Michigan Basketball Mt. Rushmore

It is commonly accepted that the University of Michigan is a football school with a good basketball program.  This is measured based on the revenue, television ratings, alumni, Big Ten Titles, and Bowl Games Michigan has played in since Bo Schembechler became the head coach back in 1969.

You could argue that since 1964, Michigan has actually been a better basketball school.  Basketball never produces the same revenue as football, and television ratings consistently lag behind football ratings.  Still, the success of Michigan on the court has actually been a bit more impressive, depending on which measure you use.

People will say the football team is more successful, because since 1964 they have won or shared 22 Big Ten Championships, compared to the basketball team’s 9 Big Ten Championships (and 1 Conference Tournament win (1998) which was later vacated).  Also, both teams have won 1 National Championship since 1964.  Basketball in 1989, and football in 1997.  But, the basketball team has played in the National Championship game 5 other times since 1964, and been in the Final Four one other time, in 1964.  The football team finished number 2 in the country once (1985), and in the top four 6 other times (1964, 1971, 1976, 1980 and 1988).  The point here being the basketball team has actually had more looks at winning a National Championship than the football team.

With all that being said, I will now present my picks for the Michigan basketball Mount Rushmore.  I have read other picks on this, and I mostly agree with the others, with one notable change, which I will explain.

First, and I feel the person who has to be first on any such list is Cazzie Russell.  He is probably the greatest player who has ever graduated from Michigan.  The unfortunate thing about his career is that it came before basketball became extremely popular in the country.  He played from 1963 to 1966, winning the National Player of the Year award after the 1965-66 season, while averaging 30 points per game.  Michigan won three Big Ten Championships in these years.  They were the national runner-up in 1965 to UCLA, made the Final Four in 1964, and the Elite Eight in 1966.  He was a second-team All-American in 1964, and a first team All-American in 1965 and 1966.  He followed that by being the number 1 overall pick in the NBA draft in 1966.  He is simply the greatest Wolverine to play basketball for the school.

The second choice is also a no-brainer.  Glenn Rice was the most valuable player on a very talented 1989 Michigan team, which went on to win Michigan’s only basketball National Championship.  During those 6 game tournament, Rice scored a record 184 points (30 points per game), which stands to this day.  For the season, he averaged over 25 points per game, earned the Big Ten Player of the Year, was a second-team All-American, and got drafted 4^th overall into the NBA.  Rice also graduated with several of Michigan’s individual records, including most career points (2,442).  He followed that with a long career in the NBA, where he was known as a sharp-shooter.

The number three person on the mountain is Trey Burke.  Again, no arguments here from all of the “experts” I see out there.  In his two years with Michigan, Burke led the Wolverines to a Big Ten title, and a berth in the 2013 National Championship game.  I personally think the referees kept Michigan from winning that game, calling ticky-tack fouls on Burke, forcing coach John Beilein to bench Burke for much of the first-half.  Near the end of the second half, Burke also had a great block on Peyton Siva which was called a foul.  This swing in points was too much to overcome.

Ok, off my soap box, Trey Burke earned the National Player of the Year honors as a sophomore in 2013, averaging almost 19 points per game, and over 6 and a half assists.  As a defender he had 62 steals and 20 blocks.  He will always be remembered for his long, game-tying three pointer against Kansas in the round of 16 of the NCAA tournament at the end of regulation.  He scored all 23 of his points after half-time in that game, personally taking it over when it appeared Michigan was done with only minutes left in the game, and returning Michigan basketball to relevance after two decades of obscurity.

The last person who belongs on the Michigan Mt. Rushmore is also the most controversial.  From a pure talent standpoint Chris Webber could arguably be the greatest Wolverine.  He also seems to have left the most unfinished business, as well as questions surrounding his career.

Chris Webber was the considered by some to be number one player in the country coming out of high school.  As a freshman power forward he average 15.5 points per game, and 10 rebounds.  He also had 84 blocks and 54 steals.  This Michigan team would go to the 1992 NCAA Tournament Finals after entering the tournament a number 6 seed.

For the 1992-93 season, Webber would lead Michigan in scoring (19.2 ppt), rebounding (10.1), and blocked shots (90), while also being second in steals (47).  He would be a first-team All-American.  Michigan would end the season ranked #3 in the country, with only three losses in conference (four overall), and yet would not win the Big Ten.  Indiana, the #1 team in the country only had one loss in conference.  Despite this, Michigan would get a number 1 seed in the tournament, and ended up losing a thriller in the finals to North Carolina, when Chris Webber called a timeout while Michigan did not have any.

I can see why Webber is not included in many people’s Mt. Rushmore of Michigan basketball.  His involvement in the Ed Martin scandal, which cost the school several years of vacated wins, not to mention banners coming down from the rafters, is still a dark shadow on the program.  Further, Webber has chosen to keep disassociated from the school despite his contact ban being lifted.  Adding to all of that he had a borderline hall of fame career in the NBA, if you look only at his stats.  His teams were never relevant, however, which hurt his overall legacy.  Webber retired in 2008, and his legacy is still confounding to this day.

Despite that you cannot talk about Michigan basketball without talking about the Fab Five.  Chris Webber, whether you like it or not, was the sun around which the other players orbited.  Even decades after the Fab Five attended Michigan, they are still among the most discussed teams in NCAA history.  The years 1991 to 1993 were truly the only years the basketball team eclipsed the football team in the popular lexicon.  Leaving a player like Webber off the Mt. Rushmore feels criminal, even if he never fulfilled his promise, or acted as ethically as he should have.  I simply cannot come up with a player who outshines him in the program’s history.

To close, this list is not meant to disrespect so many great players who have played basketball at Michigan.  My main criteria in choosing this list included 1) winning.  All of these players were on teams which made the NCAA Tournament Finals.  All of these players were All-Americans; Glenn Rice being the only second team All-American, but making up for it with not only the Big Ten Player of the Year, but also the Most Outstanding Player in the NCAA Tournament.

Also, each player is from a different era.  Even though Webber and Rice played at Michigan only a couple of years apart, the two seasons between their careers changed everything.  Michigan fell apart in 1991 after graduating all of the starters from the 1989 team, requiring Steve Fisher to be aggressive in his recruiting.  What was one thing he could promise to a freshman?  The chance to compete for playing time.  Other major programs had upper classmen who were taking the critical minutes.  By the middle of their freshman year, the entire Fab Five was starting.  This was unprecedented in NCAA basketball at the time.  Rob Pelinka was the only member of both teams.  This is why the 1989 team and the 1991-92 team are of different eras.

Mixing up the eras I feel the major milestones of Michigan basketball are represented here.  The obvious apologies have to go to the 1976 team, which was also the national runner-up.  Rickey Green and Phil Hubbard both deserve mention, also winning a Big Ten Championship in 1977, and both earning second-team All-American honors, while entering the NCAA Tournament ranked #1 in the country.  They made the Elite Eight before falling to Charlotte, 75-68.  Either of these two would be worthy of mention, hence why they are here, but I do not feel that either outshines the people who made this list.  Unfortunately there are only four spots to fill.

Roy Tarpley comes close as well.  He earned All-American honors, was Big Ten POY, and won two Big Ten Championships.  The 1984-85 team and the 1985-86 team both entered the NCAA tournament ranked in the top 5 in the country, and neither team got out of the second round.

Also, I don’t want to disrespect other members of the Fab Five, especially Juwan Howard and Jalen Rose.  Neither made this list, because Webber was the better player.  Add Nick Stauskas to that too.  Even though he won the Big Ten POY, and led Michigan to a Big Ten Championship and the Elite Eight in the Tournament, he is overshadowed by Trey Burke.  Last, throw Gary Grant into that mix.  His career overlapped with Tarpley early, and Rice late.  He was an All-American, and played on good Michigan teams, but his teams never performed will in the NCAA Tournament, which keeps him on the outside here.

There are my picks, and my reasons.  Who are yours, and why?  Go Blue!

