last night's exhibition of stupidity and luck

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Gmrst...@cs.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 12:28:42 PM7/15/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org, min...@ameritech.net
Last night's win troubles me. They were lucky. Sure the Royals are the worst team in Baseball. But there's lots to dislike or worry about in last night's game. I have watched Kenny swooning, and I think it was a mistake and UNNECESSARY to have him pitch last night on not quite three full days of rest. It was extremely stupid. Granted he didn't pitch that much in the all star game but he did go and pitch and the whole experience had to be somewhat exhausting.
I am not worried about Zumaya. He doesn't usually give up so many runs and every pitcher is going to falter from time to time.

But Kenny is swooning....

Date OpponentScoreDec IP H R ER HR BB K W L SV IP ERA
Jul 14 KAN W 10-9 - 4.0 6 5 5 2 1 3 11 3 0 118.2 4.10
Jul  5 @ OAK W 10-4 W 5.2 8 4 4 2 2 4 11 3 0 114.2 3.85
Jun 30 @ PIT W 7-6 - 4.1 8 5 5 1 0 2 10 3 0 109.0 3.72
Jun 24 STL W 7-6 - 5.1 7 6 5 0 3 2 10 3 0 104.2 3.44
Jun 18 @ CHC W 12-3 W 8.0 4 2 2 2 1 2 10 3 0 99.1 3.17

Look at those stats. His last quality start was on June 18th. Since then his ERA has been escalating as he has given up 19 runs in 19.1 innings. One run an inning is not good, especially when he is giving up 5 runs a game in 4-5 innings in his last four outings.

Given those stats why in the bloody Hell did Leyland listen to Kenny when he said he was ready to go last night and wanted to go, against KANSAS CITY????
It's not like the Tigers should be worried about winning that game, like it's a must-win game.

I'd say this is more evidence that Leyland is NOT the second coming of the messiah manager the propaganda machine makes him out to be.

The Tigers were LUCKY to win this game. It wasn't about "battling." It was luck, like a lot of wins this season.
And luck eventually runs out...

............... go tigers ..............

-tower

Roger King

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 12:37:04 PM7/15/06
to listmgr...@lists.ibl.org, Tigers List
I've always been amazed at how many good teams seem to be so lucky.

Roger King
El Presidente: PN Agency (PNA)/Ethnic Voice Talent (EVT)
In Toronto (416) 515-8918
Toll-Free In North America 1-800-461-8320
pnag...@pnagency.com
www.pnagency.com
www.ethnicvoicetalent.com

Partner: Ethnic Media Relations (EMR)
www.ethnicmediarelations.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gmrst...@cs.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:28:42
To:tig...@lists.ibl.org
Cc:min...@ameritech.net
Subject: last night's exhibition of stupidity and luck

Last night's win troubles me. They were lucky. Sure the Royals are the worst team in Baseball. But there's lots to dislike or worry about in last night's game. I have watched Kenny swooning, and I think it was a mistake and UNNECESSARY to have him pitch last night on not quite three full days of rest. It was extremely stupid. Granted he didn't pitch that much in the all star game but he did go and pitch and the whole experience had to be somewhat exhausting.
I am not worried about Zumaya. He doesn't usually give up so many runs and every pitcher is going to falter from time to time.

But Kenny is swooning....

Date OpponentScoreDec IP H R ER HR BB K W L SV IP ERA

Jul 14 KAN W 10-9: <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhrJRGIHWg_hV52.GY_XoUuFCLcF/SIG=11pcivnm6/**http%3a//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore%3fgid=260714106> - 4.0 6 5 5 2 1 3 11 3 0 118.2 4.10
Jul �5 @ OAK W 10-4: <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AsikAzSvgh1QA6ru2H2jQDKFCLcF/SIG=11p093dkl/**http%3a//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore%3fgid=260705111> W 5.2 8 4 4 2 2 4 11 3 0 114.2 3.85
Jun 30 @ PIT W 7-6: <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoU.8FVnBJeQDkujHuYsdCKFCLcF/SIG=11p1hd71q/**http%3a//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore%3fgid=260630123> - 4.1 8 5 5 1 0 2 10 3 0 109.0 3.72
Jun 24 STL W 7-6: <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aj06qd.uWnD0.zmSJ95i8DaFCLcF/SIG=11p4out5u/**http%3a//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore%3fgid=260624106> - 5.1 7 6 5 0 3 2 10 3 0 104.2 3.44
Jun 18 @ CHC W 12-3: <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Ap5c0MrUD1JLl1yujRKpHZ6FCLcF/SIG=11p06sdvp/**http%3a//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore%3fgid=260618116> W 8.0 4 2 2 2 1 2 10 3 0 99.1 3.17

