The 2006 Tigers are…?
posted in Analysis |Okay. Let’s put this one away right away. The 2006 Tigers are the 2006 Tigers. There’s no reason to compare them to 1968 or 1984 or 1987. It’s still fun to look around for similarities of course.
One I come up with, just in the most cosmetic of ways, is not the 2005 White Sox, who may yet end up the closest relative. But I liked the 2002 A’s comparison on face value.
- As of today, if Detroit continues its pace of runs scored and runs allowed, it will nearly equal the 2002 A’s on both stats. The Tigers are set to score 805 runs and allow 653. The 2002 Athletics? 800 scored, 654 allowed. They finished with 103 wins.
- The 2002 A’s also hit 205 home runs. Detroit’s on pace for 200. We’ll have five guys finish with more than 20 home runs, and three guys have a shot at finishing at more than 30. They had two guys over 30, one more over 20, and four more over 10.
- Pitching? We have an ERA of 3.74, they finishd with 3.68.
- The teams are both at 6.31 K/9 and about 3 walks/9.
- They had two good starting pitchers, both age 24, and featured The Big Three of Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson and Barry Zito.
- We have a pair of 23-year-old starters who we think are pretty good, though none at Zito’s Cy Young level, of course. Nate Robertson gives us four starters with ERAs under 4, as well.
Does this mean anything? Probably not. Is it is a perfect comparison? Of course not. Are there better comparisons? Probably. Do we hope to go further in the postseason? Heck, yes. Can I stop asking myself questions? Apparently, no.
But it’s fun to look around and offer other suggestions than you’ll probably hear in the coming weeks. Maybe you’ve got a favorite comparison to share, too.
Sphere It
… awesome.
well said. quite agree!
[...] Kurt notes that while there are many applicable comparisons of the 2006 Tigers to the 2005 White Sox, the 2002 A’s may be a better match. [...]