2022-23 Detroit Tigers Offseason Thread

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

im ambivalent on the shift.  i dont like to see it, but part of me thinks that its SO EASY to beat and they STILL keep pulling the ball into it every time.  let them suffer if they cant make changes to counter the defensive counters.

but this goes back to the ball argument. Yes the shift can be beaten, but as long as your HR/FB ratio is high enough, you are still better off trying to pull the ball into the seats instead of taking fhe improved odds on one base. The good hitters don't hit into the shift because they are stupid, they do it because that is what the stat nerds in the FO are telling them to do and because OPS is what gets them paid and pulling the ball is how to get the total bases that drive their OPS.

Edited January 4, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

Mitch Haniger might have been useful but he's 32 and can't always be relied upon to play a full season, so I don't know if I would give him 3/43...probably not.  As for all the other signings, I am happy that the Tigers did not agree to any of those.

[mtutiger]

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

We don't know, but that's the kind of thing I am OK with. Sure I want the team to play the kids, but also want them to have the option to pull them back when they are falling on their faces with enough major depth to keep a watchable team on the field.

I agree with this, and do still expect them to bring someone in at their couple of positions of need. Even if they aren't big sexy names.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I get all this Chash. And I have no problem with them not chasing any of the 9 figure deals. But what I would argue on the other hand is that there is some obligation to put a better product in the field in the interim while you do all the requried foundation work. If that means paying a guy for two years instead of one, to me that is not adequate justification for running a terrible team out there again. For example, sure the Barnhardt deal is an overpay, but in the overall scheme of a major league baseball team the extra years being given out are not the kind of money that that is going to impact the org's ability to do anything else it wants to. 

First of all, who are Chash and Barnhardt? 😉

I’m not saying I agree that the Tigers should not give stopgap free agents two-year deals—I’m saying I believe the Tigers don’t want to give stopgap free agents two-year deals, which is why at least in part I think they haven’t signed any of those yet.

I also believe we were caught by surprise by the free agent market being such a players market, the more that being the case, the less attractive Detroit looks as an option, especially to a hitter who sees our ballpark, sees how little support he would have from the rest of the lineup, sees how we lost 96 games yet again, and concluded, thanks, pass.

I’m with TD on his implication that we should not sign a major league position player free agent just to get one on the roster. I don’t like the idea of Brian Anderson at all, especially coming straight from the National League, and I especially don’t like the idea of two years of him. And FWIW, I’m not on board with Tommy La Stella, either, especially if it means moving Jonathan Schoop out of position, which we did in 2021 to craptastic effect.

Edited January 4, 2023 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

im ambivalent on the shift.  i dont like to see it, but part of me thinks that its SO EASY to beat and they STILL keep pulling the ball into it every time.  let them suffer if they cant make changes to counter the defensive counters.

I am also ambivalent. I like it because it's strategic.  I don't like it because it's still disconcerting to see balls that have been hits my whole life as a fan become easy outs.  I never really got used to it.  I don't really think they can ban it though.  I think we are going to see teams find ways to get around it. 

I also agree with you that more hitters should have been able to get around it.  I don't buy the excuse that it's too difficult for the best hitters in the world to alter their swing to beat the shift.  I do kind of buy the theory that players don't try to beat the shift because constantly slugging for homers pays off in the long run.  I don't think that works for everyone though. 

[Tenacious D]

Take Devers off your wish list—just signed for 11 years/$330M.

[RatkoVarda]

13 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Take Devers off your wish list—just signed for 11 years/$330M.

next winter's free agent position player pool was already shallow, and by the time more extensions are signed, will be less so

good thing Harris saved his ammo for Winter 2024

[Tenacious D]

47 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

next winter's free agent position player pool was already shallow, and by the time more extensions are signed, will be less so

good thing Harris saved his ammo for Winter 2024

If Javy can put together his typical, pre-2022 season, he could really cash in next year. 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, RatkoVarda said:

next winter's free agent position player pool was already shallow, and by the time more extensions are signed, will be less so

good thing Harris saved his ammo for Winter 2024

Yep, Harris is just sitting back on the beach drinking mai tais... right 

[buddha]

26 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

If Javy can put together his typical, pre-2022 season, he could really cash in next year. 

prediction:  240/290/440

[Tenacious D]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

prediction:  240/290/440

Well, then we’ll both be stuck with each other.