Kar...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 12:46:11 PM7/15/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
    
    What amazes me is that Rogers has not pitched well for his last 4 or 5 starts and yet the Tigers have managed to win every one of those games. They didn't do that well during Bonderman's stretch of 7 straight starts when he was nearly unhittable. Baseball is a hard game to figure out. I keep hoping that Rogers can get himself "right" again but with each poor start you have to wonder. If Rogers continues to struggle then maybe when Maroth is ready to return it might be a good idea to send Rogers to the bullpen for a time.

Roger King

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 1:26:03 PM7/15/06
to listmgr...@lists.ibl.org, Tigers List
Kenny's basically had a run of 4 mediocre starts. Hardly reason to panic. And wouldn't the all-star start be equal to what a normal starter would throw on the side between starts anyway?

So what else troubled you about last night's game Chris? You said there was "lots to worry about and dislike" yet the only thing you mentioned was Rogers. What else is troubling about this team, 32 games over .500?

David Panian

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 3:03:15 PM7/15/06
to Tigers List
I'd rather have a struggling Rogers face KC than Chicago, which is
basically what you're advocating by stressing that the game was
against KC.

Now, if you're saying he should've been started tonight or Sunday,
then I have no quarrel with that, according to the AP, Leyland
started Rogers on Friday to keep him between Bonderman and Verlander
to have a soft-tosser between the two fireballers. That makes
complete sense to me. Robertson and Miner also are more power-
oriented, too, but there's also the lefty-righty difference working
there, too.

And as long as there's a team that can surpass the Tigers with a
series sweep trailing them, I think every game is "must win." They're
in a pennant race, and you just don't give away games in a pennant race.

I also don't think you score 10 runs through luck. Only one of the
Tigers' runs last night was unearned. This was a situation where the
offense picked up the pitchers on a bad night.

Teams don't win 61 of 90 games by being lucky all the time. Oh, sure,
maybe a few games are "lucky" wins, but its a 162-game schedule.
There are bound to be a few "lucky" wins and "unlucky" losses, but
usually the team who should win wins. KC shouldn't beat the Tigers
this year, and they haven't.

I'd count as "lucky" wins ones where the opponent's top player is out
or something weird like losing the ball in the sun or lights helps
the Tigers score or a bad player suddenly having a good game or even
a good plate appearance, like if Ramon Santiago hit a walk-off homer.
But something like Carlos Guillen hitting a homer off Jeremy Affeldt,
even if it was right-handed, isn't lucky. Guillen is a good hitter
who hit a good pitch out of the park. That's skill, not luck. The
Tigers scoring 10 runs against Mark Redman (5.38 ERA). Elmer Dessens
(4.41 ERA), Ambiorix Burgos (5.95 ERA)and Affeldt (6.20 ERA) in nine
innings isn't luck.

If anything, the Royals were lucky the game was close and that Rogers
and Zumaya weren't on their games.

The fact of the matter is the Tigers are good. Really good. They're
winning by 1.44 runs per game (runs scored minus runs allowed divided
by games played). By comparison, last year's White Sox won by an
average of 0.59 runs. The Red Sox won by 0.65 games. The 1984 Tigers
won by 1.15 runs.

Yeah, you can be concerned that the Tigers' offense isn't good enough
to offset extended troubles from the pitching, but the Tigers
pitching would have to really struggle to cause some serious
problems. The Tigers are scoring 5.23 runs per game. Does anyone
really think the Tigers' pitching will start giving up five runs per
game? They weren't that bad last year, though they were that bad in
2004 and worse in 2003.

But this is 2006, and those players that were with the team in '03
and '04 and are still in Detroit are largely improved players,
especially the pitchers.

Later, David

Kar...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 3:44:06 PM7/15/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
In a message dated 7/15/2006 12:03:55 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, dpa...@comcast.net writes:
I'd rather have a struggling Rogers face KC than Chicago, which is 
basically what you're advocating by stressing that the game was 
against KC.
 However, starting him on Friday means the he starts against KC and Chicago. And that may have also entered into Leyland's thinking. He may have wanted his most experienced pitchers going in that Chicago series. Is it a coincidence that the starters next week will be Robertson, Bonderman and Rogers...leaving out the 2 rookies Verlander and Miner?