Michigan in the CFP: 1990 to 2007

The CFP does nothing if not get people talking.  No matter what is decided, somebody somewhere will feel slighted.  The system’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.  4 teams get in, but only 4 teams get in.  All is decided and finalized, and questions will still linger.

The question I am posing is what would have been had the CFP existed before 2014?  In a previous post I asked that question about the Bo Schembechler era.  Now I will ask the question of the Gary Moeller/Lloyd Carr era.  How many times would UM have made the CFP from 1990 to 2007?

Bo Schembechler retired after the 1989 season, but he did not leave the talent cupboard bare in Ann Arbor.  Michigan entered 1990 with high hopes, and even became the #1 team in the country for a spell.  Still, losing two in a row to Michigan State and Iowa killed any hopes of being considered a top team, even though they won their bowl game and finished #7 in the country.

1991 would have been the first season Michigan would have been in the playoff hunt.  Their only loss in the regular season was to a very good Florida State team, which finished #5 because of 2 losses in a row to Florida and Miami.  The state of Florida was no doubt the mecca of college football in the 1990s.

#4 Michigan actually achieved a CFP match-up with #2 Washington, who crushed the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl 34-14, and split the National Championship with Miami.  Talk about a year created for a playoff!  #1 Miami defeated #11 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, but with a CFP they may have had them play Florida, before that winner went on to play Washington for the National Championship.  The CFP was created to end the split National Championship conversation.

1992 would have been intriguing, because Michigan went undefeated, won 9 games, but they also had 3 ties.  The rankings at the end of the regular season had them at #7.  Miami was 11-0, and ranked #1.  Alabama was 12-0 and ranked #2 (and would defeat Miami to win the National Championship).  Florida State was #3 and 10-1 (their only loss to Miami).  Texas A&M was #4, and 12-0, with Notre Dame #5 and 9-1-1.  At #6 was Syracuse with a 9-2 record.  The question is whether Michigan could have somehow squeaked in to the top 4.  Not likely.  If the rankings held, Miami would have started off with Texas A&M, and Alabama would have played Florida State.  Notre Dame would have tried to argue its way into the picture, and since they beat Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl, they had a legitimate claim.

Michigan would be silent again until 1997.  This was the last year of the Bowl Alliance, before the BCS took over.  Michigan and Nebraska both went undefeated, and each claimed a share of the National Championship.  Had the CFP been in place, instead of Washington State, Michigan would have played #4 Florida State, who only lost a heartbreaker to Florida at the Swamp, 32-29.  That FSU team was #1 going into that game, which was the last of the season.  This would have been no gimme for Michigan by any stretch.  #2 Nebraska destroyed #3 Tennessee 42-17 in the Orange Bowl, securing their place in the final game.  This one would have been decided on the field, as it should have been all along, but putting this season in light of the CFP would have diminished Michigan’s chances of winning the National Championship, because they would have to beat both Florida State and Nebraska.  The benefit would have been that with these games, there would have been no debate going forward who the best team in the country was.

The 1999 Michigan Wolverines finished the bowl season ranked #5, but they ended the regular season ranked #8.  Wisconsin would have reached the CFP as the #4 team in the country, and they would have matched up with #1 Florida State.  #2 Virginia Tech and #3 Nebraska would have made up the other CFP game.

The 2003 Wolverines would be next to make the mythological CFP.  Fortunately they had the perfect #1 vs. #4 match-up, as the #4 ranked 10-2 Wolverines played the #1 ranked 11-1 USC Trojans.  USC won 28-14.  The #2 vs. #3 game also happened.  In this case #2 Oklahoma played #3 LSU, with LSU winning 21-14.  This should have set up a USC vs. LSU championship game, but instead the National Championship was split between the two schools.  And, now we know why the BCS was a flawed system.

2004 would have been another great year for a playoff, with 5 teams finishing the regular season undefeated.  How would a committee have seeded USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Louisville, with 10-1 Texas (after having lost to Oklahoma), also hanging around.  If properly seeded, I think the CFP would have chosen USC vs. Utah (or Texas) in the #1 vs. #4 game, while Auburn and Oklahoma would have played in the #2 vs. #3 game.  Fortunately this season would have also been decided on the field, instead of Auburn fans being upset that their team never had a chance to prove their ability, and finishing #2 in the country despite being undefeated.  Michigan only factored in the season by losing to Texas in the Rose Bowl, but they were ranked #13 at the time.

2005 would have brought about the question of whether two Big Ten teams would make the CFP, since Penn State and Ohio State were ranked #3 and #4 respectively at the end of the year.  This is the one season everyone agrees that the BCS did its job, by matching up undefeated #1 USC against undefeated #2 Texas, in perhaps the greatest BCS Championship game ever.  It would have been a shame to make these two teams jump through another hoop before playing each other.  This begs the question in my mind of whether we should forgo the semi-final games when there are two teams who are clearly above all the others in a season.  Because money is on the line, I know the answer to that is a definite no.

In 2006 the Big Ten would have undoubtedly had two teams in the playoff.  Ohio State and Michigan were #1 and #2 in the country when they met for this year’s version of “The Game.”  After a thriller, Ohio State prevailed 41-38.  The main question was whether Michigan would remain #2 or drop to #3.  In the end, Florida jumped Michigan as the #2 team, and went on to trounce the Buckeyes in the BCS Championship.  Michigan lost the Rose Bowl to #8 USC.  If the rankings had held, Ohio State would have played #4 LSU in the CFP semi-finals, and Michigan would have played Florida (with no need of Urban Meyer whining to the media about Florida being more deserving of the #2 ranking).  What is interesting is that these bowl match-ups actually happened the following year, and Michigan beat Florida, while LSU beat OSU.  Still, those were different teams and different years, and we cannot be certain how these would have gone.  History shows the Gators as the National Champion of 2006.

Likely CFP berths:
1991
1997
2003
2006

Near misses:
1992

What can be concluded from this is that Michigan had a significant drop-off after the retirement of Bo Schembechler, who ended the regular season in the top 5 eleven times in his 21 years as coach.  Although four Top 4 finishes is nothing to scoff at, Michigan did not live up to its massive expectations during the Gary Moeller/Lloyd Carr era.  Here’s hoping Jim Harbaugh can get the Wolverines rolling and back on track again.

Bo and the CFP

What could have been if Bo Schembechler, who never won a National Championship, had the benefits of the College Football Playoff during his tenure as coach?  Obviously it’s impossible to say, and given his less than stellar bowl record, he may never have won a National Championship even with the implementation of the CFP, but isn’t this why we created the CFP: to talk about it?  Let’s take a look at the history books.

Bo took over Michigan in the 1969 season, and achieved one of the greatest upsets in college football history, by beating #1 Ohio State at the Big House 24-12.  This game kept Ohio State out of the Rose Bowl, but in all likelihood, had the CFP existed, the loss would not have kept the Buckeyes out of the CFP, as they still finished the regular season #4.  Such is the charmed life of Ohio State, right Penn State?

Bo’s first real look at a National Championship was following the 1971 season.  Michigan went 11-0 in the regular season, finishing #3 in the polls behind Nebraska and Alabama, both of whom were also undefeated.  This was a tailor-made season for the CFP.  Nebraska and Alabama squared off against each other, and Michigan played Stanford in the Rose Bowl.  If Michigan wins the game, they have had an outside shot at a National Championship, but alas, Rod Garcia ended all of these hopes with a field goal at the end of the game to beat the Wolverines.  What if Michigan had played #2 Alabama instead, with the winner facing off against the Nebraska v. Oklahoma winner?  Who knows?  I look at this season as the one that got away from Bo.  He would never get closer to that elusive National Championship.

In 1972, Michigan was the #3 team in the country until they lost to Ohio State in Columbus, 14-11.  This game is famous because Bo decided to go for the win instead of the tie, which would have still sent his Wolverines to the Rose Bowl.  Ohio State made a goal-line stand on fourth and 1 to end the game.  Would Bo have made a different decision if the CFP was in place?  Again, impossible to say, but given that he left the Rose Bowl on the field to try to beat his rival, I don’t think the CFP would have been any more of a carrot.

