det (which discounts his poor last years in SD) and only 0.34 off his career best, his WHIP was third best of his career, hits/9 was the 2nd best of his career. His ERA+ was below 100 -- but 68 was a pretty nutty year for ERA across the leagues. His raw ERA and FIP were better in 68 than 69 despite his 69 ERA+ being 119, so I'd argue it wasn't Lolich's performance that was the difference in ERA+ as much as the league itself being the outlier in '68./

Down the stretch from Aug 1, McLain's ERA was 1.85, Lolich's was 2.39 and in fact in Sept. Mickey's ERA (2.27) matched McLain's (2.29) across their last 6/7 starts. It was not a surprise Mickey pitched well in the Series (of course the 3 CG was), they were 1 and 1A by that time. The surprise was McLain didn't pitch better.

Edited May 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Serious question - you don't think top starting pitchers are as reliable from year to year as top hitters? I'd agree that the risk of losing them to catastrophic injury in a given year is higher, but it seem to me your top pitchers stay on the leader boards performance wise pretty much as consistently as good hitters. Relievers are for sure a different deal.

They get hurt and when you are develiping pitchers you don't know which ones are going to be durable.  

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'd push back some that Lolich wasn't good in '68. He wasn’t used as much (in fact made 7 relief appearances - which I have to say I don't remember at all)  and "only" completed 8 games so Mayo was taking him out of games earlier than later in his career. He was credited with 17 wins but the Tigers won 24 of his starts. So counting totals maybe weren't as high, but his peripherals were mostly quite good. His K rate was the 3nd best of his career and his FIP was 2.99 which was well better than his average FIP of 3.2 while in Det (which discounts his poor last years in SD) and only 0.34 off his career best, his WHIP was third best of his career, hits/9 was the 2nd best of his career. His ERA+ was below 100 -- but 68 was a pretty nutty year for ERA across the leagues. His raw ERA and FIP were better in 68 than 69 despite his 69 ERA+ being 119, so I'd argue it wasn't Lolich's performance that was the difference in ERA+ as much as the league itself being the outlier in '68./

Down the stretch from Aug 1, McLain's ERA was 1.85, Lolich's was 2.39 and in fact in Sept. Mickey's ERA (2.27) matched McLain's (2.29) across their last 6/7 starts. It was not a surprise Mickey pitched well in the Series (of course the 3 CG was), they were 1 and 1A by that time. The surprise was McLain didn't pitch better.

Lolich was mediocre in 68 during one of the best pitching years in the history of the game.  If you look at his pitching log, it shows that he was sent to the bullpen because he pitched several bad games in a row.  I also just read the same thing in Cantor's book "The Tigers of '68".  He was very frustrated by his performance.  Things started to click for him late in the year.     

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

harder sure, but if it works better isn't that your objective? I'm being facetious of course but I can picture my roster of great hitters growing old and grey in 3rd place waiting for some kind of inter dimensional space/time warp event to deposit a couple of full grown Cy Young candidates in little force field orbs behind the bullpen shelter one day. 

You've described the Texas Rangers circa 1995-2009 fairly well.

There are countless examples of roster construction based primarily around hitting and trying to acquire/luck into pitching over the years that haven't turned out well.

Edited May 17, 2022 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Lolich was mediocre in 68 during one of the best pitching years in the history of the game.  If you look at his pitching log, it shows that he was sent to the bullpen because he pitched several bad games in a row.  I also just read the same thing in Cantor's book "The Tigers of '68".  He was very frustrated by his performance.  Things started to click for him late in the year.     

Are we looking at the same logs? I think Cantor was a little overdramatic. He had exactly three rough outings at the end of July. His ERA was 3.22 on July 15. He got roughed up on the 19th, 24th, 28th, gave up runs in relief on Aug 2 and then was right back on track, not giving up a run in 6 more BP appearance and then going back into the rotation. His ERA for the rest of Aug after the 2nd was 1.83. So clicked immediately is more accurate.  So basically he had a rough 2 week. And I'm sure he was POd at being sent to the pen.