Paul Meloche

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 4:03:36 PM7/15/06
to David Panian, Tigers List
Although I think Chris' tone was a bit harsh, I agree with him about the
decision to start Rogers last night. I can see the points that Leyland
and David Panian
make, but with the concern about Rogers and Verlander wearing down and
with Rogers pitching in the all-star game, I don't see why we couldn't have
gone Bondo/Robertson/Miner/Rogers/Verlander in the first five games
after the break. I'm sure there are lots of factors involved, the least
of which probably isn't the fact that there's probably an unwritten
baseball rule somewhere that even if there was a three day break you
just don't start guys like Zach Miner and Nate Robertson twice in
between Kenny Rogers starts.

I am a little concerned about Rogers' performance as of later, but as
Roger(King) said, it's four mediocre starts in a row. Not a big deal at
this point.

I do agree with Chris that I have seen the Tigers get "lucky" this year
more than they have in the past several seasons. But how much of that is
plain old blind luck and how much is the players and management doing
the correct things to put themselves in position to catch a few breaks?
We don't often hear of teams that finish 15 games under .500 in any
sport as being mediocre yet extremely lucky.

Paul M.

Paul Meloche

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 4:05:19 PM7/15/06
to Kar...@aol.com, tig...@lists.ibl.org
And just after I sent my message, I read Karlun's which does make the
decision by Leyland make more sense. Also, two of Verlander's three losses
this year have been to Chicago.

Paul M.

Tanvir R. Shaikh

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 4:17:38 PM7/15/06
to Tigers List
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, David Panian wrote:
> The Tigers are scoring 5.23 runs per game. Does anyone really think the
> Tigers' pitching will start giving up five runs per game?

I don't expect the Tigers to collapse into a .500 team for the second
half. However, I'm also not sure that the Tigers will continue to have
an ERA under three and a half; I suspect we won't, although I'd like to
be wrong. If our ERA slips by a half a run, for example, that would be
the rough difference, using the Pythagorean formula, between winning
two-thirds of the games, which would give us the division, versus 60%
of the games, which would give us second place. That'd still give us
the wild card, assuming the Yankees stay lukewarm, but there isn't a
whole lot of margin for error. We can't slack off too much.

One of the papers says that gamblers have the Tigers at 6-1 to win
the World Series, third-highest behind the Mets and White Sox. Since
these guys have money on the line, to make an understatement, I trust
them to be objective, unlike sportswriters, or us. 6-1 is good news.

-Tapu

Tanvir R. Shaikh

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 4:20:00 PM7/15/06
to Tigers List
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Paul Meloche wrote:
> I do agree with Chris that I have seen the Tigers get "lucky" this year
> more than they have in the past several seasons. But how much of that is
> plain old blind luck and how much is the players and management doing
> the correct things to put themselves in position to catch a few breaks?

Fighting off the temptation to quote Ben Kenobi, I'm of the school of
thought that much of luck you make for yourself.

Kar...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 4:29:09 PM7/15/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
In a message dated 7/15/2006 1:20:25 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, ta...@hexdump.org writes:
Fighting off the temptation to quote Ben Kenobi, I'm of the school of
thought that much of luck you make for yourself.
I've always been of the opinion that close games in baseball are won by the team that makes the fewest mistakes. You can consider taking advantage of an opponents mistakes to be luck. But mistakes will be made. The game is played by human beings after all. The teams that play the game fundamentally well and make the fewest mistakes will win more than the teams that don't. Also good teams always seem to make you pay for mistakes and that's something the Tigers have done well this season.
 
By the way, Yankees beat White Sox 14-3. Tigers are now 4 games ahead of Chicago.

Tony Matt

unread,
Jul 15, 2006, 11:18:16 PM7/15/06
to Detroit Tigers Mailing List

Luck is the residue of design.
- John Milton (often attributed to Branch Rickey)

TM

Gmrst...@cs.com

unread,
Jul 16, 2006, 10:13:01 AM7/16/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
In a message dated 7/15/2006 4:03:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, melo...@cruzio.com writes:



I am a little concerned about Rogers' performance as of later, but as
Roger(King) said, it's four mediocre starts in a row. Not a big deal at
this point.


Roger asked me what's "lots to worry about and dislike." Probably overstated on my part. I did mean Rogers mainly. I also meant giving up 9 runs to the KC Royals, worst team in Baseball.

I am not "panicking." But I am very concerned. Of course, I was concerned about Rogers before the all star break after three bad starts. BAD, not mediocre. BAD. Not terrible, the worst, awful, disgusting, or grotesque. But hardly mediocre.



