Game 2013.16: Tigers at Angels

The Detroit Tigers (9-6) finish their one and only West Coast road trip, a successful one so far, by paying a visit to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (4-10) for a three-game series.

Friday, April 19, 10:05 ET start

Saturday, April 20, 3:05 ET start

Sunday, April 21, 3:35 ET start

Today’s starters: Current Angels have hit RHP Sanchez only slightly better than his overall average (.730 vs. .708 OPS) in a smallish number of PA (55). The only Tiger who’s seen much of RHP Hanson (new to the AL) has been Prince Fielder (good numbers in 18 PA). Anibal has been good and looking better each time over 3 starts. Mixed results so far for Hanson, with the Astros putting up 5 in 5 on him last time out.

The 2013 Angels have been, in a word, disappointing. Mostly it’s the pitching, bullpen included, but while team batting looks OK on the surface, 52 runs in 14 games isn’t getting it done. Josh Hamilton and Peter Bourjous are off to slow starts. Mike Trout has exactly one stolen base thus far, and word has it he’s none too happy playing LF. Their defense hasn’t been anything to write home about. Basically, they’ve played about as well as their record indicates. Are they due to turn it around against the Tigers? I doubt it. Like the Blue Jays before them, they’re probably too good to keep down for long and will be a formidable opponent… next time the Tigers face them.

Do the Angels miss Torii Hunter? They ought to. It warms my heart to compare early returns on Hamilton and Hunter. Torii isn’t going to finish batting .400, and Hamilton will undoubtedly hit 40 HR again if he stays healthy, but… Torii is a lot more fun. Less dangerous to fans in the stands. And he’s also a Tiger. Yay Torii.

The Tigers are in pretty good shape. The starting pitching has been remarkably good – 15 games and counting and not rocked or roughed up or close to it, not even once. The bullpen has come around some. Defense is top echelon. Hot hitting was the top story until the recent “Series of the Strikeout.” Are the bats in a bit of a funk, or do we just have to tip our caps to Mariners pitching that was far and away the toughest Detroit has faced all season?

The Tigers find themselves close to where they were a year ago. You may recall that in 2012, Detroit started 10-5, only to hit their most dismal stretch of the season immediately thereafter (11-21). There are many good reasons that this shouldn’t happen again this year. If all goes at least sorta kinda according to plan, anyway. Good times at present, so let’s enjoy it.

A “law of averages” type prediction for the series might be that Tigers pitching will sag a little but that the bats will come to the rescue, with maybe a couple slugfests in the offing. Tigers hitters should be so glad to get away from Seattle that they might be able to pound or slap their way to a series sweep. Or at the least a series win, I should hope. They’ll be playing in the best baseball weather of the season so far, a kind of early summer preview.

And now the starting lineups, courtesy of a nice person who might be you and probably is…

POST-GAME: Angels 8, Tigers 1. A major RISP failure for Tigers hitters, a waste of a quality Sanchez start (every Tigers loss this season has been a waste of a decent start), another bullpen meltdown, and something of the dreaded Clown Show (Tuiasosopo and Jackson at the LCF wall was the costliest but far from the only clowning). No turning points, no game-winners or -losers, just a game for the taking that the Tigers politely declined to win.


HONORABLE MENTION: Anibal Sanchez, Tommy Hanson

NOT SO GOOD: Octavio Dotel, every Tigers hitter but Miggy, Matt Tuiasosopo, Austin Jackson, and… Miguel Cabrera (costly defensive misplays)


  1. CaptBackslap

    April 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    “Less dangerous to fans in the stands” was cold, man. Cold.

    I’m guessing that the batting shortfalls in Seattle were a combination of pitching, weather, and (at least yesterday) fatigue.

    • Smoking Loon

      April 20, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      I didn’t intend to be cold there, only factual. I watched a series against the Rangers last year in stunned disbelief that a major league player could have a well-known habit of letting his bat go flying into the stands.

