Tracking the Tigers in the offseason

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

Wow... Borowski isn't on that list?!? Guess that means you were wrong.

How?! I've not argued that save percentage is the best metric to indicate effectiveness. You'll need to bring that up with the poster who did........

jdbmst3k · 11-01-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

How?! I've not argued that save percentage is the best metric to indicate effectiveness. You'll need to bring that up with the poster who did........

You already posted his stats, which were worse than Jones, and now you've posted that his save percentage is worse than Jones.

..............................................

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

You already posted his stats, which were worse than Jones, and now you've posted that his save percentage is worse than Jones.

Follow the discussion before offering such thoughts. Someone says Todd is good because he has a lot of saves. I disagree with that metric, but even if you accept it as true, Borowski has more saves so doesn't that logically follow that he's better than Jones under that argument?! I think it does.

Someone also says that Todd is good because of his save percentage and that this is the most effective metric for closers. I say I "strongly disagree" but even if you want to believe that it's true, Todd still comes out mediocre as that's what the stats indicate.

Simple to follow, simple to understand, and simple to see I'm right.........

jdbmst3k · 11-01-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

If you look at metrics that measure actual performance, you won't find a worse closer on a playoff-level team than Todd Jones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Follow the discussion. Simple to follow, simple to understand, and simple to see I'm wrong..................

Fixed.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

Fixed.

....and I've never argued nor said that saves or saves percentage are metrics that measure a closer's performance. In fact, I've argued the opposite - that these are in fact the most over-blown statistics in today's game when judging the effectiveness of a pitcher.

Read before posting rebuttals. You'll get better at this if you practice........

jdbmst3k · 11-01-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Borowski - 5.07 ERA, .289 BA against

Jones - 4.38 ERA, .267 BA against

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Read before posting rebuttals. You'll get better at this if you practice........

And you can now kindly STFU about this.

.....................

spartanmad · 11-01-2007, 12:38 PM

When looking at closers, which I agree are overrated, it does no good to look at traditional pitching stats. A closer could have a bad week and have a era over 4 or 5 for the rest of the season. The best way to look at it is to look at the effectiveness of the closer. Would the Tigers like to upgrade their bullpen including the closer? Sure, but there are only finite resources for the team and Jones could be the best there is until Zumaya is ready. I would have no problem if they brought back Jones for another year and he ends up being the closer.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

And you can now kindly STFU about this.

This is like explaining algebra to my dog...........

When you're ready for higher-level discussions on the subject that involve some complexity in terms of looking at a wide variety of ways to measure performance, let me know. You keep grasping at nuggets of information while missing the point.........

jdbmst3k · 11-01-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

This is like explaining algebra to my dog...........

When you're ready for higher-level discussions on the subject that involve some complexity in terms of looking at a wide variety of ways to measure performance, let me know. You keep grasping at nuggets of information while missing the point.........

You said there's not a worse closer than Jones on a playoff level team. Everyone pointed out there is. You refuse to believe this, despite posting stats that indicate the opposite.

You're the one that's not ready to have a real discussion, considering you continue to hang onto this notion that Jones is the worst closer possible.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartanmad

When looking at closers, which I agree are overrated, it does no good to look at traditional pitching stats.

Exactly. Todd earns the nickname Roller Coaster for a reason. He'll go weeks pitching damn well and weeks pitching like he belongs in independent ball. In terms of pitching statistics compared to his peers, he's clearly mediocre. even if he's capable of some very good stretches.

But playoff teams want and need a bit more consistency from the position, which is why the Tigers will be looking at other options in the spring. For teams with championship aspirations, Todd's level of performance (overall combined with the inconsistency) makes him a clear fall-back option. In terms of fall-back options though, he's a good one given his experience and willingness to battle even when he doesn't have his best..........

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

You said there's not a worse closer than Jones on a playoff level team. Everyone pointed out there is. You refuse to believe this, despite posting stats that indicate the opposite.

Nice try, but that's not an accurate summation. You can stop now. We're done with our conversation on the matter because it's both boring and taking us off-topic.........

Spartan Punk · 11-01-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Follow the discussion before offering such thoughts. Someone says Todd is good because he has a lot of saves. I disagree with that metric, but even if you accept it as true, Borowski has more saves so doesn't that logically follow that he's better than Jones under that argument?! I think it does.

Not a single person in this thread has said that Jones is good because he has a lot of saves. Not a single person mentioned anything about how many saves he had except for you. So if we were to follow the logic, and since you are the only person who has mentioned anything about how many saves he has, you must be the one who thinks he's good because of his saves.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan Punk

Not a single person in this thread has said that Jones is good because he has a lot of saves. Not a single person mentioned anything about how many saves he had except for you. So if we were to follow the logic, and since you are the only person who has mentioned anything about how many saves he has, you must be the one who thinks he's good because of his saves.

Interesting twist............