I do agree with Chris that I have seen the Tigers get "lucky" this year
more than they have in the past several seasons. But how much of that is
plain old blind luck and how much is the players and management doing
the correct things to put themselves in position to catch a few breaks?
We don't often hear of teams that finish 15 games under .500 in any
sport as being mediocre yet extremely lucky.


I don't think you hit a walk off home run by anything other than a combination of a good approach at the plate by a smart hitter and then luck (as he was only trying to make contact not hit a homer).

I didn't watch or listen to Friday's game (I was in Detroit though seeing India.Arie at Chene Park), but I would say that the Tigers did the correct things to put themselves in a position to win last night.
As much as I LOATHE the bunt in games that are not close or important enough to warrant the sacrifice of outs, both bunts worked last night exceptionally well, and so I can't really argue with the results.

Roger, also, once again trots out the Tigers' record as some sort of proof that we need not concern ourselves with the problems of the team.
I think this is a very dangerous way to think.
I know in my own sports experience, and as a team captain, that when my team is winning, I remind them that they suck. Not to run them down, but to remind them not to get cocky. To remind them to play hard. To remind them to be humble and to not be complacent.
I think this is something Leyland does well, and perhaps, it's a reminder that Rogers needs.

Rogers has a tendency to skid. Last season he started well in April and May and then as the season progressed he swooned. June and August were his worst months. His ERA was two full runs higher after the All Star Break than before.

-tower




Tanvir R. Shaikh

unread,
Jul 16, 2006, 11:11:26 AM7/16/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 Gmrst...@cs.com wrote:
> I know in my own sports experience, and as a team captain, that when my
> team is winning, I remind them that they suck.

That's the spirit!

> Rogers has a tendency to skid.

Amen! Oh, you said Roger_s_.

David Panian

unread,
Jul 16, 2006, 11:14:52 AM7/16/06
to Tigers List
On Jul 16, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Gmrst...@cs.com wrote:
[snip]

> Roger, also, once again trots out the Tigers' record as some sort
> of proof that we need not concern ourselves with the problems of
> the team.
> I think this is a very dangerous way to think.
> I know in my own sports experience, and as a team captain, that
> when my team is winning, I remind them that they suck. Not to run
> them down, but to remind them not to get cocky. To remind them to
> play hard. To remind them to be humble and to not be complacent.
> I think this is something Leyland does well, and perhaps, it's a
> reminder that Rogers needs.

It sounds like Leyland has been saying all along that he wants them
to play their best, and whatever happens happens. Maybe in private
he's telling them they suck ("Verlander - you suck! Bondo - you suck!
Thames - you suck! Polanco - comparing you to a vacuum has nothing to
do with your defense!"), but I suspect he's simply telling them
there's still a long way to go and they haven't really accomplished
anything. In fact, when the Tigers returned to first place earlier
this season, he said something along the lines of the only day it
matters to be in first is the last day of the season.


> Rogers has a tendency to skid. Last season he started well in April
> and May and then as the season progressed he swooned. June and
> August were his worst months. His ERA was two full runs higher
> after the All Star Break than before.

He's blamed that on playing in Texas, where the heat starts sapping
your strength in May, but maybe there is something else going on. I
can't believe that teams don't know what to expect from him by now
and start each season by being befuddled by him then figure him out
in mid-season.

What it could be is that control pitchers like Rogers are more
susceptible to rough stretches when they can't put their slow-speed
pitches right where they need them. Verlander or Bonderman could get
away with "bad pitches" because they have better stuff that changes
the timing of the batter's swing so that they're less likely to make
good contact. Rogers has to be more careful because his pitches stay
in the striking zone longer.

If it is the case that Rogers simply needs to get his timing or
control back and isn't tired, then hopefully that happens soon
because I doubt the Tigers offense will pick him up every time he
gives up four or five runs in five or six innings like it's done lately.

Later, David

Gmrst...@cs.com

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 7:58:26 AM7/17/06
to tig...@lists.ibl.org
In a message dated 7/16/2006 11:15:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, dpa...@comcast.net writes:


he's telling them they suck ("Verlander - you suck! Bondo - you suck!  
Thames - you suck! Polanco - comparing you to a vacuum has nothing to  
do with your defense!"), but I suspect


David, this is some of the most hilarious stuff you have ever written.

Sometimes (maybe more like often) this list gets far too serious.

-tower
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages