For a while, Tony Clark and Bobby Higginson seemed like a golden age!

Congrats Tiger fans! Too bad VMart couldn't be apart of it...

Is Ichiro a free agent this season or after 2013? I would love to see him in LF for the Giants for a year or two.

My team had the worst damn season they've experienced in 40+ years, but seeing this series salves the wounds a bit.

I will repeat this.

Yay for the Tigers! In a perfect world, the Cardinals would have been the successful executors of the baseball equivalent of Operation Valkyrie, with the Orioles being my second choice, but the world's not perfect, so I'll be content with the Yankees getting not just beat but utterly humiliated on the national stage by anyone. Detroit happened to be the agent of God this time. If my Cardinals make it to the WS, I won't care much if they lose. If SF advances, I will be the hugest Tigers fan on earth next week.

BTW - IF the Cards make it, then Gerald Laird might be the Tigers' secret weapon.

Is Ichiro a free agent this season or after 2013? I would love to see him in LF for the Giants for a year or two

He fits right into their team concept.... or at least the old team concept.

congrats to the tigers

tiger fans please enjoy the win and roll your eyes as the talk is focused on "whither alex?" versus "hooray tigers"

So at what point is Jim Leyland going to go from some consideration to serious consideration for the HOF? Assuming that the triumverate of LaRussa-Cox-Torre go in, the only guys with more wins who aren't in are Piniella and Mauch. Leyland has managed 3 franchises that were pretty crappy in and around the time he started managing them to 7 postseasons in 21 years. I'm rooting for the Tigers so that Leyland can get that second WS win, which I think helps his dossier a lot.

Well, I guess we should blame the new format, as in... having more than 2 division ;) or else the Yanks woulda just drew the A's in the ALCS right ?

Have fun getting beaten by the Cardinals again in the WS Tigers :P

I realize that a lot of baseball fans are not football or hockey fans as well, but as I mentioned in another thread, the defending Super Bowl champion Giants not only were an 88-win-like 9-7, they were OUTSCORED IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

Also, the 8th-seeded Western Conference champion Kings defeated the No. 6 seed Eastern Conference champ Devils to win the Stanley Cup this year.

I don't disagree with all of the hand-wringing, but it's not like baseball has a unique problem here.

as a brewer fan i am happy for prince

he is a fine hitter and has now helped multiple teams get to the playoffs. prince also enjoys the spotlight. he certainly knows national league pitching. prince has clubbed 20 homers off the cards and slugged almost .500 even with st. louis walking him as much as possible to go after the typically weak number 5 hitters in the brewers lineup.

san fran has had better success but most of that is the san fran ballpark as prince is an alley hitter and san fran takes away his left-center homer power.

So at what point is Jim Leyland going to go from some consideration to serious consideration for the HOF? Assuming that the triumverate of LaRussa-Cox-Torre go in, the only guys with more wins who aren't in are Piniella and Mauch. Leyland has managed 3 franchises that were pretty crappy in and around the time he started managing them to 7 postseasons in 21 years. I'm rooting for the Tigers so that Leyland can get that second WS win, which I think helps his dossier a lot.

That second WS title would be a big push. Scanning the list of managers at BBRef it looks like the only pure managers in with one WS title are Herzog and Weaver. I think Herzog is a pretty good comp actually. While he won just once he got close many times (70s Royals=90s Pirates?) and if the Tigers lose next week Herzog and Leyland would have each gone 1-2 in World Series appearances. Leyland has a pretty strong edge over Herzog in wins but is just a shade over .500. That should be a number that improves over the next couple of years (if he stays) but I think it would be tough for a manager to get in being under .500 without the type of "hook" that 2 WS titles provides.

I don't disagree with all of the hand-wringing, but it's not like baseball has a unique problem here.

Well if anything MLB should have the least problem, with the longest regular season and the most exclusive playoffs, even after expanding the format. But don't give them any ideas, if MLB became playoff sluts like the NHL or NBA, you'd have 78 win teams winning occasionally.

jose

jimmy has a lot of good relations in the press and i think most folks understand why the overall would be under .500 if it did finish there given the circumstances in florida and pittsburgh when he didn't have the horses

when leyland has had the talent he has won except 1999 when by his own admission he stunk and maybe in 2008 when his pitching was awful and i guess folks could roll him in as part of the problem.

and in his time in detroit the team has kept winning as the roster from 2006 has overturned completely. it's verlander i think as the only holdover. sure the owner has spent money but a lot of teams buy talent and nothing really happens. leyland has kept them in the thick of it.

he's a borderline hall of famer right now i think

I realize that a lot of baseball fans are not football or hockey fans as well, but as I mentioned in another thread, the defending Super Bowl champion Giants not only were an 88-win-like 9-7, they were OUTSCORED IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

I mentioned this above, but it's not like post season games aren't games. The Yankees won 95 games in the regular season, but we're 3-6 in the postseason. Detroit is 7-2. The winning percentage gap is already closing.

