Skip to content

Declaring the offseason champ is a sucker’s bet

Dec 18, 2012, 12:33 PM EDT

Not meaning to pick on Buster here because a lot of people say stuff like this, but …

 

That goes well with the Phillies 2010-2011 offseason championship and the Red Sox in 2011-2012. If I remember correctly, the Red Sox also broke the record for most wins in a season and books were written about the greatness of that four aces Phillies rotation.

Oh, wait. Books were written about those guys. The point still stands.

In any event, this holiday season, please predict responsibly.

  1. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM

    It’s been shown to be a silly game to play, rarely does anyone win at it. It also explains why Red Sox fans don’t think much of proudlycanadian chirping their organization because after years of mediocrity the Jays made a couple good looking (on paper!) trades.

    • jaysjunkie - Dec 18, 2012 at 6:12 PM

      All I gotta say is have fun with Farrell at the helm this year.

      • 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Dec 18, 2012 at 7:20 PM

        I’m also a Jays fan but I’ve liked the Sox since I’ve liked baseball. Interesting position to be in at the moment. Now please tell me all about how stupid it is to cheer for two teams in the same division…

  2. El Bravo - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

    The Cubs all the way.

    • buffalochris - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM

      …that’s a Clown’s Bet Bro!

  3. giantraiderwarrior - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    Didn’t they get swept in the world series. Those players that you name got there asses handle to them! Especially verlander!!!

    • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM

      Cool story, Good luck winning the NL West this year, say hello to the Dodgers for me, Say something to the….Royals White Sox or any of the other scrubby teams in the AL Central if you happen to see them.

      Picking the Tigers is the safest best, they have nothing near the competition to make the playoffs because of their division.

      Congrats your team won the World Series (aidedbyalongtigerlayoff)
      Good luck in your wild card game this year if your team makes it that far

      • seeingwhatsticks - Dec 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM

        I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you because I have a ring in each ear.

  4. eagles512 - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    But he’s saying they’ll win 100 not the World Series. The 2011 phillies won over 100.

    • Joe - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:47 PM

      As did the 2011-2012 Red Sox.

  5. shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    Another Buster Posey Gem involving the Tigers: http://sports.espn.go.com/sportsnation/news/story?page=MLBStoryTigers

    Buster Olney: “Justin Verlander might win 20 games with the staggering run support he is likely to receive, because there are days when he may allow six runs in five innings and still win by a touchdown; the Tigers may be the latest team to take a run at scoring 1,000 runs. But Detroit will likely be without Joel Zumaya the whole season, and the Tigers desperately need Dontrelle Willis — whose diminished stuff was noted by NL advance scouts last year — to be a solid middle-of-the-rotation starter. ”

    This was his assessment of the 2008 Tigers before the start of the season. They went 74-88, Verlander went 11-17 and scored a very good (but very far from 1000) 821 runs.

    • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM

      HOLY COW
      Are you suggesting that sports writers make predications that are not always correct?

      Im going to bookmark that link
      Thank man

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM

        No actually, I’m implying that Buster Onley in particular makes really silly, completely illogical predictions often. Hence, my linking to another Buster Onley column that was completely illogical and unreasonable.

      • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        And I am implying that every sport writer in the history of sports writing have a long list of bad predictions.

        But please tell me how this one is “silly and completely illogical”. I hope you have more than “he was wrong 5 years ago”

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

        Hmm…where to start:

        1. That a the Tigers would be the first team since the 1999 Indians to score 1000 runs. The Indians team that had Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez and Roberto Alomar putting up some of the best numbers of their career. Along with Omar Vizquel in a career year, Kenny Lofton, David Justice…. Scoring 1000 runs is *insanley * hard to do. The Indians did in 1999…before that, the Red Sox did it in *1950*. Any notion the Tigers would score 1000 runs is batshit insane.