  2. Coleman

    April 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    Tonight’s Typical First Game of a Series Lineup:
    1. Jackson, CF
    2. Hunter, RF
    3. Cabrera, 3B
    4. Fielder, 1B
    5. Martinez, DH
    6. Dirks, LF
    7. Peralta, SS
    8, Avila, C
    9. Infante, 2B

  3. Kevin in Dallas

    April 19, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    Is anyone else having trouble with online? (not via a mobile device)

    • Smoking Loon

      April 20, 2013 at 2:07 pm


  4. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    sure glad Santiago played winter ball…he is right on top of his game!


    April 19, 2013 at 10:40 pm

    Ramone swings at ball four that would have loaded the bases ….. why is he in there instead of Omar???

  6. mcb

    April 19, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    We’ve hit our first slump I’m afraid….

  7. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    hey Capt Mumbles that is called a bunt…..some teams use it to advance runners….its legal!

  8. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    hey Prince 1 for last 13 and not a good swing in the 12 outs…..were you celebrating that Player of the Week too long?????

    • The Strategy Expert

      April 19, 2013 at 11:03 pm

      Well he has taken a very predictable aggressive mashing approach and some of these pitchers lately have been more careful with how they approach him.

  9. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    gee Infante would have helped here….but we gotta play Ramon right Mumbles

  10. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    lets see one run in the last 26 inning I don’t think Ramon is the answer, Jim

    • The Strategy Expert

      April 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm

      Leyland has been very clear that he intends to make full use out of everybody on the roster. Everybody is going to get a fair amount of playing time and Leyland has to work with the roster he’s provided with. I personally would rather see the bench players play more just to protect the health of the better players so I like to see the worst players on the team get ample time. Plus it’s the only shot they have to raise their stock to maybe open up a trade option so we can have an easier time to get rid of them.

      • Judpma

        April 19, 2013 at 11:42 pm

        Mumbles also says he puts out there the best lineup he can to help his team win and we know that isn’t true at all……this game isn’t designed for 25 guys to play. You have starters and you have bench players. Starters are starters for a reason and bench players are bench players for as reason

        • The Strategy Expert

          April 19, 2013 at 11:48 pm

          Yeah but that’s just Leyland baseball speak. He is a rather confused person and doesn’t have much sense for logic. He plays the game with his heart and his soul and the language is tricky to interpret.

          • Judpma

            April 19, 2013 at 11:53 pm

            you are right about that! A lot of what he does has gotten him 1900 wins but just as many of the things he does has gotten him 1900 losses

            • The Strategy Expert

              April 20, 2013 at 12:07 am

              It’s the number of voluntary and unnecessary losses that is the most important number to me.

            • The Strategy Expert

              April 20, 2013 at 12:07 am

              It’s the number of voluntary and unnecessary losses that is the most important number to me.

              • Kevin in Dallas

                April 20, 2013 at 12:18 am

                Voluntary? Please elaborate.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 12:20 am

                Games that had been lost where a highly illogical decision was the difference maker.

              • Judpma

                April 20, 2013 at 12:39 am

                he also dumps games sometimes just to prove some ambiguous point to his critics like us

  11. Coleman

    April 19, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    2 runs in 29 innings…not exactly impressive.

  12. Coleman

    April 19, 2013 at 11:28 pm

    Sorry for the erroneous lineup btw, once I posted it it was impossible to edit it. Perhaps Leyland felt the same way once he turned in the lineup.

  13. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    5 innings ……6 hits and 4 walks = 0 runs …can you say CLUTCH!

  14. Kevin in Dallas

    April 19, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    2-34 over the last 4 games RISP…and we’re 3-1.

    It’s a long season guys, there will be ups and downs. Plenty of game left here.

    • Coleman

      April 19, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      This game is looking a bit toast-like.

      • Coleman

        April 19, 2013 at 11:38 pm

        But there is a LOT of season left!

        • Only Tiger Fan in Mississippi

          April 19, 2013 at 11:51 pm

          To be exact, we are 10% thru the season…game 16.

  15. Coleman

    April 19, 2013 at 11:36 pm

    Martinez is useless so far this season. Yes, it is too early to make any assumptions. But I return to my earlier question: when is it not too early to worry?