1973 is the season every Wolverine fan wants a do-over for.  This was the year of the famous 10-10 tie with Ohio State, followed by the Big Ten selection committee choosing Ohio State to represent the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, even though by rights it was Michigan’s year to go.  After finishing 10-0-1, Michigan was left out of everything.  The real question is whether Michigan would have made the CFP this year as well?  No doubt, it would have been controversial.  Alabama was sitting at #1 with an 11-0 record.  Oklahoma was #2 with a 10-0-1 record (they tied USC, who at the time was #1 in the country, and ended the regular season #7).  Notre Dame was #3 with a 10-0 record, and then you had Ohio State and Michigan, each with a 10-0-1 record.  This would have been a year when the committee would have been discussing the importance of a “quality tie”.  It appears either Michigan or Ohio State would be on the outside looking in, with Bo Schembechler perhaps showing the same bitterness he did with the Big Ten committee.  Despite the changes, the results appear to be the same…

1974 looked similar 2016.  #2 Michigan went to Columbus to face #3 Ohio State.  After jumping out to an early 10 point lead, Ohio State’s defense shuts down Michigan, and the Buckeyes eventually win a close game 12-10.  To end the regular season Oklahoma was ranked #1 with an 11-0 record.  They were never outside the top 3 for the season.  Alabama sat at #2, also with an 11-0 record.  Then you had 10-1 Ohio State, 10-1 Michigan, and 9-1-1 USC.  Would the CFP have let 2 Big Ten teams get in over the Pac-8 Champion?  Again it would be hard to say.

1976 is what a playoff game would have looked like for Michigan.  After ending the regular season with a win over Ohio State, the Wolverines were #2 in the country.  They would face #3 USC.  The only change today may have been the venue, since Pasadena is nearly a home game for the Trojans, who were the lower ranked team.  No matter, Michigan lost this one 14-6.  Pitt went 12-0, and was the clear National Champion.

1977 would have been intriguing as well.  After defeating the Buckeyes 14-6, the 10-1 Wolverines cracked the top 4 in the AP.  The difficult choice for the committee would have been between Michigan and Notre Dame for that #4 spot.  Both had a bad loss to an unranked team.  Texas sat at #1 with an 11-0 record.  Oklahoma was #2, with a 10-1 record – their only loss being to #1 Texas.  #3 sat Alabama, also with a 10-1 record.  If this held, Michigan would have played Texas, likely in the Cotton Bowl, while Alabama and Oklahoma squared off in the Sugar or Orange Bowl.  Since Michigan lost to Washington in the Rose Bowl, their chances did not look good against Texas.  As a side note, Notre Dame jumped from #5 to #1 after they defeated Texas.  What would you gain with a playoff, and what would you miss?  Always interesting water cooler talk.

1978 appears to be another year when Michigan would have been on the outside looking in.  Despite a 10-1 record, and beating Ohio State, the Wolverines ended up #5 in the polls.  1 through 4 were: Penn State, Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma.  Alabama defeated Penn State 14-7 in the Sugar Bowl, which may have occurred even with a playoff, but first Alabama would have had to play USC, and Penn State would have gone against Oklahoma.

1980 would have seen Michigan one away from the playoff as well.  They finished the regular season #5 in the country, after dropping 2 of their first 3 games, only to become perhaps the most dominant team in the country.  Still, with a 9-2 record, they ended the season looking up to #1 and 10-0 Georgia, #2 and 10-1 Florida State, #3 and 10-1 Pitt, and #4 and 9-2 Oklahoma.  The post-script here is that Michigan finally won their first bowl and Rose Bowl for Bo Schembechler, by defeating Washington 23-6.

Michigan would have to wait until 1985 get back in to the top 5 at season’s end.  Again, however, this would have placed them one off the playoff picture.  Michigan was 9-1-1, having lost to then #1 Iowa, and tying Illinois (!) 3-3. Iowa won the Big Ten this year, and finished the regular season #4, with a 10-1 record.  Oklahoma was ranked #3 with a 10-1 record, Miami was #2 with a 10-1 record, and Penn State was alone with an 11-0 record.  Michigan beat #7 Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl, and ended the season #2 in the country, Bo’s highest ranking after the bowls.

1986 would have seen Michigan back in the playoff picture, and this would have gotten interesting.  This year featured the famous #1 vs. #2 matchup between Miami and Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl (which #2 Penn State won 14-10).  Would this game have still occurred if Penn State had to go through #3 Oklahoma?  Could Miami have beaten #4 Michigan?  It would have been fun to watch.

1989, Bo’s last season, would have also been his last attempt to win it all in a playoff.  Michigan dropped their first game of the season, 24-19 to Notre Dame, who was #1 in the country at the time.  After that, the Wolverines went undefeated until the Rose Bowl.  They were ranked #3.  Colorado was #1 in the country, and they actually played, and lost to #4 Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl.  Miami, which was #2 in the country ended up with the National Championship, after defeating #7 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.  With if #3 Michigan played them instead?  That would have been a fun game to watch.

After examining these years, and playing the inevitable, and impossible, game of “what if?”, it’s still difficult to see how Michigan could have won a National Championship for Bo Schembechler, given the chance.  Still, in the “that’s why they play the game” world we inhabit, it would have been intriguing to watch these great Michigan teams fight for the respect they never quite achieved.

Possible CFP berths:
1971
1973
1974
1976
1977
1986
1989

Near misses:
1972
1978
1980
1985

It appears Schembechler would have coached in at least 5 CFP games, with the possibility of an additional 2.  It also appears Michigan would have been in the first cut for 4 to 6 other CFPs.  Unfortunately, there was no CFP in Bo’s day, so all we can do is talk about “what if?”.

Chris Webber, the Fab Five, and Basketball Corruption

Today, May 8, 2013 is the day Chris Webber is no longer “disassociated” from University of Michigan activities. This is not to say he has been reinstated to represent the university, but rather talks, and hopefully healing, can now begin.

Growing up in Michigan, where my grandfather and father both attended the university, I bled Maize and Blue. Naturally I idolized the Fab Five from the time they began attending Michigan in 1991. I watched, enraptured, as Michigan made the NCAA finals in both 1992 and 1993. Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson became something like distant relatives to me, because I spent so much time following every move they made (in a pre-social media world).

I was heartbroken to hear and read about the money and gifts Chris Webber (among others) received from Ed Martin, and how these tarnished the university. The worst symbolic effect was the taking down of the Final Four banners, NIT championship banner, and Big Ten Tournament Championship banner from the rafters of Crisler Arena. For years, I was disappointed that Chris Webber would bring such shame and scrutiny to this great university (of which I am now an alumnus). As the years have gone on, I have softened a bit. I don’t justify what Ed Martin or Chris Webber did, but I also do not hold them 100% responsible.

Now that the 10 year disassociation with Webber has ended, I sincerely hope the university will reach out to Webber, reconcile, and re-establish recognition (let’s hang some banners back in the Crisler Center) for the efforts all of the members of the Fab Five gave to the university. Jalen Rose has been very vocal about his perceptions of the scandal, because he feels the other members of the Fab Five are being punished for the acts of one, which does not seem to be justifiable. He has a point.

In addition, I am ready to see the university and the NCAA take responsibility for their part in creating the atmosphere that allows kids to be placed in this sort of position. Currently, there are severe, and antiquated, restrictions on college athletes with regards to what kinds of contact, gifts, and payment they can receive while they are student-athletes. Colleges and universities offer a valuable, free education, along with expenses paid for athletes while these kids are in the care of the university, but is that enough?