Interestingly enough, look a little deeper, those games were in three series  - a home and home against the Orioles sandwiched around the Senators. Denny got roughed up Jul 20 and 23 in games in the same series. Could the other team deserve a little credit? The Orioles were on their way to being a great team. They came into DET and took 3 of four, the only game we won was one Lolich started (his 1st poor one) and Dobson won in relief. McLain and Wilson also took losses in that series. Then they lost two of three to the Sen (McLain and Lolich) and took two of three against the Orioles in Balt - Lolich with his final bad start there.

Another thing to consider is that given poor starts by multiple starters in a short  a short stretch it might also have been a bug going around the clubhouse. Of course they all would have been doubly upset because Baltimore was the team behind them. That week was the closest Baltimore got the rest of the way. In '69 the same Baltimore team brought Palmer up for good, picked up Cuellar, and ran away with it, winning 109.

I know you don't think Lolich was much of a pitcher, but he was pretty much same pitcher in '68 he usually was. To argue he had an overall off year in total does not match the facts of his peripherals at all.

Edited May 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

Lolich was oine of the best

57 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Are we looking at the same logs? I think Cantor was a little overdramatic. He had exactly three rough outings at the end of July. His ERA was 3.22 on July 15. He got roughed up on the 19th, 24th, 28th, gave up runs in relief on Aug 2 and then was right back on track, not giving up a run in 6 more BP appearance and then going back into the rotation. His ERA for the rest of Aug after the 2nd was 1.83. So clicked immediately is more accurate.  So basically he had a rough 2 week. And I'm sure he was POd at being sent to the pen.

Interestingly enough, look a little deeper, those games were in three series  - a home and home against the Orioles sandwiched around the Senators. Denny got roughed up Jul 20 and 23 in games in the same series. Could the other team deserve a little credit? The Orioles were on there way to being a great team. They came into DET and took 3 of four, the only game we won was one Lolich started (his 1st poor one) and Dobson won in relief. McLain and Wilson also took losses in that series. Then they lost two of three to the Sen (McLain and Lolich) and took two of three against the Orioles in Balt - Lolich with his final bad start there.

Another thing to consider is that given poor starts by multiple starters in a short  a short stretch it might also have been a bug going around the clubhouse. Of course they all would have been doubly upset because Baltimore was the team behind them. That week was the closest Baltimore got the rest of the way. In '69 the same Baltimore team brought Palmer up for good, picked up Cuellar, and ran away with it, winning 109.

I know you don't think Lolich was much of a pitcher, but he was pretty much same pitcher in '68 he usually was. To argue he had an overall off year in total does not match the facts of his peripherals at all.

Lolich was a great pitcher, one of the top five in Tigers history for his career.  Given how strong pitching was in 1968, I just don't see how you can say how it was one of his good seasons.  Since he pitched fewer innings in a pitcher friendly environment in 1968, his rate stats should have been better than other years and they weren't.  Mayo Smith sent him to the bullpen for a while, so he must have been unimpressed.  He was certainly fantastic in the post-season, but that was a surprise.     

Edited May 17, 2022 by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Lolich was oine of the best

Lolich was a great pitcher, one of the top five in Tigers history for his career.  Given how strong pitching was in 1968, I just don't see how you can say how it was one of his good seasons.  Since he pitched fewer innings in a pitcher friendly environment in 1968, his rate stats should have been better than other years and they weren't.  Mayo Smith sent him to the bullpen for a while, so he must have been unimpressed.  He was certainly fantastic in the post-season, but that was a surprise.     

I'm telling you that we fans in '68 were NOT surprised Lolich had a good series.

