The pitching may be young, but
a) it's not that young
and b) it's not locked in for detroit for that long.

Robertson is 29
Rogers is 54
Jones is 38
Walker is 35
Grilli is 29
Rodney is 29
Colon is 27

So the young Tigers are really
Bonderman (24)
Verlander (23)
Zumaya (21)

which is nothing to sneeze at, but still the pitching isn't all young.

Additionally, as a result of playing Robertson and Bonderman when they were really young and the Tigers sucked in 2003, both of those guys have four years of major league experience. So they are about to get very expensive and in two years they will be eligable for free agency.

And lets not forget this team played around .500 for the entire second half.

I think that they will be competetive next year (but not the divitions champs) but they are going to have to make some major changes to make it into a dynasty.

Ivan

Apparently nobody's told the young Tigers pitching staff that Nolan Ryan pitched 89 innings for the '69 Mets, and then never saw an ounce of World Series play ever again in his next 23 seasons (except from beyond the foul lines).

This really ticks me off. I noticed that when Verlander gave up a big hit to a Cardinals hitter, he'd have a smirk on his face as if he's thinking "oh well, I'm a rookie, I'm bound to make such mistakes". He did it in game 1, and game 5. GAME 5!! He should've taken that stuff more seriously. Who does he think he is??

No one the Tigers played awful and gave the Series away...they have no idea what they just did. They still seem to think they're somebody. They went to the World Series and suddenly became the Kansas City Royals...who ironically, swept them in the last weekend of the season.

I was talkin' about this with a friend of mine this morning. It just irritates me to see these guys act like they expect to get there over and over. They're not the late '90's Yankees, but they seem to think they are. Huh? I can't remember anyone acting so non-chalant after loosing the World Series. They should be a bit upset that they played so bad and be saying stuff like "I'm never going to forget that feeling in the pit of my stomach, watching the Cardinals celebrate instead them watching us"

If they don't change their attitude, they'll be back to being a mediocre club. One good year didn't do the '03 Royals much good (yeah, I know they didn't even make the playoffs).

I could go on and on about this. It's irritating how they're acting about their apathetic playing.

PS. Nolan Ryan pitched a mere 2 1/3 innings in that '69 Series. He got the save in game 3. That's it. Great pitcher on some very good teams, but he never made it back. At least he won one...Verlander and crew, ain't even tasted playing well in a series loss.

Ivan,

Except for Jones, Rogers and Walker every pitcher is under 30. These days, that's a pretty young staff. And you were leaving out Miner and Ledezma--who have both shown promise and are also under 25.

And I believe everybody on the team but Casey is signed through next year.

I think the Twins have a much better pitching staff for the next few years, with or without Liriano in 2007. But the Tigers are still in very good shape. Bonderman is going to improve next year, though Verlander is likely to look a bit worse. In my opinion, what's holding this team back is their hitting. Devon, rest assured the Tigers were one of the luckiest teams in the mlb this year, statistically, and they will get their due next year. And for what it's worth, Nolan Ryan was great at striking guys out, but was not a great pitcher. His career ERA+ (where 100 is average) is 112; http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml
To put this in perspective, Derek Lowe's ERA+ is 121, which is leaps and bounds better than 112. He should certainly be in the HOF, but he's the only career ERA+ 112 guy I'd vote for.

I haven't looked at whether the Tigers staff is younger than average, but it certainly seems to me that they got a significant number of innings from older guys.

Is there research that says that pitchers start to decline later than hitters? If not, than under 30 or not, the Tigers have a fair number of guys who are at or past their peak years.

As I said, I think they will be good, but the post is discussing a dynasty. In this day in age, you either need to have a large, large payroll, or a young core that you have locked up for the next 3-4 years. If Bonderman and Robertson are gone in two years, do the Tigers still have the core of young pitchers needed for this?

Ivan

Every team that wins or loses a championship series gets asked if they're going to be a dynasty. What do you think they're going to say? "Actually, we kinda suck and this whole season was a fluke. We fully expect to compete with the Royals for last place in 2007."