Right now middle school and high school kids are being attracted to AAU teams through shoes and jerseys. Along the way, these kids get expenses paid for with regards to tournaments, and they also get other payments (in certain cases) if needed. The vast majority of these go unreported, because the player would be declared ineligible for college athletics at that point. For the most part, these payments are not bribes, but rather a helping hand to kids who are in real need. In other cases, adults are certainly crossing a line with payments and gifts – trying to gain influence in a child’s life so they can further be compensated later on. Yet, we punish the kids who are involved, or perhaps the teammates of the kids involved, instead of the adults who make this culture a required passage before the kid can reach their dreams.

This is where I come in with Webber. According to reports he accepted gifts and payments from Ed Martin going back to the time when he was in Middle School. My question is this – how was a 13 or 14 year old Chris Webber supposed to know the broad reaching consequences of receiving gifts at this young of an age? Why is he the one held responsible for these indiscretions? Also, these events began in the 1980s, yet the culture for youth basketball and college basketball has only become more greedy and corrupt in the last 25 years. The answer the NCAA gives – punish the school sports programs and the kids. When are we going to hold adults responsible for this culture? When is it going to be important enough for us to hold responsible those who are responsible for this? AAU coaches, shoe companies, the NCAA, sports agents, boosters, parents. Why are they not being brought into this conversation?

Also, from 1991 to 1993, when Chris Webber was the star for the university, how many of his jerseys were sold? How many times did the TV networks use his image to sell an upcoming game to viewers? How much money was made off of Chris Webber? How much of that trickled down to him or the other members of the Fab Five? The NCAA holds a double standard when it comes to student-athletes. The athletes themselves cannot be paid, but there is no limit to how much money can be made off of them. This appears so hypocritical in light of the level of punishment the NCAA levies against players and programs (particularly innocent players who get to pay the punishment by not being eligible for tournaments long after the offending player has left). It appears that the NCAA is holding children to a higher standard of conduct than they are willing to hold themselves. Why is this not being addressed?

In light of that, I now ask, what will the University of Michigan do? Chris Webber has served his sentence. The university made a ton of money off the Fab Five back in the 1990s, and they too had to serve the sentence of probation with the NCAA. As we stand today, all of that is history. It is time to put that where it belongs, in the past. Let’s move forward in reconciliation and healing for the parties involved. Let’s give the Fab Five the recognition they deserve – you can’t wipe away the games that were played, not matter how much you try to “vacate” them. Let’s learn from the mistakes kids like Chris Webber have made, work to change the culture of amateur athletes, and set a new example for the future. I challenge the University of Michigan to lead the way in setting a new standard of conduct for the NCAA. Live up to your credo – be the Leaders. Be the Best. Go Blue!

Jazz, Dance, and Being Created to Create

My wife and I attended a free jazz concert at our local public library today.  The musicians were music majors at a local university, so this also gave them the opportunity to get some live experience together.  We all got something out of the performance.

After the concert, we were given a few minutes to ask questions.  One person asked the status of jazz in our society today.  The director answered that by stating that jazz is an art form which gets passed from generation to generation.  A person who loves the music, and has practiced for years gets great joy in seeing a younger person catch the spark.  It is cyclical in that sense.

The director also went on to talk about how challenging it is to make a living playing jazz, but that also has not changed very much.  You have to be creative if you want to play it.  Those who love it the most find ways to play, compose, and teach.

The question and answer session went right along with what I watched in each of these players, none of whom could have been older than 21.  I was amazed that when I watched them all talking and getting ready to play they all looked and acted like regular, young adults.  When the music started, I saw a visible transformation in each of them.  They went somewhere else, mentally and emotionally.  I was just as amazed at this transformation as I was the music they were playing.  There was something transcendent in the performance.

While the music was playing, an older gentleman, who also happens to be a dance teacher, stood up and went to an area off to the side.  He began to dance in free-form.  Here was free-form music, combined with free-form dance in a little room with perhaps three dozen people.  And it was amazing.  The players played from a sense of passion.  You could see they had, what I call, a case of the “can’t help its.”  It was like they were born to make this beautiful noise.  The dancer moved because he could not physically stop his limbs from reacting to the music his ears were hearing.

This brings me to something I have been going over in my mind for several months.  It begins in Genesis 2:19: “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”

I love this verse.  I imagine after God creates Adam that God is standing by like a parent who just gave their child a puppy.  Then God says, “Go ahead, name them.  All of them.”  In the moment, the purpose of the existence of Adam was established.  God created Adam so Adam would partner with God in Creation.  I am amazed by this.  We were created to be creators.  Can you believe that?

Then God waits for Adam to do his job.  He names one creature the Lion, then moves on to the Gazelle, then the Alligator, and the Woodpecker, and he just builds momentum from there.  I can see God watching this in amazement, yes amazement, because God’s creation, the one made in God’s image, is creating names for the animals.  He’s good at it, too.  I can also see God prodding Adam to keep going, and laughing at some of the crazy names he comes up with, while seeing the logic in other names.  A partnership was formed – God will make all this stuff, and Adam will name the stuff.

This takes me back to today.  While the musicians all had a case of the “can’t help its,” playing their improvisational music, we all sat in amazement.  They were creating beautiful sounds, and all on the spot.  I have to believe that God made these kids to do this, just like God made the older gentleman to dance to the music, also improvisationally.  They were fulfilling one piece of their purpose on earth.

This morning at church we heard the parable of the talents as told in Matthew 25:14-30.  This is a harsh story, because of the poor guy who hid his talent, and had that taken away from him when the master returned.  The point of the story is still the same as that in Genesis 2.  God gives certain gifts to each of us, and some of us get more than other, while others of us get less.  All of us have something to use for the benefit of God’s Kingdom.  That is the point.

My question then is this: what is your talent or gift?  What did God make you to create?  What can you simply not help yourself but to make?  This has been a hard lesson for me of late, because I have learned that I have a compulsion to write.  This does not bode well for someone who has a full-time office job, needs to sleep, eat, and exercise, along with other hobbies like reading, travel, and spending time with my spouse.  What it comes down to is that I cannot help myself but to write.  I hope what you are reading is a blessing to you, and the Kingdom of God.  Thank you for reading.

Lance Armstrong, Stan Musial, and the Death of Heroes

There are no more heroes.  That was the line I read last week, and I have been chewing on it since.  It was written during a very strange week in sports, where Lance Armstrong “confessed” to using performance enhancing drugs, and Manti Te’o was discovered to be the victim (participant?) of a strange, odd hoax.

The week before last was also interesting, because no baseball players were elected into the Hall of Fame, thanks to the stain and strain steroids have exacted on the sport in the last two decades.

This last week ended with the death of Stan Musial.  His death added a new dimension to the opening line, which did not have Musial in mind when it was penned.  It became more poignant to me after I read Musial’s obituary on Sunday.  There are no more heroes.

This begged the question in my mind, ‘what makes a person a hero?’  I decided I had to narrow the conversation down to the sports world, because that was the context within which the initial statement was written.  I came up with what I felt was a simple, and hopefully complete enough, definition of a hero.  First, we define a sports hero as one who achieves an elite status in their profession.  That could be done over the course of a career, or in some cases, in one game or contest (especially if it is for a championship). Second, a hero is expected to have at least a minimum level of character, integrity, or honor.  They must be somebody who kids can look up to, and emulate.  Third, a hero must be someone who overcomes a great challenge, or sacrifices themselves for a cause or other people.

This takes me to Lance Armstrong.  We considered Armstrong a hero, because he competed in a sport rife with cheating, and we were told he was the lone clean rider, and his competitive spirit was what led him to be the greatest cyclist who ever lived.  On top of that, he had beaten cancer, and was using his fame to further the fight against the disease.  Heroic, noble, except it was all lies.  The money he has helped give to cancer research is all very real, but Lance is a liar.  What I find most disturbing about Lance Armstrong is not that he lied about cheating for 15+ years, but that he ruthlessly ruined people’s lives who were telling the truth all along.  There is an element of evil in his story, and it is scary.

With the loss of Armstrong as a hero, who do we have left?  I could argue nobody.  At least nobody who is actively participating in a sport.  We have former athletes who I would easily consider heroes, but I really cannot find a current athlete who meets the definition.  Why? Let me explain.