I'm somehow saying Todd is good and bad at the same time. I'll have to think about that one. And it's possible I'm combining Tiger threads in my head as I'm always on here arguing that Todd Jones and Brandon Inge are incredibly over-valued by Tiger fans. You want to move on to Inge?!

jdbmst3k · 11-01-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Interesting twist............

I'm somehow saying Todd is good and bad at the same time. I'll have to think about that one. And it's possible I'm combining Tiger threads in my head as I'm always on here arguing that Todd Jones and Brandon Inge are incredibly over-valued by Tiger fans. You want to move on to Inge?!

Please please please!!!!

Arod or Inge. I gotta go Inge.

Spartan Punk · 11-01-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdbmst3k

You said there's not a worse closer than Jones on a playoff level team. Everyone pointed out there is. You refuse to believe this, despite posting stats that indicate the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Nice try, but that's not an accurate summation.

Just curious, what do you feel isn't accurate about his summation?

bulldogg · 11-01-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUAlum06

what is the difference in types for FAs?

excuse my ignorance on this one

eMailbag: Free Agent Compensation | MetsBlog.com

Type A players comprise of players in the top 20 percent of their positions. A team that signs a Type A player must give its top draft pick to the team that is losing the player. The team that lost the player also receives a supplemental pick between the first and second rounds. However, if the signing team has a draft pick in the first half of the first round (picks 1-15), their first round pick is protected and would then surrender their next highest draft pick.
Type B players comprise of players in the top 21-40 percent of their positions. Any team that loses a Type B players receives a supplemental pick, but the signing team does not lose any picks.
In order for the former team of a free agent to receive compensation for losing a player to free agency, the player must sign with another team before December 2 or the team must have offered the player arbitration before December 1.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan Punk

Just curious, what do you feel isn't accurate about his summation?

It's pretty simple - I don't think Todd Jones is a better option at closer than Joe Borowski. I also don't think Borowski is a better option than Todd. They're both mediocre and arguing which one is "more bad" actually bolsters the strength of my position.

I'd actually argue that the only reason is wasn't more of an issue in 2007 for either team is because they're both in the Central. Either team would've been motivated to upgrade last year had they been in any other division.

Heading into '08, both teams need to upgrade at the position. If Jones is back in Detroit, it's as a hand-cuff for Zumaya. The Indians will likely hand-cuff someone to Borowski as well if they bring him back. Both are Plan B closers, at best, for a playoff team......

cickyle · 11-01-2007, 01:13 PM

You gusy are having this argument as if the decision was made inside a vacuum with no outside influences. How about the fact that the top closers in the game ARE NOT AVAILABLE to the Tigers, unless you can convince Rivera to play in Detroit and then you would have to pay him 13+ mil a year.

They should simply follow the route that lead the just about EVERY team that has a top closer has taken, you either develop from with in like KRod, Rivera, Hoffman, Cordero or aquire a good arm that has the good stuff and is close to big league ready and throw him into the fire like Nathan, Jenks, Otsuka and Saito. The only two guys aquired as FA were Gordon and Wagner and only Wagner was considered a stud closer at the time of the signing.

Filling the closer role is usually a crap shoot. So in summation I would bring Todd Jones back but I wuld leave the job open to contention between Zumaya, Jones, Rodney, Matt Mantie (attempting a come back) or another possible good arm from the minors.

spartanmad · 11-01-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Exactly. Todd earns the nickname Roller Coaster for a reason. He'll go weeks pitching damn well and weeks pitching like he belongs in independent ball. In terms of pitching statistics compared to his peers, he's clearly mediocre. even if he's capable of some very good stretches.

But playoff teams want and need a bit more consistency from the position, which is why the Tigers will be looking at other options in the spring. For teams with championship aspirations, Todd's level of performance (overall combined with the inconsistency) makes him a clear fall-back option. In terms of fall-back options though, he's a good one given his experience and willingness to battle even when he doesn't have his best..........

I think you misinterpreted my post: I think the best way to evaluate a player like Jones and that is with his effectiveness for the price you are paying him. A couple of stats:
Jone was 38/44 in save opportunities last year. He has only given up 3 hr for the year and hitters have a .371 slugging percentage against him which means that while he does allow runners on base, as evidenced by his whip, he does not give up many extra base hits, so it would take a few hits to blow the save. I also think he only blew 2 saves since mid to late June but he also did not have as many opportunities due to other pitching problems.
Last year he made roughly 4.5 mil i believe.
The network at my school is bad so I am unable to do any more research right now. But i think for the amount that is he is paid, he is effective enough for the job.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cickyle

Filling the closer role is usually a crap shoot. So in summation I would bring Todd Jones back but I wuld leave the job open to contention between Zumaya, Jones, Rodney, Matt Mantie (attempting a come back) or another possible good arm from the minors.

Exactly....closers are usually developed, not bought on the open market. Two years ago, the Tigers made a surprising and unexpected run to the World Series and did so with Todd Jones as closer. We weren't expecting to be in that position so having Todd in that role wasn't really an issue.