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I also agree with you that more hitters should have been able to get around [the shift].  I don't buy the excuse that it's too difficult for the best hitters in the world to alter their swing to beat the shift.  I do kind of buy the theory that players don't try to beat the shift because constantly slugging for homers pays off in the long run.  I don't think that works for everyone though. 

I think it’s partly about players who won’t learn to go around the shift, and also about teams not promoting players who can’t hit home runs over the shift. Analytics might be telling front offices that more runs are scored by a lineup anchored by low average-high strikeout-high homer pull sluggers than by high-average-normal strikeout-doubles-hitting spray hitters, so they focus on bringing up the former at the expense of the latter. But in the end, I think it’s about what the chicks dig. We’ll find out this season if we see a home run spike, assuming same or livelier ball.

[gehringer_2]

36 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think it’s partly about players who won’t learn to go around the shift, and also about teams not promoting players who can’t hit home runs over the shift. Analytics might be telling front offices that more runs are scored by a lineup anchored by low average-high strikeout-high homer pull sluggers than by high-average-normal strikeout-doubles-hitting spray hitters, so they focus on bringing up the former at the expense of the latter. But in the end, I think it’s about what the chicks dig. We’ll find out this season if we see a home run spike, assuming same or livelier ball.

I wonder if it doesn't becomes a self fulfilling prophecy though. Once you start down the road of bringing in high ISO low OBP players, do high OBP low ISO players then become comparatively more useless because you won't have enough BA in the lineup to move them around if they do get on base? (which is basically where I would say the Tigers have been recently.)

Which I think is an interesting question for the stat gurus. Based on considerations like this, I might argue that you can't really establish an truly predictive global correlation like one between OBP and runs created - maybe there are internal dependancies within team data depending on the properties of each line-up. If that is true, who knows how many teams may actually giving themselves bad (or at least sub-optimal) advice.

Edited January 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[RatkoVarda]

Your New Home For Funk

 

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I wonder if it doesn't becomes a self fulfilling prophecy though. Once you start down the road of bringing in high ISO low OBP players, do high OBP low ISO players then become comparatively more useless because you won't have enough BA in the lineup to move them around if they do get on base? (which is basically where I would say the Tigers have been recently.)

Which I think is an interesting question for the stat gurus. Based on considerations like this, I might argue that you can't really establish an truly predictive global correlations like one between OBP and runs created - maybe there are internal dependancies within team data depending on the properties of each line-up. If that is true, who knows how many teams may actually giving themselves bad advice.

The wOBA stat gives weights to BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR based on the statistical probability that each event contributes to a run.  The weights do change over time, but they remain relatively stable.  For example, Walks had about 3% less value from 2018-2022 than they did from 1998-2002.  The value of singles changed even less.  If you go back to the 1930s, you will see some more meaningful differences.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I wonder if it doesn't becomes a self fulfilling prophecy though. Once you start down the road of bringing in high ISO low OBP players, do high OBP low ISO players then become comparatively more useless because you won't have enough BA in the lineup to move them around if they do get on base? (which is basically where I would say the Tigers have been recently.)

Which I think is an interesting question for the stat gurus. Based on considerations like this, I might argue that you can't really establish an truly predictive global correlation like one between OBP and runs created - maybe there are internal dependancies within team data depending on the properties of each line-up. If that is true, who knows how many teams may actually giving themselves bad (or at least sub-optimal) advice.

If it's correlation you want, you will like this: correlation of attributes to weighted runs created, 2000 through 2022, n=690. Take from it what you will.

• AVG: 0.64
• OBP: 0.65
• SLG: 0.61
• ISO: 0.39
• BB%: 0.26
• K%: -0.42
• 1B: 0.74
• 2B: 0.84
• 3B: 0.35
• HR: 0.76

Again, this is correlation, not a regression analysis.