  16. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    Cy Hanson holding the Tigers in check….where have we seen this over and over and over

  17. Judpma

    April 19, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    another reason Santiago shouldn’t play a routine DP once again that he turns into one out…he does this every time he playe

  18. Kevin in Dallas

    April 20, 2013 at 12:19 am

    I don’t think this is our night.

    • Only Tiger Fan in Mississippi

      April 20, 2013 at 12:27 am

      Tomorrow’s game is on National Fox so perhaps that will fire them up?

      • The Strategy Expert

        April 20, 2013 at 12:29 am

        I would hope the multi-million dollar contracts we passed out would help keep them fired up.

  19. Judpma

    April 20, 2013 at 12:34 am

    I thought Seattle yesterday was embarrassing…but maybe I was wrong….because this absolutely is

  20. Kevin in Dallas

    April 20, 2013 at 12:38 am

    TSE – could you give me an example of a game we lost due to a highly illogical decision?

    • The Strategy Expert

      April 20, 2013 at 1:04 am

      No not offhand, but I have seen an extremely large number of examples. I have made no effort to make a diary of the flaws of Leyland and it wouldn’t be descriptive or comprehensive enough just to try and complain about any one specific thing. It’s his overall propensity to consistently do a bad job of collectively making statistically sound decisions over the course of an entire season. If It makes more sense to bunt in a given situation and he doesn’t bunt, you can’t necessarily call out that specific play as the game of baseball doesn’t call for having a 100% specific choice that must be made for every similar situation.

      Leyland being a colossal failure is incredibly obvious and indisputable to me based upon my experience of watching virtually every single game and paying very close attention. If you don’t agree at this point and think Leyland is a fine Manager then I wouldn’t worry too much what I think as I have very unique philosophies about many aspects of the game that deviate from the majority.

      • The Strategy Expert

        April 20, 2013 at 1:05 am

        “unsound” decisions that is

      • Vince in MN

        April 20, 2013 at 7:50 am

        I don’t trust Leyland’s gut either.

        • Kevin in Dallas

          April 20, 2013 at 8:03 am

          This is why discussing things with you, TSE, is futile. You take an extremely controversial stance (i.e. Leyland has voluntarily lost games for the Tigers in the past), and then have no hard evidence to back it up. I’m fine with the notion that you have a unique perspective, and even an incredibly high bar. I enjoy the banter on DTW. Our regulars are incredibly baseball savvy, you included.

          What’s flawed, I believe, is that your bar is impossible to satisfy, and thus you’re always debating the same side of the coin. At some point in time you’ll have to take a stance on the other side, else you’re just the boy who cried wolf. This is the main reason (again, in my opinion), why no one else really engages you anymore.

          So back to Leyland – if he’s been a “colossal failure”, then is it safe to say, in your opinion, that Mr. Illitch and DD are tolerating, or even encouraging, failure?

          • Jeff Molby

            April 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm

            What’s flawed, I believe, is that your bar is impossible to satisfy

            If you consistently make highly logical decisions, there’s no reason to accept anything less than 162 wins.

            • The Strategy Expert

              April 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm

              I would accept 100 wins from this bumbling group of losers we have on this team. But in general I’m only interested in a Tigers team that can break into the next levels such as 110 and 120 and to build from there.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm

                You should go back to vague hand-waving. Thanks for the laugh, though.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm

                Well you seem to be pretty content and happy with the team, so more power to you. I understand that you think everything I say is nothing but a joke to you, so you are welcome for the laughter I brought you since my baseball perspective is nothing but junk to you, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure and I see the treasure in my viewpoints, sorry man! I’m happy for you that you are so excited about the team, enjoy the rest of the season.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 20, 2013 at 3:42 pm

                Don’t sell yourself short. By declaring that 110 wins is the baseline for acceptable performance, you brought laughter to far more than just me.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 4:17 pm

                I never said 110 wins is a baseline for acceptable performance. I only said that it is for THIS particular team at THIS particular moment in time under THIS particular dollar investment level.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 20, 2013 at 4:58 pm

                Which is just as stupid of a thing to say considering 95 wins will take the division easily; anything above that is superfluous.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm

                I think it’s possible to win this division with 85 wins. I think CHI/CLE/MIN could all potentially finish at .500 or below, and I wouldnt be surprised to see KC only win 84. That would be a very dreadful performance for the other 4 teams, but it’s possible.