First, we have too much media scrutiny.  That is not an indictment on the media, but rather an indictment on our collective desire for constant drama in this country.  We love dirt, and we will stop at nothing to find dirt on people.  The media is only giving us what we want.  A by-product of this constant media attention is that we have created a culture where athletes are now attention seeking.  This is the opposite of someone like Musial, who is often described as ‘humble’.  Athletes used to focus on doing their job as best they could.  Now they look for the cameras so they can give their scripted, attention seeking statements.  This is not attractive, nor heroic.

Let’s go back to the 1940s, when Stan Musial was the top National League outfielder of his generation.  Musial was leading his Cardinal teams to four World Series in five years.  His teams won three of those contests.  In 1948, Musial was one home run shy of the triple crown.  He won seven batting titles in his career, and when he finally retired, he had amassed a .331 batting average, on 3,630 hits, which was the National League record until Pete Rose later broke it.  This man was a hitting machine.  The media only covered his baseball career, however.  His private life was off limits.  It was a different time, and I think people would rather imagine that Stan Musial was the kind of guy they wanted their daughter to bring home, than find out he had demons in his closet.  Fortunately (and sadly, because it should not need to be mentioned), Musial’s AP obituary stated that he was “scandal-free” in his playing days.  This now makes him the exception.

The media scrutiny we see today was not at a very high level when Mickey Mantle played either.  His alcoholism and marital infidelity were not topics the press felt the need to report.  Again, it was a different time, without smart phones, tablets, or even digital cameras.  A drunk Mantle out with a strange woman was not going to be on anybody’s Facebook page in the morning.  Fans were shocked to hear of his personal struggles when they came out in full.  Compare that to Josh Hamilton today, whose alcohol and drug issues have been exceedingly widely reported.  I am not saying that watching Josh Hamilton work on overcoming his struggles is not an inspiration, or heroic in a sense, but I am saying that he gets scrutinized, perhaps unfairly, more than prior generations have been scrutinized.  It was easier for us to call someone a hero when we did not know how human they actually were.  That is no longer the case.

The second reason I think we struggle to find heroes today is that professional athletes make way too much money.  This making of money invites an element of greed into the equation, which is not a heroic element.  Looking back at Stan Musial, he made good money as a ballplayer in his day, but nothing approaching the outlandish salaries of this day and age.  His highest salary, converted into today’s dollars, would be worth approximately $500,000 – $600,000 per year, and he is one of the best hitters who ever lived.  Today, that amount is below the league average.  Musial played his whole career under the Reserve Clause, which was not abolished until after the 1975 season.  This clause meant that Musial could either play for the Cardinals for what they would pay him, or go home.  Don’t get me wrong, Musial was not starving to death, and nobody felt sorry for him at the time for only making $80,000 to $100,000 per year.  Still, he did not have to face the choice of chasing the money or staying with the home team.

In 2012, Albert Pujols began playing for the Anaheim Angels.  This was after 11 seasons with the Cardinals where he earned legendary status, helping St. Louis win two World Series, while he personally earned the Rookie of the Year award, and three MVP awards. Many Cardinals fans turned on Pujols in 2012 because he turned down a 10 year, $210 million contract to stay with St. Louis to go to Anaheim for $254 million.  This forces the average fan to ask what, honestly, is the difference between two ungodly sums of money? Unfortunately, the answer we are forced to give is greed.

In his 11 seasons with St. Louis, Pujols established himself as the best hitter in all of baseball.  Nobody else was even considered close.  He also impressed people with his humility, and integrity.  He is a player who claims to play the game clean, and is very critical of those who use performance enhancing drugs to improve their stats.  In addition, he has set up a foundation which supports people with Down Syndrome, other disabilities, and those in poverty, particularly in the Dominican Republic.  This all makes Albert Pujols a hero in the minds or many people.  Then he turns down the opportunity to finish his career in St. Louis, so he can earn a little more money elsewhere.  This apparent greed leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of too many fans, and it reminds us that there are no more heroes.

One last reason I have as to why we have no heroes in athletics these days is that we cannot find athletes who overcome a great obstacle or sacrifice themselves for a cause or for others.  Let’s talk again about Stan Musial.  In 1945, Musial went into the US Navy to help defend our country against the Japanese.  He lost a year of playing baseball, while in the prime of his life to fight in World War II.  This is heroic.  Granted, Musial was never placed on the front lines, so he was never seriously placed in harm’s way.  In fact, only two baseball players were killed in action during the war – Elmer Gedeon and Harry O’Neill. Even in saying that, I don’t want to discount what so many baseball players contributed to the war effort.  First, they spent time in a hostile, foreign country, away from their families, and there was no guarantee that they would not be injured, wounded or killed.  Second, the morale boost given by the likes of Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, or Bob Feller to their fellow countrymen was exceedingly important to the war effort.  This was a real sacrifice.  It made a whole generation of athletes into heroes.

Now, name me a professional athlete who was fought for their country in the last two decades.  The obvious person who gets mentioned is Pat Tillman.  Pat Tillman is a hero, without question.  Now, name me another professional athlete who left behind an athletic career for any amount of time to serve their country?  The next closest name is David Robinson.  After being drafted in 1987, Robinson postponed his NBA career for two years to finish out his active duty commitment to the US Navy.  This is admirable, and even heroic when you consider the amount of money Robinson left on the table to make this sacrifice, given he was one of the greatest centers who ever played.  If that weren’t enough, Robinson is widely considered to have very high integrity, and he has given over $10 million of his personal fortune to found a school, the Carver Academy, among other charitable endeavors.  David Robinson is somebody to look up to, and not just because he is seven feet tall.

Does every professional athlete need to serve their country to be considered a hero? Absolutely not.  Muhammad Ali is a hero for not fighting for his country.  A man of deep religious faith, Ali lost four years of his boxing career at the time when his skills had peaked, to stand up for his personal beliefs, defying the US Government, and not reporting for the Vietnam draft.  This was a very costly sacrifice.  Ali was publicly shamed by the government, and many in the media and populace.  He was also stripped of his heavyweight titles. Standing up for his principles in the face of this backlash, and at the cost of his own ability to earn a paycheck makes Ali a hero.  He also happens to be the greatest heavyweight fighter to ever live.  And he continues to live his life with great integrity.

Another hero is Roberto Clemente, who lost his life trying to bring relief supplies to Nicaragua.  A legendary athlete, and one who, because of his stature, did not have to get on the plane carrying the supplies to Nicaragua.  Clemente chose to go, because he wanted to make sure the people who needed the supplies the most received them.  He died when his plane, too heavy from the amount of supplies on it, went down in the Caribbean.  That is sacrifice.

Perhaps the person I admire the most as a hero is Jackie Robinson.  He carried the hopes of an entire race of people on his shoulders, while having the discipline to keep his own cool when goaded, spiked, thrown at, cussed at, and derided by anybody and everybody in baseball during 1947.  Not only did Robinson withstand the onslaught of others, he performed at a very high level, and changed the way the game was played, while also changing who played the game.  He is a hero.  I wish there were a larger term to apply to Jackie Robinson, because his heroics cannot be understated.

Where are our heroes today?  Is it possible to be a hero today?  It seems now that in light of Lance Armstrong and Major League Baseball, we find ourselves cynical in the face of those who appear to play by the rules, excel at their sport, and bring good to a cause.  We feel it is only a matter of time before a story breaks, and we find find ourselves in the midst of a scandal, and another person we admired gets placed with all the rest.

Or, we follow a player who does everything right, leads our favorite team to a championship, gets involved in the community and pours money into a great cause, only to break our hearts by leaving our team for another team who will pay them more.  Money will always be a reason a hero falls from grace when athletes make over $20 million per year, and only want more, while we, the fans, are making ends meet.