Edited January 5, 2023 by chasfh

[Tenacious D]

So, you’re saying there’s a chance?

 

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

The wOBA stat gives weights to BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR based on the statistical probability that each event contributes to a run.  The weights do change over time, but they remain relatively stable.  For example, Walks had about 3% less value from 2018-2022 than they did from 1998-2002.  The value of singles changed even less.  If you go back to the 1930s, you will see some more meaningful differences.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

It not so much change in the contribution of a particular variable over time, the question would be whether the contribution is the same for two different teams that have different hitting profiles. IOW, the question is if you add player with profile 'X' to team A he will the combination of 'X' have more impact than if you add him to team 'B.' I'm not saying the premise is true, but just wondering whether the possibility has ever even been investigated with any rigor, because I can certainly conceive that it could be true.

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

It not so much change in the contribution of a particular variable over time, the question would be whether the contribution is the same for two different teams that have different hitting profiles. IOW, the question is if you add player with profile 'X' to team A he will the combination of 'X' have more impact than if you add him to team 'B.' I'm not saying the premise is true, but just wondering whether the possibility has ever even been investigated with any rigor, because I can certainly conceive that it could be true.

The attached chart showed leagues over time with different profiles which gives you an idea of how much on base and slugging are worth in different environments.  I believe that will give you somewhat of an answer to your question.  I don't think you'd have two teams today with more different profiles than the ones for let's say today versus the deadball era.  

[Motor City Sonics]

Is Donovan Solano too much to ask? 

[RatkoVarda]

28 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Is Donovan Solano too much to ask? 

do you really want to take away at-bats from Andrew Navigato?

[SoCalTiger]

I remember reading Harris saying after moving Jimenez for Mallory that "trades are hard" which I interpreted as all GM's are griping their prospects tight and valuing the same things as Harris does. That plus as Chasfh noted about Harris being caught by surprise by the high cost of free agency in both dollars and years has led to some missed opportunities resulting in Harris lamenting about commiting innings and AB's to youngsters because thats all that's left to do. 

He has my full support but I was hopeful of adding one "foundation" or at least solid piece this off season and was guessing maybe Contreras who can catch, play some left field and oh yes HIT. Maybe Mallory will prove to be that addition or something might still happen. I think it's better to play the youngsters rather than sign older retreads for 1 to 2 years but I would like to see a balance as G2 and RatkoVara stated. We could always just bench, trade or release these short term guys "if" a youngster proved superior and yet have the parachute if they don't. 

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Is Donovan Solano too much to ask? 

For one year as our new Willi, sure, I’m down.

[casimir]

20 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

So, you’re saying there’s a chance?

 

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

He has my full support but I was hopeful of adding one "foundation" or at least solid piece this off season and was guessing maybe Contreras who can catch, play some left field and oh yes HIT. Maybe Mallory will prove to be that addition or something might still happen. I think it's better to play the youngsters rather than sign older retreads for 1 to 2 years but I would like to see a balance as G2 and RatkoVara stated. We could always just bench, trade or release these short term guys "if" a youngster proved superior and yet have the parachute if they don't. 

All of which can still happen this offseason. 

Again, I think there's an implication by some that Harris is just sitting back and not trying to do anything because there hasn't been a lot of buzz, and that is pretty unfair. But in any free agent market, players have a decent amount of leverage, even those at the lower end of the market.

This team won 66 games last year... teams that are unsuccessful generally don't have the same kind of leverage that teams who win more games do. Last years Tigers likely stand as a good example... they won 77 games and did manage to have a decent offseason on paper in the free agent market.

But I keep preaching patience because the offseason isn't over yet. Maybe a couple of free agent signings happen and/or a trade or two. Even now, we are a couple of these kinds of transactions away from all of the laments about the Tigers offseason being made obsolete.

Maybe nothing additional happens, and I'm fine with the criticism at that point. But a lot of epitaphs are being written about this offseason while it is still ongoing, and it's kinda puzzling