The Tigers do have an abundance of young pitching with a track record of major league success. They may have the best pitching staff in baseball. They also have a productive farm system with more pitchers and position players on the way. But they also have some obvious holes; their offense was patchwork, and if Dombrowski is smart he will make some significant changes.

So no, they're not a dynasty. But they have some necessary pieces, and a lot of teams would love to have this much young talent. They aren't as good as the first half of 2006, and they aren't as bad as the second half.

The Tigers did gag on the World Series; it was more a Tiger loss than a Cardinal win. But to be fair, they did roll through the American League playoffs, so they must have something going for them.

re: the tigers "dynasty"

(1) The tigers led both leagues and all major league baseball in ERA this past year.

(2) After doing the same in 2005, the White Sox fell to the middle of the pack, which is called regression to the mean.

(3) It is likely that Tigers pitching will regress to the mean next year, at least regarding balls put into play.

(4) Tigers hitting was high in runs scored and home runs hit, but very low in on base average. Monroe and Ordonez both had low OBA with slugging averages close to .500--but you can't really play them together and hope to have sequential offense. The Tigers need some table setters. Polanco also does not have a high OBA, even though he has a high batting average and hits a fair number of doubles and triples.

(5) The Tigers regression to the mean may have begun in August, when they started losing and Minnesota started winning.

(6) The Twins are dangerous so long as they have Santana; and Cleveland has a lot of young talent; and the Red Sox, Blue Jays and Yankees are all quality clubs, as are the As and Angels. The AL is loaded up every year. Plus the Chisox were @ 3rd in team offense last year, and in their case, their pitching should improve.

(7) IF the tigers make the playoffs next year, their playoff experience and jimmy leyland should help them advance, but I'd hate to be the team facing the yankees team that wanted revenge.

--art kyriazis, philly

um, JohnW- The Tigers didn't win the world series. How many teams that lose the world series get asked about Dynasties? If you look at the quote Verlander brought up the "D" word himself. I believe Crash Davis would say that the proper quote would be "We need to just concentrate on winning one game at time and get one World series victory under our belts before we start talking about Dynasties."

I think a bigger point is that these days it's really, really hard to win ONE world series, let alone more. There are now three rounds of playoffs, and even a clearly superior team is going to have a

The late 90s Yankees managed to win 3 in four years, but they almost got knocked out by Oakland one of those years (or maybe 2 IIRC).

I dont' think anyone is denying that the Tigers were a good team this year, or that they are likely to be a good team next year. But I don't think that they are anymore likely to win their division than the Twins, White Sox or even the Indians (BP adjusted standings had all 4 teams within 4 games of each other this year). And with that many good teams, I think the likelyhood of the wild card coming out of the central again is lower than this year.

Ivan

I think with the parity right now it will be really tough for anyone to repeat what the Yanks did.

The AL has too many strong teams. Boston and New York in the East, with a potential rising Toronto. The Central has potentially FOUR playoff-caliber teams in any given year, and the West is usually good for two. With two rounds just to GET TO the Series it will be tough to repeat, never mind reach dynasty status.

I think the Tigers, with a team based around pitching and a ballpark that favors that are well-positioned to be very competitive for the next few years.

The are basically a team with four number two starters and three of those guys are under 30, two under 25. Don't let Rogers' age pulling up the average fool you. By most MLB standards, this is a young staff, and I think they have more guys in the pipeline to move up when Rogers leaves.

Considering that:

a) the Tigers didn't manage to win their division
b) the Twins and Indians have far more talent
c) they play in a league with the Red Sox, Yanks, Blue Jays, A's, and Angels
d) they had one guy (Guillen) who had an OBP better than .350.
e) (as Bill James has proved time and time again) teams who experience a huge jump in wins from one year to the next will almost always regress in the following year...

...it is unlikely that the Tigers will become much of a dynasty.