Last year, I think the Tigers thought would be the transition year to Zumaya. Bring the veteran Jones along as a handcuff and to start the season in the role, start the transition to Zumaya, and the logical move is made. Injuries all over the bullpen make that impossible, but that doesn't mean the need to move on isn't still there.

The injuries delayed this transition by a year, but it's coming this spring........

cickyle · 11-01-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

It's pretty simple - I don't think Todd Jones is a better option at closer than Joe Borowski. I also don't think Borowski is a better option than Todd. They're both mediocre and arguing which one is "more bad" actually bolsters the strength of my position.

I'd actually argue that the only reason is wasn't more of an issue in 2007 for either team is because they're both in the Central. Either team would've been motivated to upgrade last year had they been in any other division.

Heading into '08, both teams need to upgrade at the position. If Jones is back in Detroit, it's as a hand-cuff for Zumaya. The Indians will likely hand-cuff someone to Borowski as well if they bring him back. Both are Plan B closers, at best, for a playoff team......

I don't disagree with what you think will actually happen, but the logic that the Indians and Tigers kept Borowski and Jones around because of the division is laughable. The division is the exact reason that they would want better closers. They were in the TOUGHEST division in baseball which is even more of a reason to try and get a top flight closer because you have to face such tough competition so often.

This is just a hunch but I bet Borowski and Jones would have had better numbers had they been on the Angels, Red Sox or Yankees because they would have been closing out games against the Rangers, A's, D Rays, Jays and O's instead of the W Sox, Twins, Indians, tigers and Royals (who had a good 2nd half). That is another example of why the numbers can be deceving.

cickyle · 11-01-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

Exactly....closers are usually developed, not bought on the open market. Two years ago, the Tigers made a surprising and unexpected run to the World Series and did so with Todd Jones as closer. We weren't expecting to be in that position so having Todd in that role wasn't really an issue.

Last year, I think the Tigers thought would be the transition year to Zumaya. Bring the veteran Jones along as a handcuff and to start the season in the role, start the transition to Zumaya, and the logical move is made. Injuries all over the bullpen make that impossible, but that doesn't mean the need to move on isn't still there.

The injuries delayed this transition by a year, but it's coming this spring........

Lets just temper those expectations on Zumaya. He look bad when he came back and I think it will take him until at least the middle of the year before he could be expected to take over the closer role and that is based on him returning to his old form which is not a sure thing. plus the guy is still learning to pitch.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cickyle

Lets just temper those expectations on Zumaya. He look bad when he came back and I think it will take him until at least the middle of the year before he could be expected to take over the closer role and that is based on him returning to his old form which is not a sure thing. plus the guy is still learning to pitch.

No doubt....the injury threw a real monkey-wrench into the team's thinking and planning. Heck, even if the team wanted to look at Rodney, he was injured as well at a key point in that process. If they're thinking Zumaya is plan A and Rodney is a back-up option, they'll have to hand-cuff these guys to a veteran who could step into that role if needed.

If that's Todd Jones, he's a fine plan B/C option. But if Todd wants to come into the spring as plan A, the Tigers should let him walk and find an option who doesn't have that expectation. Jones is talking about the Braves as well, but I don't think the Braves would simply hand him the closing job either........

cickyle · 11-01-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heathens '87

No doubt....the injury threw a real monkey-wrench into the team's thinking and planning. Heck, even if the team wanted to look at Rodney, he was injured as well at a key point in that process. If they're thinking Zumaya is plan A and Rodney is a back-up option, they'll have to hand-cuff these guys to a veteran who could step into that role if needed.

If that's Todd Jones, he's a fine plan B/C option. But if Todd wants to come into the spring as plan A, the Tigers should let him walk and find an option who doesn't have that expectation. Jones is talking about the Braves as well, but I don't think the Braves would simply hand him the closing job either........

He's not going to get handed a job anywhere. Very few closers are truely ensurred of a job every year.

Heathens 87 · 11-01-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cickyle

Very few closers are truly ensured of a job every year.

More than we might think. Heading into '08, sure closers on whatever team they're on.....

Jose Valverde
Francisco Cordero
Trevor Hoffman
JJ Putz
Francisco Rodriguez

Bobby Jenks
Takashi Saito
Jonathan Papelbon
Joe Nathan
Bill Wagner

Chad Cordero
Jason Isringhausen
Mariano Rivera

13 for 30 major-league teams, and other teams have some good problems to have, like the Phillies choosing either Gordon or Myers, the Rockies with Fuentes or Corpas, and Oakland having Street with an Embree handcuff.

Of playoff-level teams, it's Cleveland, Detroit, Atlanta, and the Cubs who'd like to upgrade at closer. The Indians would love to see Betancourt grab the job, the Tigers would love the same from Zumaya, the Braves have the youngester Soriano, and the Cubs would like Marmol to take the job from Dempster, or maybe Howry is in the mix.

Changing of the guard happens, but the competition for playoff spots can often swing on those 5-6 games a year where the difference between a good and mediocre closer shows in the standings. The Tigers have to at least try to upgrade the position before looking to Todd..........