Sure the Giants were 8-8 last year, but they then went 4-0 in the postseason, beating the Falcons, Packers, 49ers, and Patriots in the process. Certainly helped their win percentage and strength of schedule when all was said and done.

Scanning the list of managers at BBRef it looks like the only pure managers in with one WS title are Herzog and Weaver.

Cox will be a one-WS guy as well. But yeah, a second WS win for Leyland, with a different club, will be huge. I think it gets him in eventually.

I don't disagree with all of the hand-wringing, but it's not like baseball has a unique problem here.

No, but it used to be unique in its solution.

And third the comment about the Tigers bringing just a little bit of joy to what was a lost season for a Sox fan. Thanks fellers.

"Sure the Giants were 8-8 last year, but they then went 4-0 in the postseason, beating the Falcons, Packers, 49ers, and Patriots in the process. Certainly helped their win percentage and strength of schedule when all was said and done."

9-7
home game against a Falcons team with a better record
beat 49ers on a butterfingered punt returner

dominated the Packers and beat a tough Patriots team, for sure

Cox will be a one-WS guy as well. But yeah, a second WS win for Leyland, with a different club, will be huge. I think it gets him in eventually.

Good call, dumb oversight on my part.

I think Leyland's contemporaries hurt him though. While I agree with Harvey that he's borderline right now it will be interesting to see how many managers they are willing to induct from one era. Torre, Cox and LaRussa are all in of course and I think there are a bunch of guys who fit my perception of Leyland that are going to be at least considered; Francona, Scioscia, Baker, Bochy all have cause to be looked at (I'd keep all out at the moment). A second title on top of his career length and accomplishment I think separates Leyland pretty decisively from that second group (and he's already ahead in my book).

It's quite possible, even likely, that I am simply not appreciating how well regarded Leyland is. Guys like Torre, Baker and Francona get the "players manager" thing, Scioscia and Showalter are the "tacticians" and I'm just not quite sure what Leyland's "hook" is. I just feel like managers need something that pops their resume to get in. I think he's outstanding, I just don't quite know if he's appreciated.

Harveys probably has a better handle on it when he says Leyland has good relations in the press. Hopefully because I think he's deserving.

Leyland has managed 3 franchises that were pretty crappy

Four.

beat 49ers on a butterfingered punt returner

Maybe, but their defense also stifled the 49ers who had just dominated the Saints defense the week before.

jose

i don't think it's a secret that the press likes leyland a lot because he is considered 'plain spoken'

Along these lines, I have to reckon that the Tigers are the first seventh-place team to win a pennant. At least I can't quickly think of another. The 2006 Cardinals, 2000 Yankees, and 1987 Twins were all fifth in their leagues overall, the 1973 Mets fourth (in a smaller league). Seventh place is pretty shaky in terms of selling the WS as a great matchup.

That said, I don't know that the 2012 Tigers are especially weak historically, for a pennant winner. Verlander and Cabrera have established themselves as the best pitcher and hitter in the AL right now (I know about Mike Trout, obviously, but he's only been doing it for five months; Cabrera is truly a proven star). They've got some good young pitchers, Prince Fielder is a hell of a hitter, Austin Jackson had an excellent year. Put them in the Diamond Mind time machine and they will win World Series against a lot of champions.

Along these lines, I have to reckon that the Tigers are the first seventh-place team to win a pennant. At least I can't quickly think of another. The 2006 Cardinals, 2000 Yankees, and 1987 Twins were all fifth in their leagues overall, the 1973 Mets fourth (in a smaller league). Seventh place is pretty shaky in terms of selling the WS as a great matchup.

I figured a Tigers-Cardinals World Series would break the record for fewest regular season wins by the WS combatants, but the 1973 A's (94) and Mets (82) series ties them at just 176 combined wins.

So at what point is Jim Leyland going to go from some consideration to serious consideration for the HOF?

He even wised up and didn't use Valverde after Game 1.

9-7
home game against a Falcons team with a better record
beat 49ers on a butterfingered punt returner

And none of their regular season losses were tough losses? I can see saying that the Giants weren't the best team in football last year, but they won their division and they won the playoffs. They had a .650 winning percentage (Counting playoffs) and a tough SOS. They were not an embarrassing champion. Hell, the playoffs, if you play in all four rounds, is 25% as long as the entire NFL regular season.