I think the difference is that we are taking opposite views on what the '68 league ERAs mean. You seem (If I understand your basic arg) to be saying the league ERA was great because all the hitters sucked so every pitcher should have had a great ERA year. I think it much more highly probable that the hitters were basically the same and enough pitchers (like McLain and Gibson) had relative career years to skew the league average ERA. Since it takes far fewer pitchers having good years than hitters having bad years to get to the same set of ERA+ results, I'm going with the former on pure probability grounds. Thus to me, Lolich was the guy he usually was, and that is backed by his peripherals being some of the best of his career.

Edited May 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

His stats should have been better in 1968 because the mound was higher and the strike zone was bigger than the later years.  You personally may not have been surprised by his post-season because you recognized his ability and he was a good strikeout pitcher even in '68, but his performance was not especially good in '68.  28th in ERA+ and 19th in FIP in a ten team league with a relatively light workload.  In your opinion, why was he sent to the bullpen?  That's not what usually happens to a great pitcher having a great season.    

Some players that had arguably their best season in 1968 were Willie Horton, Bill Freehan, Jim Northrup and Dick McAuliffe.  

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

His stats should have been better in 1968 because the mound was higher and the strike zone was bigger than the later years.  You personally may not have been surprised by his post-season because you recognized his ability and he was a good strikeout pitcher even in '68, but his performance was not especially good in '68.  28th in ERA+ and 19th in FIP in a ten team league with a relatively light workload.  In your opinion, why was he sent to the bullpen?  That's not what usually happens to a great pitcher having a great season.    

Some players that had arguably their best season in 1968 were Willie Horton, Bill Freehan, Jim Northrup and Dick McAuliffe.  

He had a bad week and Mayo was a manager in a hurry? I do see some significance to the fact that two of the losses were to the offense that won 109 the next season. Mayo jerked guys around all the time - did he ever use the same batting order twice in a row? Just looking at the game logs over that two weeks it's honestly hard to figure what Mayo was doing. Fred Lasher was out, so the BP would have been short. The starts Mickey didn't make were given to Pat Dobson(2), Darryl Patterson and Hiller took one - so that wasn't saving the pen really. OTOH, Mickey worked 5 and 5.2 innings in his last two relief appearances with no runs so he was already in split start - stretch out mode. But then Mayo skipped him for a full week before his next start (Aug 22) so who knows what was going on? Maybe he was ready to start again and got a virus or something.

They did add Don MacMahon on July 28 which adds some evidence they needed more BP arms. If they wanted to see what Patterson (rookie?) or Dobson could do as a starter your couldn't send Sparma to the pen, his control was erratic, Wilson was a senior guy (and a good hitter), you weren't going to move McLain!

In any case, I don't know how often Mickey was higher or lower in FIP than 19th, but for him, his '68 FIP was pretty normal. I mean, there is a reason he's not in the HOF despite retiring with the most K's for a LHP. He usually was not *that* dominant, he was just very good. His real talent came later in the number of innings he would give you, that saved you as a team from having to use somebody worse for those innings. That did have great value but there is no prize or award for that.

[Tiger337]

Lolich finished in the top 10 in FIP 5 times.

What he did in 1971, 1972 was extraordinary though - pitching 375 and 327 innings and still finishing in the top ten in ERA+.  That was like something out of the deadball era.  He finished in the top three in Cy Young voting both yrears.   

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Lolich finished in the top 10 in FIP 5 times.

What he did in 1971, 1972 was extraordinary though - pitching 375 and 327 innings and still finishing in the top ten in ERA+.  That was like something out of the deadball era.  He finished in the top three in Cy Young voting both yrears.   

half dozen good years only gets you the HOF if you do it for the Dodgers.....

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

half dozen good years only gets you the HOF if you do it for the Dodgers.....

Lolich is borderline, but more deserving than Morris.  

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Lolich is borderline, but more deserving than Morris.  

