2022-23 Detroit Tigers Offseason Thread

[casimir]

So what happened in the summer?  Was he tipping pitches and giving up hard contact which would help explain the BABIP?

I hate to assume Fetter can fix anything or create a pitcher out of nothing.  At the same time, he's done some good work.  I think this is worth a try.  The SO/BB isn't exactly what is desired.  But this move intrigues me.

[mtutiger]

Just now, casimir said:

So what happened in the summer?  Was he tipping pitches and giving up hard contact which would help explain the BABIP?

I hate to assume Fetter can fix anything or create a pitcher out of nothing.  At the same time, he's done some good work.  I think this is worth a try.  The SO/BB isn't exactly what is desired.  But this move intrigues me.

Pitching hurt.

[Longgone]

7 minutes ago, casimir said:

So what happened in the summer?  Was he tipping pitches and giving up hard contact which would help explain the BABIP?

I hate to assume Fetter can fix anything or create a pitcher out of nothing.  At the same time, he's done some good work.  I think this is worth a try.  The SO/BB isn't exactly what is desired.  But this move intrigues me.

Shoulder issue

[Edman85]

9 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Or even tumescence if you used to read letters to Penthouse.  Is "contextualizing" a $5 word?  Somebody was complaining about those a couple of days ago.

It's a bargain relative to "trawling" or "heterodox."

[theroundsquare]

don't trawl me, bro

[Longgone]

3 minutes ago, theroundsquare said:

don't trawl me, bro

You iconoclast

[oblong]

I'm "literally" having this conversation right now regarding a book I am reading on the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  It's more pretentious than the movie!  Filler words.  One thing I really hate is the phrase "rather interesting".   It's almost, like 99% of the time, never needed.  

 

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

I'm "literally" having this conversation right now regarding a book I am reading on the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  It's more pretentious than the movie!  Filler words.  One thing I really hate is the phrase "rather interesting".   It's almost, like 99% of the time, never needed.  

 

Funny enough, I actually sat down and watched the sequel last night (2010) for the first time last night. 

Can't believe I'm saying it, but it was actually pretty good, made more sense and was a lot less pretentious than 2001.... 

Edited December 15, 2022 by mtutiger

[oblong]

32 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Funny enough, I actually sat down and watched the sequel last night (2010) for the first time last night. 

Can't believe I'm saying it, but it was actually pretty good, made more sense and was a lot less pretentious than 2001.... 

I watched 2001 again last week after spending 25-30 years thinking it was garbage. It was better than I remember, i think the big screen helped things and I'm a different person.  I can say it's not garbage and I don't hate it.  I appreciate the context from when it was made.  It's not for everyone.

I started about 30 min into 2010 and plan on finishing it over the break.  

 

[KL2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Funny enough, I actually sat down and watched the sequel last night (2010) for the first time last night. 

Can't believe I'm saying it, but it was actually pretty good, made more sense and was a lot less pretentious than 2001.... 

The good thing about 2010 is its a more traditional movie and explains a lot in 2001. So watch thr sequel then go back and watch 2001, you'll understand and appreciate it alot more

[gehringer_2]

39 minutes ago, oblong said:

I watched 2001 again last week after spending 25-30 years thinking it was garbage. It was better than I remember, i think the big screen helped things and I'm a different person.  I can say it's not garbage and I don't hate it.  I appreciate the context from when it was made.  It's not for everyone.

I started about 30 min into 2010 and plan on finishing it over the break.  

 

The last reel was mostly the light show, and light shows were a very in thing then - there was no IMAX,  CGI, there were no wall sized  HDTVs. That all seems quaint now, but you probably had literally never seen any of that kind of visual before if you were watching the movie in 1968. 

And of course, Clark and Kubrick had very different ideas about that the 'story' was, so Clark released his novella and Kubrick made his movie and any resemblance between them thematically is purely coincidental....

[oblong]

2010 seemed very 80's to me based on what I saw.  And it's like "Oh, Roy Scheider... a woman.... a kid".... is this Jaws?

And the kid was feeding fish to the dolphins then walked over and picked up a breadstick with his spaghetti.  We quit washing hands in 2010?

 

[mtutiger]

27 minutes ago, KL2 said:

The good thing about 2010 is its a more traditional movie and explains a lot in 2001. So watch thr sequel then go back and watch 2001, you'll understand and appreciate it alot more

I'll probably try that now... I love 2001, but having that added context may make it even easier to appreciate 

[mtutiger]

Just now, oblong said:

2010 seemed very 80's to me based on what I saw.  And it's like "Oh, Roy Scheider... a woman.... a kid".... is this Jaws?

And the kid was feeding fish to the dolphins then walked over and picked up a breadstick with his spaghetti.  We quit washing hands in 2010?

 

You gotta get further into the outer space scenes, particularly when Helen Mirren, John Lithgow and Bob Balaban start getting more screen time.

It still looks dated for sure, but otherwise the writing and plot are really good. And given that Kubrick had all the original Discovery set destroyed after 2001, it's almost miraculous how close the set designers got in redesigning that set.

[Tigeraholic1]

Pre-sale tickets for Tigers today, opening day included. You just need to enter code “Insider “ to purchase. On sale general public tomorrow. FYI

[oblong]

They must really be hurting on sales.  I had access to some yesterday.  I didn't get any. Not sure I could even get my money back with fees if I got them so why risk it.

 

[mtutiger]

Absolutely would be worth sacrificing Zack Short for IMO

[Clinkeroo]

7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Absolutely would be worth sacrificing Zack Short for IMO

I was just coming here to post this. Gotta admit, pretty tempting.  See if the new position and hitting coaches could get his head screwed on right.

[casimir]

11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Absolutely would be worth sacrificing Zack Short for IMO

Egads,...... his AAA numbers are horrific.  I guess that explains the 21 SOs and 1 BB in his 41 PA MLB debut.

[Tenacious D]

4 minutes ago, Clinkeroo said:

I was just coming here to post this. Gotta admit, pretty tempting.  See if the new position and hitting coaches could get his head screwed on right.

hard to make of what happened to him once he hit AAA--quite the fall-off.  You usually don't see that pronounced of a drop from AA.

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

hard to make of what happened to him once he hit AAA--quite the fall-off.  You usually don't see that pronounced of a drop from AA.

Maybe he was blindfolded?

[Tenacious D]

1 minute ago, casimir said:

Maybe he was blindfolded?

I think they call it, "Coolbaugh'd"

[alex]

37 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Absolutely would be worth sacrificing Zack Short for IMO

I tend to agree. Seems he needs a change of scenery. Maybe he had put a lot of pressure on himself as he was a key piece in the MBetts deal.

Still young enough to take a chance - and yes not often do you see many fall offs like this from AA to AAA.

[RatkoVarda]

hit .191 and .197 in last 2 years at AAA (180 games); trending down for sure

[RatkoVarda]

good news for Tiger fans