        2. The notion that any team if good enough to predict that pitcher will get wins when he gives up six runs in five innings and “still win by a touchdown”

        3. The notion that it took scouts to notice that a pitcher who posted a 5.17 ERA might have “diminished stuff”.

        Those are three silly and illogical things in his one paragraph.

      • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM

        Hmmmm where to start:
        No where in that tweet did he say anything about scoring 1000 runs, or anything else you just posted.

        Oh you’re still talking about an predictions made nearly 5 years ago….
        Wow is all I can say

        So I will repeat, every and any sports writer and fan for that matter has made fail predictions.

        My question still is what is it about this tweet that is silly and illogical?

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        “Hmmmm where to start:
        No where in that tweet did he say anything about scoring 1000 runs, or anything else you just posted.”

        Holy shit dude, are you punking me right now? You commented on my post, replied “But please tell me how this one is “silly and completely illogical”. I hope you have more than “he was wrong 5 years ago”, which, given the context, sure as seemed like you were talking about my post. I also pointed out that while people fail at predictions, this one was incredibly stupid. NOPE. Apparently you were talking about the original post, completely ignoring the comment of mine *you posted in response to*.

        You understand how this is frustrating…right? It’s like debating with a child with a severe case of ADD. I can only read the words you type out. Since you are clearly incapable of formatting your thoughts properly on the screen, it makes it kind of hard to understand.

        Here’s my response to Onley’s orginal post: The Tigers won 88 games last year. Those pitchers started 103 of them. They should have upgrades at DH and right field (though Tori Hunter is turning 37!). It is pretty unlikely they will win 100 games. He said they *will*, this is silly.

      • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM

        Ooooook you have mental issues and are still rambling about a prediction made in 2008 when Im asking what is silly and illogical about his 2012 prediction that the Tigers will 100 games.

        Please consider this my resignation from the conversation I haven’t the time for foolishness

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:14 PM

        “Ooooook you have mental issues and are still rambling about a prediction made in 2008 when Im asking what is silly and illogical about his 2012 prediction that the Tigers will 100 games.”

        GAHH, I DID RESPOND TO THE 2012 PREDICTION! “Here’s my response to Onley’s orginal post: The Tigers won 88 games last year. Those pitchers started 103 of them. They should have upgrades at DH and right field (though Tori Hunter is turning 37!). It is pretty unlikely they will win 100 games. He said they *will*, this is silly.” END QUOTE!

        Jesus fucking Christ, this has been like debating a Dr. Suess character.

      • mrchainbluelightning - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM

        Cool story, go take your meds, wipe your nose, because you sound upset.

        “Sport writers make predictions that fail.”
        Bravo again, you’re a regular Oracle.

      • Gobias Industries - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM

        That was a fascinating debate, fellas. I’m glad I took the time to read all of that. Thank you.

      • Chip Caray's Eyebrows - Dec 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

        You boys tied for last place in that argument. Have a nice night.

    • elpendejo59 - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      I was way more excited reading the opening line when I read it was by Buster Posey. By paragraph 2, when it says it was Buster Onley, I was immediately disappointed, but alot less shocked when the prediction was wrong.

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

        Buster Posey, Buster Onley, what’s the difference really? I’m sure Buster Posey could write really stupid articles too (I’m not terribly sure Buster Onley could win an MVP. The jury is still out on that one).

    • djpostl - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM

      “Here’s my response to Onley’s orginal post: The Tigers won 88 games last year. Those pitchers started 103 of them.”

      Which kind of lends credence to that caveat “if they mae 125 starts” they’ll win 100…since they’d only need to go 12-10 in that extra 22 of them.

      • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        Yes, but would the additional 22 starts make up for 12 wins? That was the point. Ego, they would need to be *12 wins better over the course of 20 games than the pitchers they are replacing*…which is extremely improbable.

  6. indaburg - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    Thank you, Craig. My thoughts exactly.

    • historiophiliac - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM

      /throws peanut shells

      • indaburg - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:06 PM

        Quiet in the peanut gallery.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:11 PM

        Heh, the peanuts have been drinking!

