Jump to content

The Tigers have fired Al Avila


kdog

Recommended Posts

jim leyland had one of the best roatations in baseball stacked full of hall of famers and a lineup of great players in detroit and never won 100 games and never won a world series.

sparky anderson had a stacked team with the tigers full of hall of famers and won once.  with one great season.

you dont win without great players.  and even good managers lose with great players.  but if your players suck, you're going to be bad like the tigers are now and your manager is going to look bad because of it.

unless he just quits like leyland did in colorado.  now that's a great leader.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

What if the analytics staff or pro scouting outfit is a complete cluster and throwing everybody off? I'm not saying it is

Isn't that still the manager's domain? He is the final filter in front of everything the team presents to his players in terms of data and tactics. If they suck, he needed to tell the back office guys to stuff it by now.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Isn't that still the manager's domain? He is the final filter in front of everything the team presents to his players in terms of data and tactics. If they suck, he needed to tell the back office guys to stuff it by now.

They all report to Sartori.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, buddha said:

jim leyland had one of the best roatations in baseball stacked full of hall of famers and a lineup of great players in detroit and never won 100 games and never won a world series.

sparky anderson had a stacked team with the tigers full of hall of famers and won once.  with one great season.

you dont win without great players.  and even good managers lose with great players.  but if your players suck, you're going to be bad like the tigers are now and your manager is going to look bad because of it.

unless he just quits like leyland did in colorado.  now that's a great leader.

Leyland's teams had bad bullpens every year.  It's hard to win 100 games when your team has any glaring weakness.  

Anderson won 100 games four times and 98 or more games 7 times with stacked Reds and Tigers teams.  In 1989, his team lost 103 games because they had no talent.  It's all about the players.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Leyland's teams had bad bullpens every year.  It's hard to win 100 games when your team has any glaring weakness.  

Anderson won 100 games four times and 98 or more games 7 times with stacked Reds and Tigers teams.  In 1989, his team lost 103 games because they had no talent.  It's all about the players.  

 

 

 

I wonder how much of those bad bullpens was bad defense stretching the pitching thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Devil's advocate: without being on the inside, we can't say that the hitting implosion is Coolbaugh's fault.

I agree 100% that we cannot know one way or another unless we are on the inside.

However with such extreme circumstances as these, even given the known external factors like the baseball, and the NL to AL switch for Baez and Tucker, its still reasonable to speculate, I'm guessing you agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Devil's advocate: without being on the inside, we can't say that the hitting implosion is Coolbaugh's fault.

No, we can't.  But many of the same fans blaming Coolbaugh and Avila are assuming that Hinch is blameless.  He may very well be blameless. but we don't know that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gkelly said:

I am curious how people view Sparky Anderson around here.  I know there is some sentiment that anyone could have won with the Big Red Machine, even though winning the WS is really, really tough.  In Detroit, do people think he is an underachiever who could only take his stacked team to the playoffs 2x?  I was pretty young in the 80s, so I don't have much of an opinion.

My opinion is that in a 5 year window with a loaded team he only made it to the world series once, and someone else brought up Roger Craig who was pretty important.  A big factor was inconsistency - players would have good years, and then bad years.  The exception was Gibson who was a metronome - 27 home runs, 29 steals, .840 OPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Leyland's teams had bad bullpens every year.  It's hard to win 100 games when your team has any glaring weakness.  

Anderson won 100 games four times and 98 or more games 7 times with stacked Reds and Tigers teams.  In 1989, his team lost 103 games because they had no talent.  It's all about the players.  

 

 

 

the tigers had a really good bullpen in 2006.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Leyland's teams had bad bullpens every year.  It's hard to win 100 games when your team has any glaring weakness. 

Other than 2006, Leylands bullpens werent great but they werent bad either.  They were middle of the pack.

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Anderson won 100 games four times and 98 or more games 7 times with stacked Reds and Tigers teams.  In 1989, his team lost 103 games because they had no talent.  It's all about the players.  

The Manager cannot win with crap but he can make a major difference with how he uses what is on the roster and in the system and how he works with the FO to align pieces.  2006 and 2021 are examples of this.  2022 is also an example of the limits of this when every pitcher gets injured and every hitter falls into a hole performance wise.

I realize you and I arent going to agree on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

No, we can't.  But many of the same fans blaming Coolbaugh and Avila are assuming that Hinch is blameless.  He may very well be blameless. but we don't know that.  

I dont know about others...I have been an AJ supporter, but I have been open minded to his potential culpability WRT to keeping Coolbaugh and his possible contributions to the hitting malaise, and possibly the mishandling of pitcher health by AJ and Fetters, as much as I admire the pitching outcomes despite the utter injury depletion of the ranks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, buddha said:

aj is not the problem, imo.  however, if a new gm wanted to come in and clean house and bring in his own people, i'd be fine with it.

the team has regressed so badly this year that no one in management should be safe.

I very reluctantly agree, but I would prefer to see AJ and Fetters stay and see what they could do with a good GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

My opinion is that in a 5 year window with a loaded team he only made it to the world series once, and someone else brought up Roger Craig who was pretty important.  A big factor was inconsistency - players would have good years, and then bad years.  The exception was Gibson who was a metronome - 27 home runs, 29 steals, .840 OPS.

Trammell was injured a fair amount and that hurt them a lot.

They did a good job replacing starting pitchers like Wilcox, Rozema, and Juan B with Terrell and Tanana.

But nothing could ever repeat the incredible bullpen from 1984.  Willie and Lopez alone combined for 250 lights out innings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...