Last, we just don’t see sacrifice in our athletes anymore.  Many athletes give to charity, or start foundations with the intent to give back.  This is good, but they should do this, because they are making millions upon millions of dollars per year.  They have a responsibility to give back – this is not something that should be considered a sacrifice any more, but a minimal expectation.  My issue is that athletes no longer give in a costly fashion any more.  We thought Lance Armstrong was on to something with this Live Strong Foundation, and he really did do a lot of good.  Still, we have a bitter taste in our mouths, because the ends just don’t justify the means.  You cannot build a sustainable kingdom using the devil’s tools.

There are no more heroes.  Is there any hope that one day we will have another hero?  Honestly, I don’t know.  And I am not very optimistic.

Ray Lewis, The Baltimore Ravens, and Isaiah 54:17

I am not much of an NFL fan these days.  I don’t have anything against the NFL – it’s just that over the last decade I have lived in three states, five cities, and lost touch with the NFL.  I am a fan without a team, which makes me not much of a fan.

Until the 2013 playoffs.  When I heard Ray Lewis was retiring at the end of these playoffs, I just knew I had to watch.  This guy is a football legend, and once upon a time he was coached by my favorite defensive player in NFL history – Mike Singletary.  The two play a lot alike, which is why I have to watch these last few games.  For January, 2013, I now have a favorite team – the Baltimore Ravens.

The AFC Divisional Playoff game against the Denver Broncos on Saturday, January 12, was an unbelievable game.  I will not re-hash the highlights in totality, but I have to mention some.  First, nobody expected to see Baltimore win this game.  I thought this would be the last game I would get to see Ray Lewis play.  Then Baltimore finds a way to overcome a punt return for a touchdown, a kickoff return for a touchdown, Peyton Manning, and the altitude in Denver to complete one of the great comebacks I have ever seen in football.  Joe Flacco’s 70-yard pass to Jacoby Jones (which went about 60 yards on the fly, in the swirling 8 degree wind of Mile HIgh Stadium) put the game in overtime.  Then, just when I thought Baltimore’s defense had nothing more to give, they stopped Denver from scoring for another whole quarter, intercepted Peyton Manning, and won the game.  Remarkable.

This led to Ray Lewis’ emotional post-game interviews.  CBS sideline reporter Solomon Wilcots was able to corral an emotional Ray Lewis, and got this response (http://youtu.be/tG0rkzdb_qw).

I love this guy.  I wish Ray Lewis could play forever – he is that much fun to watch, even now, with an injured triceps muscle, and age obviously not on his side.  His emotion is palpable.  I wish I could be his teammate when I hear him talk with that kind of emotion.  I hope they win the AFC Championship so we can see him play in the Super Bowl.  What a great way to finish a career.  I just want to see Lewis play in two more games – one is not enough.

Here is what caught me when Ray Lewis spoke.  He said “No weapon.  No weapon formed shall prosper.”  He gave the same quote when interviewed on the field by ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio (http://youtu.be/1SX-aTyBjPQ) as well.  What did he mean?

The quote comes from the Old Testament of the Bible, Isaiah 54:17 to be exact.  Here is how the complete verse reads: “‘No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; and every tongue that accuses you in judgment you will condemn.  This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the Lord.”

I will start by saying I am not a theologian.  I am married to one, however, and I have spent my whole life reading the Bible.  I also have a history degree, which means I have learned to read things within the context they were written or said.  All that being said, I am still a novice to this, I will not pretend to be anything else.

My first question when I heard this quote by Ray Lewis was “why did he pick this verse over all others?”  I can’t get into Lewis’ head, but I do wonder why he didn’t quote Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Him who gives me strength.”  This is a verse often quoted by athletes as a verse to show that God is on their side, although it too is taken out of context.  Lewis chose, “No weapon formed against me shall prevail.”  What was the weapon?  The Denver Broncos? Peyton Manning?  The Denver community?  Are these people working against God?  That’s scary ground to tread indeed, but I don’t think that is what Ray Lewis meant.

I do think (without any first-hand knowledge) Lewis feels his current quest has divine intervention on the side of the Baltimore Ravens, or at least for Ray Lewis.  His words tell me that he feels his team has a date with destiny, and that involves the Super Bowl.  Do they?  I don’t know.  What if the Ravens do win the AFC Championship?  Is that proof this team is destined?  No.  Is God a football fan?  I can’t answer that one, but I do know God loves God’s creation, and within that, God loves people more than anything.

The question for me then is can Ray Lewis read this verse and conclude that nothing will stand in his way to get to another Super Bowl before he retires?  It at least appears he is, but is that OK?  This particular verse was written around 700 BCE to Israelites in exile from their homeland.  Was it intended for Ray Lewis, on a football field in America over 2,700 years later?

Our smart theologians out there will want us to use ‘exegesis’ at this point.  Simply put, exegesis is placing the text in the context with which it was written, and intended, by the author.  In other words – what did the author mean when these words were put to paper?  It’s obvious in reading the 54th chapter of Isaiah that football was not the subject of the author.  What was?  In the simplest terms I can describe, the Kingdom of God, when the earth would be renewed, peace and justice would reign, and no weapon which has been formed to stop the work of God would be able to stand against the plan, design and will of God.  This is my rough paraphrase, but I give it to help clarify the subject.

How come Ray Lewis applied this verse to the football struggle between the Baltimore Ravens and the Denver Broncos?  I think it is this: when this verse is pulled out of its context, it is a very inspiring verse to consider.  Who doesn’t want to believe that those who are walking the right path will not be harmed by any weapon which has been formed to stop them?

How come we willingly take 2,700 year old verses and apply them to our particular moments?  The truth is, we always have.  Isaiah 54 follows the 53rd chapter (shocking, right?), which is a very familiar chapter to Christianity, because it is one of the key Old Testament chapters we as Christians use to state that it was foretold that the Messiah would be killed for the sake of the world.  Starting in verse 4, we read these familiar words: “Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried; yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed.”

For generations Jews have been stating that Christians take these words out of context, along with numerous others, because these verses were written about Israel, the suffering servant of God in 700 BCE.  Christians have responded that when you read the stories of Jesus in the New Testament, it is obvious that these verses were written as a double meaning, applying both to Israel, and 700 years later to Jesus.  Who is right?  Well, that is matter of faith.

Now, let’s bring it to the present.  Can we really say that this verse could apply to a football game in 2013?  If I am being honest, I do not think it does.  I will also state that I do think these verses could be reapplied to today in regards to the working of God in the world, as God continues to bring about the establishment of the Kingdom in this world.

So what do I think of the ‘miracle’ applied in the Ravens win, and Ray Lewis use of Isaiah 54:17 to help inspire his team?  I think Lewis is a great motivator of people.  He knows what will get his teammates fired up, and behind him.  I also think Ray Lewis has a very deep Christian faith, which he draws upon on a daily basis.  Because of his age, experience, stature, and maturity, Ray Lewis is looked up to by many people, not just his own teammates.  I think he has led many football players to deepen their own faith, and make better decisions in their lives.  Ray Lewis draws upon his faith to help lead people.  It works.  Ray Lewis is being exactly who he is.

Let’s also make no mistake about it – the Baltimore Ravens are a good football team.  They are about to play in their third AFC Championship game in five years.  They started this season off red-hot, before injuries brought them back to earth.  They still made the playoffs, and are still a formidable force.  Are they inspired?  Yes.  They play to win, and they have a little extra boost because they are playing for their leader.  Is this verse helping to propel this team forward?  When their leader speaks it, it does.

I want to be careful in stressing that I don’t think this verse applies to football.  I am certain that this verse will be applied again, however.  It will be applied appropriately, in the context within which it was written over 2,700 years ago – when God’s Kingdom is established on earth for eternity.  And there is no weapon on earth formed, or yet to be formed, which will stop that from happening.

All-Time Detroit Tiger Pitching Rotation and Batting Order

In a world of computers and video games, what I am about to present is not so impossible.  I would love to see how this team stacks up against other all-time major league teams, like the A’s, Red Sox, Orioles, Yankees, White Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, and Dodgers.  Alas, I am not smart enough, nor do I have the time to program such a competition.