No arg there. My one extra thought on that is that I think Mickey got everything out his talent, I think maybe Jack could have been better than he was - not that that should get him anything in retrospect - his record is what he made it. But I think maybe the reason Morris was able to rise to the occasion as well as he did on those occasions he gets so much credit for is that there may have been a more successful pitcher in there that his personality/stubborness always sabotaged a little over a season.

Or another way to put it is that for as much sage advice as he claims to have for Tiger pitchers today, I never thought he was a very smart pitcher himself.

Edited May 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

No arg there. The caveat to that is that I think Mickey got everything out his talent, I think maybe Jack could have been better than he was - not that that should get him anything in retrospect. But I think maybe the reason Morris was able to rise to the occasion as well as he did on those occasions he gets so much credit for is that there may have been a more successful pitcher in there that his personality/stubborness always sabotaged a little over a season.

Too bad he didn't rise to the occasion in '87.  

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Too bad he didn't rise to the occasion in '87.  

34 RA in 5 games for a playoff team? Morris and the whole staff sucked in that series. 

Everything that happened post 84' sucked really. Even reaching the playoffs in '87 couldn't erase the fact that Monaghan was an idiot (in Ann Arbor we knew him up close and personal already) and it was obvious management was intent on screwing up the team to save a few bucks and everything could only get worse - which it did.

Edited May 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

34 RA in 5 games for a playoff team? Morris and the whole staff sucked in that series. 

Everything that happened post 84' sucked really. Even reaching the playoffs in '87 couldn't erase the fact that Monahan was an idiot and it was obvious management was intent on screwing up the team to save a few bucks and everything could only get worse - which it did.

The 87 pennant race was fantastic, one of my best Tiger memories.  Overall, I agree they were a disappointment after '84 though.  They had a potential dynasty, but management did not seize the moment.     

[SoCalTiger]

I think Lolich was the best Tiger pitcher not named Verlander in the last 60 years. He is a HOF in my book along with Freehan and Whitaker. All robbed. 

[Jim Cowan]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The 87 pennant race was fantastic, one of my best Tiger memories.  Overall, I agree they were a disappointment after '84 though.  They had a potential dynasty, but management did not seize the moment.     

They had a loaded team from '84 to '87 and only made the World Series once.  Different players had good years and bad years, but Gibson was like a metronome - 28 homers, 30 steals, OPS+ in the high 130's.

[Tiger337]

21 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

I think Lolich was the best Tiger pitcher not named Verlander in the last 60 years. He is a HOF in my book along with Freehan and Whitaker. All robbed. 

They can all make a good case.  I would rank them

1. Whitaker

2. Freehan

3, Lolich.  

I probably wouldn't put Lolich in because there are a number of pitchers a little ahead of him that haven't gotten in but I think he's done enough for strong consideration.  Whitaker's candicacy has been beaten to death.  His lifetime numbers make him a shoe in.  He is an odd case in that he has had more good years than almost any player ever, but never had a career year.  He was TOO consistent and too quiet.  Freehan is definitely on the short list of best catchers not yet in the HoF and I think there is a catcher shortage. 

[davidsb623]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I probably wouldn't put Lolich in because there are a number of pitchers a little ahead of him that haven't gotten in but I think he's done enough for strong consideration.  

The only thing I might add was when he retired, Lolich was the major league all time leader in strikeouts for a LHP.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

They can all make a good case.  I would rank them

1. Whitaker

2. Freehan

3, Lolich.  

I probably wouldn't put Lolich in because there are a number of pitchers a little ahead of him that haven't gotten in but I think he's done enough for strong consideration.  Whitaker's candicacy has been beaten to death.  His lifetime numbers make him a shoe in.  He is an odd case in that he has had more good years than almost any player ever, but never had a career year.  He was TOO consistent and too quiet.  Freehan is definitely on the short list of best catchers not yet in the HoF and I think there is a catcher shortage. 

Freehan is such an odd case to me. He was the hands down dominant catcher in his league for nearly his whole career. Forget all the stats, that alone should get you more consideration that Freehan ever got.