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        All the R.A. Dickey drama really is wearing on you huh?
        What is the drink of choice this afternoon?

  7. thefacts121 - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    There are preposterous strawmen, and then there is saying that anyone thought the Red Sox won the 2011-2012 offseason when their biggest acquisition was Cody Ross. Maybe you meant the Angels here or something?

    Also, the 2011 Phillies won 102 games (despite going about 3-10 after clinching) the division. I’d say try again in general on this post, unless it was just meant to prompt Phillies and Red Sox fans to goose readership.

    • thinman61 - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      I’m pretty sure Craig meant the 2010-11 Red Sox offseason, when they acquired Gonzalez and Crawford.

      • 18thstreet - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

        For four months in the middle of that season, the predictions looked spot on. They started terribly and finished terribly. In between, they were really amazing. Hell of a story.

  8. darthicarus - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    The Tigers were also supposed to run away with the AL Central last year & that didn’t quite play out as planned but the end result was there. I’ll hold off my judgment until the season starts and then complain about how crappy the team is after their first 2-game losing streak.

  9. sdelmonte - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

    Remember when the Mariners had the best winter ever? And were trading off Cliff Lee by July?

    • albertmn - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM

      Wasn’t that last year (with the exception of Lee)?

  10. etchedchaos - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

    Craig, are you seriously trolling Phillies fans about the 4 aces thing? The rotation that in 2011 was historically great, putting up a statline not seen since your Braves in the 90’s, and harkened back to the late 60’s for pitching dominance. Not to mention was part of a team that won 102 games, but because they never won the postseason crapshoot, it’s fine to take the piss.

  11. Chris Fiorentino - Dec 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM

    Craig, I’m with some of the previous posters. I didn’t see a word in Buster’s tweet about “championship”. I did see the words “win 100″ and the 2011 Phillies easily won 100. And please don’t lump the 2011 Phillies in with the pathetic 2012 Red Sox. The 2011 Phillies dominated, but didn’t hit in the NLDS, which was a possibility feared by any Phillies fan with half a brain who watched their entire season.

    You’re being a little too hard on old Buster here…and I’m the last one to give a crap about Buster “Cliff Lee is going to the Yankees” Olney.

  12. hisgirlgotburrelled - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    Your offseason trolling is mediocre at best. But I’m bored at work sooo…

    Olney predicted wins in what looks like a division full of average and below average teams. A lot like the 2011 Phillies in an average NL East… How awful that ’11 Phillies team turned out to be. Same as those ’12 Red Sox. Ha, egg was on our face when we thought the Phillies were a good team in ’11!

  13. buddaley - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

    Predicting any team to win 100 games in a season is foolish. Going back to 2007, only 3 teams have done it.

    I think the Tigers are favorites to win the AL central. It is not a strong division, and Detroit has some top flight offensive talent as well as a potentially excellent rotation. But the Tigers are not without their flaws and question marks and will be playing a fair number of games against some really excellent teams. If Olney projects them to be AL Central champions, he is making a reasonable statement. But 100 wins, while possible, is hyperbole, not analysis.

    • mattyflex - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

      But, even as a Royals supporter, if I had to put my money on any MLB team winning 100 games this year, I’d have to drop it on Detroit.

      Plus, three 100-win teams in the past five seasons is actually remarkable. It’s not like anyone expects four or five 100-win teams.

      • buddaley - Dec 18, 2012 at 5:05 PM

        Yes, it is remarkable and unexpected, which is the point. There have been 36 teams that won their divisions from 2007-2012, and 3 have won 100 games or more, i.e. 1 in 12. To project the Tigers to do it is hyping the team, not evaluating its probabilities.

