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
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?
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
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.
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 M.
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
Fighting off the temptation to quote Ben Kenobi, I'm of the school of
thought that much of luck you make for yourself.
Fighting off the temptation to quote Ben Kenobi, I'm of the school of
thought that much of luck you make for yourself.
Luck is the residue of design.
- John Milton (often attributed to Branch Rickey)
TM
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.
That's the spirit!
> Rogers has a tendency to skid.
Amen! Oh, you said Roger_s_.
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
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