« | »

All Star Game Thoughts

The 2005 All Star Game has come and gone. As I look back on it, I thought it was an okay game. No real drama, but it was nice being able to see the guys play. It’s funny how with the advent of cable television and the internet, it’s much easier to follow ALL of the teams. It wasn’t that long ago that the All Star Game was a huge deal just because it was one of the few times you got to see some of the National League players play. And the only time you saw the AL play the NL other then in the All Star Game was in the World Series. So while I like having a couple of choices every night as far as games to watch, I do miss the nostalgia.

It was nice listening in on Ernie Harwell in the fourth inning. While I thought they should have let him do more play by play (he only called one batter, Jason Varitek’s walk in the bottom of the fourth), hearing him in the booth is always a good thing.

Now it’s back to reality. Tigers start off with a four game series against the Royals tomorrow. Hopefully they can keep up their recent hot streak. Fighting for a Wild Card spot might be too tough a road to travel, but I’m definitely looking forward to the rest of the season. Seeing Jeremy Bonderman blossom into a star has been the best thing about 2005. 20 wins isn’t out of reach, and that in and of itself will make the season a good one for me.

I realize this isn’t quite on topic, but…blurb from the paper (Free Press or News, don’t recall which and too lazy to go back):

“The Tigers probably will commit to Monroe since he can play all three outfield positions — which is important since the team feels the jury is still out on centerfielder Nook Logan and doesn’t see Toledo outfielder Curtis Granderson as the answer in centerfield next season.”

Why are they down on Granderson? He’s better than Logan right now, isn’t he? This drives me nuts!

Posted by Dan on July 14th, 2005 at 11:39 am

Drives me nuts as well! there is obviously something wrong with the way our beloved organization is being run. Look at our steadfast allegience to Percival as our closer. he has rendered himself garbage yet he is our closer. We hear trammell saying “he’s my guy.” If farnsworth, who strikes out half the guys he faces, was our closer he makes the all-star roster. He will no doubt sign with another team because tram and co. have no idea how to use farnsworth. he will go to a team that will utilize his talant.. can you say atlanta? Thames rots in the minors while nook logan squares around every at bat in the majors. sooner or later, we have to address the fact that our offensive numbers, and pitching lines, should add up to much more wins than we have. its happend last year as well. Why is that? it cannot be all bad luck. Trammell needs to go under the scope for this… why cant we climb over .500. we get thwere then lose 10 of 12.. unexceptable!

Posted by Michael on July 14th, 2005 at 1:25 pm

Wow, nice to see some passion about the Tigers and all, but…

I think the point of the article was whether we would pony up for Monroe next year, because he is arbitration-eligible, and the answer apparently is “yes”. I wonder if what they meant was that they aren’t confident with Granderson in CF for next year *defensively*. Remember that they really like Nook’s defense out there in the middle garden. Also remember that these are the unattributed thoughts of unnamed people from within the Tigers organization… as filtered through a reporter. Some of the details certainly get lost in translation.

Let’s also remember that we didn’t get a hold of Farnsworth until Feb. 9, whereas they signed Percival in mid-November… And let’s also not forget that Farnsworth had (has?) a reputation as being a bit of a… flake? unstable personality? Maybe not the best type to handle the closer’s role, is what I’m saying. Let’s also remember that Percival was 18-of-19 in save opps and had a .196 oBA last year in the second half. I think the Tigers (and Tram) still believe that Percival has that kind of a run left in him.

Posted by Jeff k on July 14th, 2005 at 2:43 pm

The comment that i was making is that that tiger management has a knack for labeling a guy, ie, percival is my closer… farnsworth is my 8th inning guy. Instead of bringing in farnsworth in situations when we absolutely need a strikeout, weather its in the 6th 7th 8th or 9th, we have seen trammell stick with guys who cannot get the job done (Creek and co.) Farnsworth has a history. trust me i know. i live in chicago. but the guy has flat out skills. also keep in mind that probably 80% of major leaguers are flakes. I really question tying up 12 million clams on percival. it was a bad bad signing. Hey i love this blog and will contribute often. Dan and I will be at USCrapular field on monday to get funnell cake thrown at us.