        I suppose it is reasonable to think that of all 30 teams Detroit might be in the best position to do it, but if I were betting I would want better than 12-1 odds. Olney says if those 4 pitchers combine for 125 starts the Tigers “will” win 100 games. That is silly. He might have said if those 4 are healthy, and everyone plays up to expectations, they are the favorites to win the division. He might have said they have the best chance of the 30 teams to win 100 if everything falls right. But he doesn’t. He simply posits 100 wins as a probability if those 4 pitchers start 125 times total. That is never a probability.

      • mattyflex - Dec 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM

        I can roll with that.

  14. papacrick - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM

    Sounds like your jealous because your team didn’t upgrade this winter

  15. historiophiliac - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM

    Seriously, someone’s girlfriend needs to cut him off!

    • historiophiliac - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      But thanks for using my fav Tigers’ logo. :)

  16. chacochicken - Dec 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM

    My money is on the ’76 Reds to sweep the Yankees in 4.

  17. albertmn - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Weren’t the Tigers supposed to be the team to beat and run away with the best record in the AL last season? They were only a White Sox collapse from missing the playoffs entirely.

  18. vegagreenleaf - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    Since we’re just making shit up here, I’ll take my Mariners to win it all in 2013!!!!

  19. hermie13 - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM

    Tigers didnt even win 90 games last year and had only the 6th best record in the AL. Getting Sanchez for the whole year is nice but may bump Smyly feom the rotation and not like Sanchez was a lot better last year. agree with others that the Tigers are AL Central favorites but 100 wins is a major stretch.

    • Francisco (FC) - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:52 PM

      That depends on how worse the Indians and Twins have managed to make themselves in the off-season. I’m sure that will make up the difference.

  20. Francisco (FC) - Dec 18, 2012 at 3:51 PM

    In any event, this holiday season, please predict responsibly.
    Says the man who predicted (admitted witha gun to his head) the Phillies would win it all in 2011 and would still hold the NL East crown in 2012… Craig STOP picking the Phillies dangit!

    • indaburg - Dec 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM

      Do not fear, FC. I think the Nats are the popular pick this year for the NL East in 2013. Your Phils have a shot at the wild card though, especially with two AAA teams in the division.

      • Francisco (FC) - Dec 18, 2012 at 4:35 PM

        We’ll be like the St. Louis Cardinals of the NL East… having a ready pair of wretched teams to pick their carcasses clean…

  21. onbucky96 - Dec 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM

    Almost as useless as Power Rankings. Really, I don’t care where you rank the Mariners, or Falcons, nor Lakers. I’m just a dumb cheesehead, but I usually look at the win-loss record to see who’s winning.

  22. stlouis1baseball - Dec 18, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    Is anyone else surpried at the activity level this article has garnered?
    I mean…it’s a dumbass Buster Olney prediction. Hell…I am somewhat embarrassed for posting this.

  23. aiede - Dec 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM

    Buster has the beginnings of a point. If the Tigers’ starting pitching stays consistently excellent, the extra wins will come from the sneaky upgrades to their lineup.

    They’re replacing Delmon Young (-1.2 WAR) with Victor Martinez (2.9 WAR in 2011), Ryan Raburn (-2.0 WAR) with a full season of Omar Infante (2.3 WAR) and Brennan Boesch (-1.4 WAR) with Torii Hunter (5.5 WAR).

    Add it all up, and that’s something like 15 games added to an 88-win team based on an admittedly small sample size, blunt-object usage of WAR and some assumptions about how VMart and Torii will perform in 2013. So while I don’t necessarily think that the Tigers are going to win 100 games, I think Buster’s not too far off the mark in how much the Tigers have improved themselves simply by eliminating the gaping rally-killer holes in their offense.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

When home-field advantage isn't so
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Lincecum (3052)
  2. M. Bumgarner (2612)
  3. M. Morse (2411)
  4. J. Shields (2226)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2060)
  1. H. Pence (1483)
  2. T. Ishikawa (1420)
  3. L. Cain (1417)
  4. U. Jimenez (1398)
  5. B. Butler (1381)