I will start with the pitching rotation, since that will be the shortest of the lists.  My first two starters were easy to select, and combined they offer a nasty 1-2, lefty-righty combo.  The first starter would be Hal Newhouser.  The ace of the staff in the 1940s, his numbers are easily the best on this team.  He can pitch long innings, strike out batters when he needs, and keep the score close.  Simply put, he is the best pitcher on this team.

The second pitcher would be Justin Verlander.  His 100 mph fastball, combined with his nasty curveball, make him the best of his generation.  He still has years to go to see if he can overtake Newhouser, but for now, he will do just fine as the number 2.

The third starter would be Tommy Bridges.  I love his consistency and grit.  He was a big game pitcher, and could also take games into late innings, without losing the ability to dominate.

The fourth starter would be Jack Morris.  His ability to rise to the occasion is well documented.  He was another durable, hard thrower who could carry a team on his back.

The fifth starter would be Denny McLain.  He was inconsistent, which is why he drops to the number five spot, but there is no doubt he was exceedingly talented.  When he was on, he could dominate.

That leaves Trout and Lary as long relievers, with Hiller and Hernandez closing games out.

Batting Order vs. Right-handed pitching

For the batting order, selecting the lead-off spot would be easy.  That would be Ty Cobb.  With his high average, and ability to get on base, combined with the base running skills he possessed, I can’t think of a more disruptive person to put in the one spot of any batting order.  He would cover center field.

For the second spot, I would want another left-handed hitter, who is patient at the plate, has decent speed on the bases, and can hit behind Cobb while setting up the big hitters.  Here is where I would place second baseman, Charlie Gehringer.  With his .355 average, penchant for hitting doubles, and ability to see a lot of pitches without striking out, he is a perfect number two hitter against right-handed pitching.  Plus, he would be a threat to score from first on a double from one of the following hitters.

Batting third would be the biggest power hitter of the order, playing first base – Hank Greenberg.  I would place him here, because of his ability to drive in runners.  Plus, I would want to give my most feared home run hitter the best protection available in the order.

Batting clean-up, and playing third base would be Miguel Cabrera.  He would force pitchers to throw to Greenberg, while also being in a position to drive in runs himself.  A clean-up hitter who can consistently bat .330, while hitting over 30 home runs is a rare luxury.

The five hitter might look a little unconventional, because he is not a twenty home run per year guy.  Still, with the ability to hit .400, and drive in over 100 runs, I have a hard time seeing anybody pitching around Cabrera to face Harry Heilmann.  I almost placed Slug in the number two spot in the order, because of his high average, but for this section I wanted Gehringer in the two spot because he is left-handed, quicker on the bases, and just as difficult to strike out as Heilmann.  Heilmann becomes an assassin in the fifth place of the order, though.

Batting sixth, in right field, would be Al Kaline.  Kaline also was a difficult strikeout, so even though he didn’t have the huge home run numbers of the others, with his ability to put the ball in play, hit for high average, and still knock his share out of the park, he is positioned well to continue to drive in runs, and protect Heilmann in the order.

Batting seventh, and playing shortstop, would be Alan Trammell.  He would provide protection for Kaline in the order with his ability to spray the ball to all fields, as well as his power potential.  With his speed on the base paths, he would also be disruptive at the bottom of the order, giving opportunities to the last two batters to drive him in.

Batting eight, in the second clean-up position, and playing catcher, is Lance Parrish.  With his power and ability to drive in runs, Parrish is a scary hitter to face in this position, especially with Kaline and Trammell, both possessing above average speed, ahead of him in the order.

Batting ninth, and setting the table to for top of the lineup, the DH, Sam Crawford.  Another line drive hitter, with great speed on the base paths, Crawford would be a dangerous hitter and runner ahead of Cobb.  He is also a very capable RBI hitter.

I feel this lineup provides an excellent combination of speed and power, with excellent contact hitters throughout.  The defense is solid as well, anchored by Parrish, Gehringer, Trammell, and Cobb up the middle.  The weakest defensive positions currently are left field and third base.  George Kell would make an adequate replacement at third, allowing Cabrera to move to first base in later innings, and Greenberg to switch to left field, if necessary.  Kirk Gibson provides great speed coming off the bench, as does Lou Whitaker.  Let me also say I would have no problem platooning Bill Freehan in at catcher; Parrish just has better home run potential which is why he was chosen.

Ty Cobb (L), CF
Charlie Gehringer (L), 2B
Hank Greenberg (R), 1B
Miguel Cabrera (R), 3B
Harry Heilmann (R), LF
Al Kaline (R), RF
Alan Trammell (R), SS
Lance Parrish (R), C
Sam Crawford (L), DH

Batting lineup vs. Left-handed pitching

There is only one player substitution change I would make to the lineup with a lefty on the mound, and that is in the DH position.  I would remove Sam Crawford, and place Rudy York in the lineup (I would consider Magglio Ordonez there, too, given his solid home run hitting ability and high average).  Here is how it would look:

Ty Cobb (L), CF
Harry Heilmann (R), LF
Hank Greenberg (R), 1B
Miguel Cabrera (R), 3B
Rudy York (R), DH
Al Kaline (R), RF
Charlie Gehringer (L), 2B
Lance Parrish (R), C
Alan Trammell (R), SS

I switched the number two hitter to Heilmann to give the advantage of having a right-handed hitter face a left-handed pitcher early in the line-up.  This would drop Gehringer down to the seven spot (after five righties in a row), allowing me to move the speedy Trammell to the ninth position.  Harvey Kuenn would be effective here too, but I keep Trammell in the lineup because he is faster, and a better defensive player.

I would move York to the five spot, because of his ability to hit for power.  His average is not as good as Kaline’s, but with Kaline following, York would still see good pitches, allowing me to take full advantage of his home run potential.  If I were to bat Ordonez in the DH spot, I would probably bat Kaline fifth, and Ordonez sixth, since Kaline has a little more power potential.   There really is no way to go wrong with a lineup like this, which is what makes it so fun to compile.

The last decision I would have to make is who would manage this team.  Based on history (3 pennants, and 1 World Series title), I would have to go with Mickey Cochrane.  His top two bench coaches would be Sparky Anderson and Jim Leyland.  Hughie Jennings, with his three pennants, would also be on this coaching staff, and he would cover as third-base coach while the Tigers were batting, because of his unique style with the offense..

All-Time Detroit Tiger Pitchers

Assessing who the greatest Tiger pitchers are seems like it would be a simple job.  You take the best 3 seasons of the pitchers, average them together, and whoever has the most wins, lowest ERA, highest strikeout totals and innings pitched gets picked.  The only problem is that differences in era (not earned run average in this case) are more glaring for the pitching position than they are for hitters.  For example, we all understand the dead-ball era existed before 1920.  This allowed hitters to have magnificent batting averages, but home run production was almost non-existent.  From 1920 to 1930 we see the “live-ball” era begin, when home run production increased dramatically.  1930 to 1940 was considered the “rabbit-ball” era, when batting averages and home run production spiked even above the 1920s (not so much on an individual basis, but rather as a whole).  These eras reflect on pitching, as a typical decent pitcher in 1910 could have an ERA of 2.50 (No ERA champion before 1920 posted an ERA above 2.00).  This same pitcher in 1935 would have an ERA of about 4.00 (in 1938, Lefty Grove had the lowest ERA in the American League at 3.08).

Innings pitched and complete games are similarly affected by time period.  Pitchers were expected to finish what they started until even the 1970s.  Also, pitchers were known to pitch both ends of a double header during the first half of the 20th century, or pitch on 1 or 2 days of rest.  Today’s pitchers are subject to strict pitch counts, and are given 5 days of rest whether they want it or not.  In addition, relief pitchers are now considered specialists who get teams out of a specific jam at a certain point in the game.  Before the 1970s, relief pitchers were mainly failed starters, or starters in waiting.  Mariano Rivera would not have been a closer before 1970.