                I simply look at our team winning 85 vs 95 vs 105 as measures to indicate how strong we look compared to the field as we enter the post-season. Presumably a 105 win team has higher odds to convert in the post-season than an 85 win team as an example. And it’s not sufficient to me to plan for and attempt to only be a 95 win team with this kind of a payroll level. I reject it as not making sense or being appropriate or logical since I think there are better ways to do things for better results while spending less money, or to get much better results for more money where the dollar per win/result factor is higher.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 20, 2013 at 6:46 pm

                Even if your expectations were realistic*, you’re wrong about assuming those extra wins would be relevant to the probability of a World Series victory. Since playoffs were expanded for the 1995 season, 5 teams finished with 105+ wins and only one of them won the world series. Furthermore, 69 teams finished with 95+ and only eight of them won the world series. The median win total for world series victors was 93 wins.

                Once you make the playoffs, the regular season makes very little difference. I’ll be extremely happy with a 95 win season and I’ll be ok with as few as 87 wins. Less than that would be a bit disappointing given the talent and competition.

                * They’re not; 105+ win teams are very rare

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm

                You misunderstand. I did not say that because you won 105 games vs 85, that your odds change for the postseason. I was insinuating that if you compared a 105 vs 85 team that the 105 is likely the better team, hence the reason why they won 20 more games than the other. And in the postseason your odds would be higher if you entered as a “better team”.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 20, 2013 at 7:48 pm

                Glad to see you’re back to the vague nonsense.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 20, 2013 at 7:51 pm

                I thought I was very clear with using win total as simply a “measure” of the quality of a team. You have had many times on this board where you have shown to completely misunderstand what I’m saying and to assume and infer things incorrectly.

                It’s on you to follow along and understand what I’m talking about and to supply clarifying questions as needed to make sure you understand and aren’t left with anything vague. That’s on you not me, as I’m a freely open communicator and I have supplied adequate words to describe my perspectives that give a reader a fair chance to follow along. Not to mention of course the opportunity to engage me about anything that is unclear in any way.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 21, 2013 at 4:22 am

                I agree that win total is pretty good measure of a team’s quality and as I already showed you, there’s no meaningful correlation between win total and playoff success. The top 8 teams are generally pretty evenly matched, so the winner will be the one that hits a hot streak at the right time.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 4:49 am

                But that doesn’t relate to what I was talking about with a team that is ascending to a higher level in terms of the quality of the team. Just as you said most teams in the past don’t have impressive win totals that rival the ranges that I was speaking of.

            • Jeff Molby

              April 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

              I responded to that already; I laughed heartily, remember? But yes, I concede that your hypothetical franchise that consistently posts 120+ win seasons would have itself a wonderful dynasty (thanks in no small part to its magnificent manager, Peter Pan).

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 2:09 pm

                Well that’s a fairy tale, no human is like Peter Pan, as one of Pan’s attributes are that he never ages. A human can’t manage their lifetime of resources and finances in the same way that an entity that can exist with perpetuity can. And those types of entities can accomplish tremendous things when tinkered with and designed to do just that. But it is indeed nothing more than a fantasy if you can’t see the vision of why a better future can indeed be real if you choose that destiny and make it happen.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm

                I anxiously await the day you prove me wrong.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 3:04 pm

                As do I. If I never get the chance then you never have to worry about me proving you wrong. But if I do get the chance, then I will deliver the fantastic results that I speak of you and you can be bewildered at the same time that you enjoy the fruits of what I create. It will be a wonderful thing for all of the hungry fans who have suffered for so long to finally know what it is like to dominate like champions and to see the highest quality of baseball in the world being represented by only their team.