Posted by michael on July 14th, 2005 at 3:26 pm

I didn’t agree with the Percival signing either. It makes even less sense without Urbina.

Not that he’s completely lost it, I just felt that money could have been used more efficiently.

Posted by Brian on July 14th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

Just wondering… In the first post, you said that Farnsworth would be an All-Star if he were made the closer… Then in the next one, you say you want him in for pressure situations where we really need a strikeout… OK, which is it?

I’m not sure I 100% agree with it, but it seems that a lot of teams put an emphasis on bringing their relievers in for similar situations (“defined roles”, they call it)… They think that their relievers have more success that way. On the one hand, I think that’s a bunch of malarkey, but then I also think, “Hey, they’re the major league managers and I’m not, who am I to argue?”

I didn’t like the Percival signing much, either, other than it was a show to other free agents (because it came so early in the FA signing period) that we were serious about competing for 2005… But that aspect of it really didn’t turn out.

And I really do think Percival will turn it around. He did have three straight saves in nice outings in July… Unfortunately, those three games came between two awful appearances where he basically gave up the game all by himself.

One final point… Percival was also brought in because he was good with taking Francisco Rodriguez under his wing and teaching him the ropes… I wonder how much he has helped with the other guys in the bullpen, who have generally been pretty good (German, Rodney, and Spurling immediately come to mind).

Good luck in USCrapular.

Posted by jeff k on July 14th, 2005 at 3:53 pm

Percival’s numbers have steadily gone in the toilet for the last 4 years in a row. Signing him for $12 million, whether it was for “show” or not, was just plain dumb. His strikeout rate has declined every year, and he is a constant injury risk. Three good outings in a row? Do you mean he pitched 3 innings and didn’t give up a run? That’s like saying a guy has a 3-game hitting streak.

He’s given up 7 bombs and has walked 11 in about 25 innings this year. Farnsworth has given up 1 homer in 37 innings, and he’s struck out 46. Who cares if he’s a flake? I think Mike’s point is that Farnsworth should be the ace reliever, and our allegiances to any “go to guy” should be based on rational thought and not how much money we spent or what reputation some guy had as a good closer years ago. Need a strikeout to end the 7th? Farnsworth. Then he pitches the 8th and we go to someone else, maybe Percival, maybe Walker. Need a straight save? Farnsworth. I want to know that my ball team understands the way that usage patterns have bastardized the who rational thought process insofar as winning a game is concerned.

Why will Percival turn it around? He’s an old pitcher who isn’t as good as he used to be, period. He’s not even close to Farnsworth at this point.

Posted by Dan on July 14th, 2005 at 4:38 pm

My point was this. If her were the closer, with his numbers being what they are, he would be an all star. I comment on him not being used in strikeout situations because he ISNT the closer. I dont like defined roles. You want to label someone a closer..fine. but i think its crippling to label someone your “8th inning guy” because Farnsworth isnt the closer he should be used in a range of situations. Plus a guy as strong as farnsworth can easily be used more than he is. As we all know, trammell just loves to rest his players. it would be interesting to check our record on thursday day games and sunday games (the days trammell does mass restings.) im sure it sucks.

Posted by michael on July 14th, 2005 at 4:44 pm

The Percival and Ordonez contracts are probably going to be bad in the long run but I still like to see Illitch spending money on the team’s payroll. How much do either of these contracts matter if Illitch allows the payroll to get over $100 million?

Also, regarding the consistency of relievers, I think there was something on either ESPN or the Hardball Times -I can’t find the article now- about most relievers (not the elite ones) being good each consecutive year. Fine, we’re ponying up big money to Percival, who looks washed up. Will he make up for it next year with great clutch innings on what should be an improved team? That’s why I’m going to reserve my final judgement even though I’m inclined to be upset about his pay vs. performance currently.

Posted by Alex on July 15th, 2005 at 3:04 pm

Tigers Resources
Baseball Historians
Minor League Blogs
Search TigerBlog

Send email
Your email:



Swag of the Moment
coffee mug swag

Show the love! Pick up your very own TigerBlog coffee mug or other item from the TigerBlog Store today!
Historical Baseball Sites
Tiger / Detroit Sites
Reference Sites
General Baseball Sites
Archives by Month
Archives by Category
Powered by