Detroit is in that same boat for me. They won their division. Their record, while not sterling, and has a chance to be very respectable by the time the postseason is through.

It's quite possible, even likely, that I am simply not appreciating how well regarded Leyland is. Guys like Torre, Baker and Francona get the "players manager" thing, Scioscia and Showalter are the "tacticians" and I'm just not quite sure what Leyland's "hook" is. I just feel like managers need something that pops their resume to get in. I think he's outstanding, I just don't quite know if he's appreciated.

Do beat writers still smoke? My enduring image of Leyland is stealing a smoke everywhere he could.

Four.

I think Jimmy would prefer you forgot about No. 4 come Hall of Fame voting time.

I think Leyland's contemporaries hurt him though. While I agree with Harvey that he's borderline right now it will be interesting to see how many managers they are willing to induct from one era. Torre, Cox and LaRussa are all in of course and I think there are a bunch of guys who fit my perception of Leyland that are going to be at least considered; Francona, Scioscia, Baker, Bochy all have cause to be looked at (I'd keep all out at the moment). A second title on top of his career length and accomplishment I think separates Leyland pretty decisively from that second group (and he's already ahead in my book).

The top three will go in right away. Leyland (or whomever else emerges) will have a longer wait. But I think a Leyland with two WS victories for different clubs gets the call eventually.

Good night Yanks. I wish you had had the decency to lose to the Orioles, but then you just wouldn't be the Yankees if you did that.

They actually might have been better off if they had lost to the O's:

-- They could chalk it up to a tough series, nothing else.

-- They would have avoided the whole A-Rod drama. Oh, the fans would still be screaming that A-Rod can't play in October (conveniently forgetting 2009), but it wouldn't have gotten to the ridiculous level it reached.

-- Jeter would be whole

I realize that a lot of baseball fans are not football or hockey fans as well, but as I mentioned in another thread, the defending Super Bowl champion Giants not only were an 88-win-like 9-7, they were OUTSCORED IN THE REGULAR SEASON.

My favorite non-baseball team of all time is the 1988 Kansas Jayhawks, who were not ranked at all after the month of January, but have a championship trophy sitting in Allen Fieldhouse.

I recognize they were not the best team in college basketball that year, but they were the champs.

The Nats were the best team in baseball this year. But no one will remember that five years from now. Maybe there should be something like the President's Trophy to recognize regular season success, but it will still be overshadowed by the World Championship.

The Nats were the best team in baseball this year.

Up to June, maybe. July through October, it was the A's.

Omar Infante was on the 2006 team.
(2006 Tigers team)

The Nats were the best team in baseball this year. But no one will remember that five years from now.

Heck most Phillies fans can't remember that the team won 102 games in 2011. Heck you hear/read things like the Phils have gotten worse each year since 2008. Which is true in that they got eliminated one round earlier each year (not even making it this year). Yet they increased their win total in 09, 10 and 11. Obviously not this year. :(

The Nats were the best team in baseball this year. But no one will remember that five years from now. Maybe there should be something like the President's Trophy to recognize regular season success, but it will still be overshadowed by the World Championship.

Except most (deluded) hockey fans treat the Presiden't Trophy as an object of derision. Or maybe that's just cause the Canucks have won the last two.

Except most (deluded) hockey fans treat the President's Trophy as an object of derision

I was explaining this concept to my wife last night, during the Tigers victory celebration when they were proudly holding up the trophy for winning the AL. In hockey, players don't skate around with (or touch, or even look at) the Prez Trophy, nor the ones they get for winning their conference playoffs (Campbell/Wales). The Cup's the only thing that matters, baby.

And now, just for fun, here are the career stats for a couple of old minor leaguers.

Along these lines, I have to reckon that the Tigers are the first seventh-place team to win a pennant. At least I can't quickly think of another. The 2006 Cardinals, 2000 Yankees, and 1987 Twins were all fifth in their leagues overall, the 1973 Mets fourth (in a smaller league). Seventh place is pretty shaky in terms of selling the WS as a great matchup.

When I think of World Series matchups that don't involve the Yankees, I think of how they're playing at the moment, the potential pitching matchups, and the length of their franchise tradition, which includes past World Series between the two teams. Seems to me that the Tigers and the Cardinals win on all counts, and besides, they've also got great looking uniforms. IMO this'll be a great World Series to look forward to.

And assuming the Cardinals finish off the Giants, it's not as if either team is backing in. They'll both have beaten the best teams in their leagues and five 90-win teams between them. That's good enough for me.