                The Tigers under my leadership would serve as an inspiration to all sports teams and all businesses and organizations of all types by showing what can happen through taking a logical path and a passionate dedication to a commitment of excellence. People will come Jeff, people will most definitely come.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm

                “get the chance”??? What happened to “make it happen”?

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 5:36 pm

                My make it happen abilities are contingent upon having an opportunity to make it happen. I am “The Strategy Expert”, but I am unfortunately not the “strategy to obtain a sitdown meeting with Mr. Illitch expert”. That requires a different skill set from my particular area of greatest expertise as I am not strong at hunting down billionaires to obtain appointments. Granted I could put forth stronger efforts towards such, but I also have to consider that you can’t help everybody and you can’t help somebody that doesn’t want help and feels they don’t need it. I suspect that Mr. Illitch may likely value DD’s baseball opinion more than anybody else in the world, and I don’t think he’s interested in hearing alternative viewpoints that take a 360 turn from what he’s comfortable in doing. I might not be the best match for him for what he’s looking to accomplish, whatever that is.

                I can only make it happen for the Tigers in theory and contingent that the ownership of the Tigers charges me with said task. Mr. Illitch isn’t at that point and not ready for me to solve his pain, a pain of which he doesn’t recognize he has. I’m planning on trying to find my chance to present the solutions I think this franchise needs when the next new owner emerges. Maybe that will be Chris Illitch and maybe he will leave no stone unturned and employ more of an open-minded approach towards examining different ideas and ways of handling baseball business. If he is and he’s willing to hear what I have to say, then I will give him the option to let me make it happen for him and his franchise and the fans.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 6:30 pm

                However for the geometry critics out there maybe I should have said a 180 turn as a 360 just revolves back to the same spot. Although maybe a 360 is more accurate since in a sense I would be advocating for a dismantling of the team design as it is projected for 2014 and beyond, so the experience might resemble a 360 path in that it would cycle out the non-keepers while splicing in the new ones. It would be like taking a round trip to the Re-engineering Department and back, well once that exists since as of now it’s only a figment of my imagination. Same goes for all of the support services such as training and coaching methodologies that also need to be washed out for a good cleanse to get rid of the grimy junk that is affecting the quality of our baseball luster.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 21, 2013 at 10:07 pm

                Dave Dombrowski worked his way up from a lowly secretarial job all of the way up to being a GM in a span of 10 years and he’s supposedly an idiot compared to you.

                If there was any legitimate basis for your arrogance, you wouldn’t be so quick to make excuses for yourself. Put up or shut up.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 10:16 pm

                I agree with that and I have put up and I’m all set on my end. There’s nothing stopping me from delivering but the Tigers themselves. The ball is in their court to put up and they aren’t putting up with the wins. I’m merely offering them my services for better results and it’s their move next to stick with what they are doing or to hear my ideas, and they have made their choice thus far. I have nothing left to do at this point on my end except wait for the ownership change to then try and find out if there is a way to crack open a window to communicate with the new decision maker who may in fact be inclined to look for an alternative to DD. If that person is, then I’m back in play, but I’m on the bench.

                I have done my part, I have acquired the knowledge and the abilities necessary to deliver better results as described previously and I’m prepared to go to work and do what I do. And DD can’t say that. He’s the one that has the responsibility on his shoulders to improve himself, and he seemingly is failing every single day at finding solutions to this team’s problems.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 21, 2013 at 10:22 pm

                If that’s your approach to jump hunting, I’m really glad you stumbled upon a day job.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 21, 2013 at 10:39 pm

                Yeah I am very happy with my day job that I stumbled on, and I’m not hunting for a job, I have little time or interest to look for a new line of work. I’m content with doing what I’m doing now unless that GM job opens up. The Tigers do not have a GM job opening to hunt for or compete for. Mr. Illitch is dead-set loyal and committed to his guy that he believes in emphatically.

