Opening Day

Some thoughts on the Tigers as they start their rain delayed oping day game in Chigago vs the Sox.

Last season, Cleveland dominated the Tigers, amassing a 14-4 record.

[A postponed game was not made up at the end of the season, since it would not affect the final standings. So both teams played 161 rather than 162 games.]  

This is why they won the pennant. During the Tigers string of pennants that ended in 2014, they dominated the 2nd place team every year, so this has been typical in that division.

Here are the results for the two teams last year.

	2016
	W	L	%
Tigers	86	75	0.534
vs CLE	4	14	0.222
less CLE	82	61	0.573
CLE	94	67	0.584
vs DET	14	4	0.778
less DET	80	63	0.559

Except for the games against each other, the Tigers had a better record.

Tigers should be better this year than last. They've unloaded some liabilities from the pitching staff; Zimmerman and Greene should be healthy; Norris and Boyd should keep improving, and Fulmer and J.V. should be solid.

On the offensive side, Castellanos should have the break out year that got cut short by injury in 2016; Upton should be the real Upton for a full season; J.D. is the real deal, though he'll miss the first month; and Kinsler is top notch. If Miggy and Victor stay healthy, this will be a formidable line up.

Lots of shoulds and ifs here. But if the Tigers perform otherwise the same as last year, and can go even 9-10 against CLE this year, it's game on! Ceteris paribus, that gives the Tigers 91 wins to CLE's 90!

That's Why They Get the Big Bucks

I’m quite sure that if I suddenly obtained one million dollars, I’d find some constructive use for it.  Ditto the 2nd million, 3rd, 4th, and maybe even the fifth.  But each successive million provides less marginal utility.  Eventually, unless your goal is to own a small 3rd world country, the largest ranch in Texas, or a stable of Republican politicians, the meaning of that next million is close to zero.

Where is that point?  It will vary from person to person, but, realistically, could it be more than a dozen or two?  Can having $50 million really make one happier, more secure, or able to eat in better restaurants than having $30 million?

Which brings me to Mike Babcock, and belatedly to Max Scherzer.  Each of them went out in search of greener [a word I use advisedly] pastures.  Selling one’s services to the highest bidder is free enterprise in action, I guess.  Clearly, for each of them it was about the money.

Which takes me back to my primary question - how much is enough?  is any amount satisfactory? Can these gentlemen provide sufficient value for the money they are receiving?

In Max’s case, one can construe a non-monetary rationale.  The Nats  have a lot of potential to get him a world series ring.  But, at 24-17, they currently have the same record as the Tigers. Well, you takes yer money and you takes yer chances.

For Babcock, though, it’s nothing but the money.  He’s leaving a highly successful, possibly even over-achieving, organization to join the Maple Leafs - what local Detroit sports writer Pat Caputo calls “a dysfunctional organization with a psychotic fan base.”

I don’t harbor a great deal of animosity toward either of them.  Some, though - just not a lot.  I wish for Max a level of modest success that makes the high premium paid for him look like a massively foolish misallocation of resources.  For Babcock - I wish him several years of frustration and disappointment, and ultimately a great deal of longing and regret.

Because, isn’t that the end game when money is the only thing you care about?