                If I could think of a way to get a sitdown with Mr. Illitch then I would have already done that, but I do not know how to do that, thus I’m stuck on the bench. I’m not on the bench because of a lack of effort or job hunting skills, I’m on the bench because I don’t have awareness of the proper channel to apply the effort to further such a goal.

              • Jeff Molby

                April 22, 2013 at 12:23 am

                It’s your lucky day! I know of two different ways to get your coveted sitdown. Both of them require the difficult work of building a track record, though, so I’m sure you’ll stick with your current plan of spewing unsupported assertions about the internet while praying that someone, someday decides to read (and believe) the unsolicited manifesto of a man with no professional experience.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 22, 2013 at 12:52 am

                No GM has GM experience before he is given the GM job. I have a lot of professional experience and I have built teams from scratch for companies before, but you are correct I have no experience building a MLB team, however I don’t think that’s a relevant fact for an owner to consider as a disqualifier by any means given my qualifications and aptitude. What’s on a person’s resume means jack squat if the guy who has the professional looking baseball resume can’t produce the results that I can without any baseball related listings on my resume. In my mind this is all about wining baseball games and/or making profits if one is an owner of a team, and that’s what I am valuable to do, as it’s my ideas that would win the games not the resume entries, they can’t do anything to help the team produce runs. I have taken a different path to gain better skills and knowledge than DD possesses and to me that’s a far more impressive thing to say than to say I had a job doing this and a job doing that which involved baseball, so what? That’s what DD can say in his pitch, but he can’t back up a claim to produce results on par with the results that I can produce, and that makes his impressive looking resume worth nothing. He’s doing a horrible job and I would do the opposite!! If I’m an owner I could care less about what a person has done in the past if he can help me win games today better than the next guy. A resume detailing the past doesn’t give you the answers about what will happen in the future. To me recruiting human talent is not for everybody and I simply don’t respect any person that would suggest reviewing a resume can always tell you if you should hire somebody or not. Maybe it can help but it’s not a foolproof litmus test and in my case it’s not an applicable or appropriate test of relevance with regard to what I would propose to be doing for the Tigers.

                I’m very open to suggestions, so if you want to share the 2 ideas I’m all eyes and anxious to hear what you would suggest! Thanks in advance!

              • Jeff Molby

                April 22, 2013 at 2:07 am

                But they do all have experience holding similarly prominent front office positions, generally assistant GM, director of scouting, or director of player development. Before that, they had experience in a mid-level front office position. You’re crazy if you think they’re going to list the job opening on and interview everyone that plays fantasy baseball online. Even if you were as qualified as you believe, you’ll never come within a hundred miles of getting an interview unless you have an impressive track record.

                How to do it? Obviously, there’s the Dombrowski track. Get into an organization however possible and work your way up by making connections and demonstrating your “superior intellect” on a daily basis. Alternatively, you could shed your laughably vague persona and actually earn your moniker by spending a few years making the kinds actionable predictions that you’d have to make as a GM. In the unlikely event that you actually are able to read the cards better than anyone else, the press will start using you and from there, you’ll become visible to the organizations.

                Of course, if you were really serious about any of this, you’d have already figured out all of that yourself and set to work on achieving your stated goal.

              • The Strategy Expert

                April 22, 2013 at 9:58 am

                Well of course I don’t think they would put a posting on, my last post was responsive to your post about my lack of hunting for that job and I was trying to say that this isn’t a typical job, so a routine stereotypical process that might apply to traditional job hunting isn’t in play here.

                And yes I’m well aware that no owner would hire me without an impressive resume. Yet no owner has a GM who is putting forth a genius plan for his respective team. If you use a contrived and inside the box methodology to determine who can help your team or your business, then you are at risk for excluding somebody that might be the very best choice, and that’s what I think is happening here. I think the owners have a bigger problem on their end with not refining how they target personnel to help moreso than I need to change my habits to cater to old fashioned people that have pre-requisites for being yesmen and hoop-jumpers. I have a different viewpoints in this entire category. So if I had 5 years of experience in any baseball position, how would that on itself qualify me for the GM job? I don’t see the connection to putting in the time and earning the job by paying dues and moving up so to speak, that’s not what makes sense to me. So I should get a job in the mail room, and work my way up through 10 jobs, and then be the GM? Ok so I’m the GM now in the year 2025, great, but what about years 2014-2025? Don’t the Tigers want to win championships and make lots of money along the way? It does no good for them to wait til 2025 if I’m ready and available to improve the team on an IMMEDIATE BASIS!! And DD has many years of GM experience, but that doesn’t qualify him for the job. He could do this for 20 more years and still not get an impressive strong grasp of the science of baseball very well. But back to beginning, if I were to go this route, then how would I even get the job in the mail room to begin with?

                For the second part, well I am unable to connect with you on that. I don’t agree that making predictions here on the Internet is going to be effective. For one you can’t even agree on what a prediction is. I said that proposed trade for Andrus was a terrible deal for us and I’m convinced it is. Well in 10 years if we look back and I say see I told you so Andrus wasn’t worth it, well I woudln’t be surprised if you and others said what are you talking about, Andrus was a great player! My opinions of who is a valuable player are very different from mass perception. There are countless examples of guys that I have said are overrated, and I can’t prove that or convince anybody of that, and there’s nothing to predict. I have a unique process of determining what I think a player is worth and the mass media is never going to understand and give me credit for what I think I deserve credit for. I have scored hundreds of times on proving people wrong and calling things in advance, but I don’t have a validated scorecard that is accepted by the media for the number of points that I claim to have. They aren’t accounting for those victories, they wouldn’t even agree that many of them are victories!

                Anyhow, I do agree that gaining notoriety on the Internet is a good way to further the goal. It’s working for Lee Panas. If I was the GM of the Tigers I would be hiring him. I see a need to hire a team of interns to do various research and data mining and stat project work, and I could keep Lee busy for a while on projects I would want to complete that I know he could do a good job at. So the point is well taken since Lee has a job offer from me if I become a GM. But I don’t want to create a blog that details everything I know about baseball. That would be counterproductive to helping my team if I just put out 100% of my baseball creed. I don’t want my competitors to learn everything about how I think about baseball from day one. I’m expecting it to take them at least a decade to catch up and figure out what I’m doing that’s different. I don’t really see the point of a blog and I’m not doing this for myself so I can get the job. If I was money motivated and I just wanted to get rich and get the job, then I would already have a blog to attempt to do that, but that’s not something that is a fit for me and the pursuit of this type of goal.

                But if I did get a job in the mail room or created a blog, I still have no guarantee to get that sitdown with Mr. Illitch.

          • Vince in MN

            April 20, 2013 at 1:27 pm

            As we all know, I don’t have a very high opinion of Leyland as a manager, and I do think he has cost quite a few games during his tenure, but I wouldn’t say “voluntarily”, as that almost implies that he did it on purpose. I’ve followed the Tigers faithfully over the Leyland era, having “viewed” (admittedly, most over the internet) at least 85-90% of those games (900-1000). It seems to me that Leyland tends to go in two different extreme directions in his managerial style:
            1) Annointment of “roles” : closer, No. 5 hitter (maybe even batting orders in general), etc., and then sticking with those players and those roles even when there is large amounts of evidence they are failing. General examples here would be the use of Valverde and Young last year, “Rollercoaster” Jones for a few years and Boesch in 2010 when he hit like .125 in 200 ABs as a regular. To me this is indicative of a high degree of inflexible thinking; going by the book, not being creative, sometimes a failure to see the uniqueness in individual situations.
            2) Going with his gut. This is a tougher one to pin down because we can only go by Leyland’s own comments. Fortunately for us in this regard, JL likes to talk and we have many examples of “he’s due”, “I was hoping he would run into one”, and so on. A lot of this is wishful thinking, not based in rational decision making. Usually this approach doesn’t manifest much until the team gets in a slump and 1 isn’t providing the expected (book?) results. Describing this as “panic mode” might be a bit strong, but it is definitely leaning in that direction I think.

            Of course Leyland isn’t the Great Satan responsible for all the Tigers miseries and woes. The players seem to like him and there are undoubtedly other intangible positives that he brings to the team. And in general, in-game critical managerial decisions, which I think we are most concerned with here, are a significant minority in terms of deciding outcomes over the course of the season; I’d guess 20-30 depending. And he isn’t a complete boob, he does make an excellent move from time to time too. Having said that though, those minority of games are still SIGNIFICANT, and over the course of a full 162-game + schedule and what I have seen over the last seven years, on balance I think he is in the negative by a large margin.

            • The Strategy Expert

              April 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm

              Voluntary, to me, means doing something on purpose, or showing such a tremendous amount of neglect in either not doing research to understand the game or to consult with professionals and experts to help understand the game prior to entering into that game with the responsibility on your shoulders as the leader. Leyland’s lack of effort to improve himself is the same affect to us.

              So either purposely make mistakes on purpose, or purposely be ignorant and put forth no effort to remove the ignorance, either is a self-chosen and voluntary mistake.

          • The Strategy Expert

            April 20, 2013 at 1:42 pm

            I disagree. For one I don’t think that it is a controversial stance that Leyland is a bad Manager. I think a ton of people all over the Internet have abundantly spoke out on the matter and indicated their disapproval as well. I am not presenting a case to try and convince anybody of anything so I’m not responsible for evidence. If my goal was to get Jim fired, then I would have simply kept a diary and used that to convince you and everybody else on the Internet and the Tigers’ organization. But I don’t have the time and the motivation to try and destroy another man’s career. I’m simply stating my opinion for what it’s worth, and evidence is not required when describing how one comes about an opinion. I have sufficiently explained that I have 1st hand evidence that I experienced which supports the formulation of my opinion and that evidence exists and is real. My simply not putting it together in a report changes nothing.

            My bar is not impossible to satisfy, in fact if one obeys the laws and nature of logic, then it’s impossible to not satisfy my bar as I endorse any effort of any man who is logical all of the time or even close to most of the time. The fact that the Tigers have done so poorly in that regard and haven’t come close to figuring out the basics of how to think about baseball in a logical way is not my problem and has nothing to do with a logical team being able to easily surpass my bar of a test to endorse them.

            It’s my opinion that Illitch is the chief man responsible. I don’t think he is encouraging or tolerating failure at all. I think he doesn’t recognize it as he is blinded by an extreme amount of ignorance in not understanding the game of baseball at a competent level. He’s also doing a horrible job by not simply putting in effort to consult with others to find the answers that he is lacking. He foolishly believes in and trusts DD to an extremely high level, so in his mind there isn’t anything else to worry about. And that’s a severe lack of upholding his responsibility to his community and I think that’s disgusting and appalling. In my opinion there should be laws in this country that would have exposes Mr. Illitch to very large fines for his continued abhorrent and neglective behavior with regards to how he has run his baseball team during his lifetime.

            And if others don’t care to engage me then that’s their choice, but anybody is free to do so that would like to, or that is looking for clarifications to be on the same page with me in order to have a productive conversation.

          • The Strategy Expert

            April 20, 2013 at 1:50 pm

            Oops forgot to address your other comment about the “evidence” you are looking for I also mentioned one example for that, in the bunt or to not bunt scenario, any single isolated evident of that choice is NOT evidence. There is not 100% set way to do things exactly the same way for each situation otherwise you become too predictable. So if say the proper choice was to bunt 50% of the time and you actually chose to bunt 60% of the time, then only 10% of those times are a mistake, but you can’t pick out any specific of those 10 times necessarily.

            The same goes for other decisions, like stealing for example. If you start to steal 100% of the time that it might make sense to consider trying, or 0% then that’s not going to work. It’s about having a logical approach and then trying to reconcile the amount to which somebody hasn’t been logical. In my many years of watching Leyland extremely closely, I’m just sickened with how horrible he has been, it’s not even close to a competent managerial job, but again that’s because he is extremely ignorant about too many of the finer points of the game and the complex constructs that there are to think about and analyze.