What all of this amounts to is that pure statistics are very deceiving when it comes to pitchers.  Because of Sabermetrics, and other statistical measurements of productivity, the “win” has lost influence as a measuring stick for good pitching (this is why Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young award in 2010 with a 13-12 record).  We know a bad pitcher can win a lot of games on a good team, but wins are difficult to use as a measuring stick when a good pitcher is on a bad team.  There have been many good pitchers in history who lose a lot of ball games, but pitch well enough to give their team a chance to win.  In the years when pitchers have lost 20 games in a season, fans and writers will often say that pitcher was “good enough to lose,” because even with the high number of losses, that pitcher gave the team the best chance to win at that given time.

With all of that being said, how can one possibly choose an All-Time Detroit Tiger pitching staff?  I have 9 positions to fill, since I used 16 positions for batters.  For the 9 pitchers I decided I would choose the 7 best starters, and 2 best relievers in team history.  My criteria again requires at least 3 “productive” seasons, meaning that there must be 3 seasons with some measure of dominance for that time period.  The pure numbers are not going to appear fair, because starting pitchers from 1980 on simply do not get the opportunities to win games as pitchers from previous years (in games started or innings pitched).  Also, to restate what I said above, dominating the 1930s as a pitcher did not look the same as dominating the 1920s, or for that matter, the 1950s and 1960s.  I will be using the “classic” statistics to measure greatness – Wins (Saves for Closers), Losses, ERA, Complete Games, Shutouts, Innings Pitched, and Strikeouts, but I will also be reflecting the pitchers by how dominant they were for their particular time period.  For this I will us a modern stat – ERA+ (also known as Adjusted ERA).  This stat measures the particular pitcher’s ERA against the league average with an adjustment made for how “hitter friendly” their own ballpark is, thus giving a fair comparison to the pitcher’s peers, and allowing for a comparable measurement across different eras of baseball history.  An ERA+ of 100 means the pitcher exactly hit the average league ERA.  The higher the ERA+ is the better the pitcher’s ERA compared to the league.  An ERA+ of 200 is very difficult to achieve, but has been done about 20 times by starting pitchers throughout baseball history.  I do want to note that I feel wins and innings pitched are very important, as it is the job of the pitcher to find a way to win regardless of the conditions they are in for the game or season.  Beating another team’s best pitcher, or a team full of great hitters counts when it comes to making this list.

I will begin my starting pitchers with what many historians would consider an unfair selection, Hal Newhouser (L).  I say it is unfair because Prince Hal had two amazing seasons when the best baseball players were overseas fighting WWII.  This would appear to give him an unfair advantage, and maybe it did.  

None the less, Newhouser earned MVP honors in 1944 and 1945 (this was before Cy Young awards were given), won the pitching Triple Crown (Wins, ERA, and Strikeouts), and was the ace of the 1945 World Series winning team.  He finished his career with 207 wins (200 with Detroit) and a 3.06 lifetime ERA, and earned his way into the Hall of Fame.  I place him on this team, however, because 1944 and 1945 were not the only productive years he had (plus, being successful against lesser opponents does not make one a bad pitcher.  He had to win those games with a lesser defense behind him, and weaker hitters on his own team too).  When all the great hitters came back home, he had a stellar 1946 (with a sub-2.00 ERA), followed by excellent years in 1947, 1948 (leading the league with 21 wins), and 1949.  His success was no fluke.  His career is closer to the great Sandy Koufax than any other pitcher in Tigers history, since Newhouser, like Koufax, was a late blooming lefty who went from mediocrity to dominance seemingly overnight.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1945	25	9	1.81	195	313.1	212	36	29	8	MVP, Triple Crown, AS
1946	26	9	1.94	190	292.2	275	34	29	6	MVP Runner-up, AS
1944	29	9	2.22	159	312.1	187	34	25	6	MVP, AS
1948	21	12	3.01	145	272.1	143	35	19	2
Prime	25	10	2.22	172	297.2	205	35	26	6

I want to point out that the year Newhouser’s ERA increased to 2.22, he finished second in the league.  Also, in 1948, Prince Hal’s ERA was fourth in the league, and the average ERA for the league that year was 4.28 (while the other three years on this list had a league ERA between 3.36 to 3.50).

The second pitcher chosen has already reached legendary proportions, even though he still has a long way to go in his career.  Justin Verlander (R) is possibly the hardest thrower of his era, consistently reaching 100 mph on the radar gun even into the 8th and 9th inning of games.  Verlander is so effective not just because he throws hard, but he also features one of the best curve balls in baseball.

 

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
2011	24	5	2.40	172	251	250	34	4	2	Cy Young, MVP, Triple Crown, AS
2012	17	8	2.64	160	238.1	239	33	6	1	Cy Young Runner-up, AS
2009	19	9	3.45	131	240	269	35	3	1	Cy Young #3, AS
Prime	20	7	2.83	154	243	253	34	4	1

Although Verlander’s 2009 season appears a bit out of place with the higher ERA, I feel it needs to be pointed out that his was the sixth best for a starting pitcher in the American League that year.  His 2012 total was second in the American League to Cy Young award winner David Price.

The next pitcher chosen is the only Tiger to win two Cy Young awards to date (although Newhouser would have undoubtedly won three had the award been given in his day, and seriously challenged for a fourth.  Plus, Verlander is not done yet), but had injuries shorten his career.  His numbers year in and year out could be confounding, because he showed inconsistency in his performance.  Some of that could be blamed on mediocre teams, some of it maturity, some of it injuries.  Any way you cut it, Denny McLain (R) deserves to be on this team based on his performance as a pitcher in the mid to late 60s, and his role in helping Detroit win their third World Series title in 1968.  That year he won an astounding 31 games, pitching 336 innings, compiling an ERA of 1.96, and along with the Cy Young award, he also took home the American League MVP.  Many people will call me to task for placing McLain on the team, and leaving off Norm Cash earlier.  This would be a fair argument, except McLain led the league with 24 wins in 1969, and notched his second Cy Young award.  In 1970, after facing numerous suspensions for gambling and other unbecoming behavior, McLain only went 3-5.  In 1971, he had arm trouble, and his record dropped to 10-22.  By 1973, at the age of 29, he was out of baseball.

Before 1968, Denny had another 20 win season, when his record was 20-14 in 1966.  During his time with Detroit, he compiled 117 wins against 62 losses, for a winning percentage of .654.  That’s pretty impressive, especially when you consider that this includes his 10-22 campaign in 1971.  He was not quite the work horse in 1965 or 1966 he became in 1968 and 1969 (although by today’s standards, he threw a lot of innings), but if he had stayed at this level, his arm might have lasted longer.  Still, McLain played a key role for the 1968 World Series team.  Although he went 1-2 and in the 1968 World Series itself, he won a crucial game 6 on two days rest to force a game 7.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1968	31	6	1.96	154	336	280	41	28	6	Cy Young, MVP, AS
1969	24	9	2.80	134	325	181	41	23	9	Cy Young, AS
1966	20	14	3.92	89	264.1	192	38	14	4	AS
1965	16	6	2.61	134	220.1	192	29	13	4
Prime	23	9	2.77	128	286.1	211	37	20	6

McLain benefitted from good hitting in 1966, when his ERA was twenty-seventh among starting pitchers in the American League (and higher than the league average of 3.44).  Still, he showed durability by throwing 264 innings, and gutting out 20 wins.  In the three other seasons his ERA was well below the league average, as he finished 1968 fourth in the ERA race (the league average that year was 2.98), and seventh each in 1969 and 1965.

The fourth pitcher spent his entire career in Detroit from 1930 to 1946, being on the roster for four pennants and two World Series championships.  He was the ace of the staff in 1934 and 1935, and the number two starter in 1940.  He only saw action in 4 games in 1945 (coming back late in the season after his service in WWII), so his role was not crucial to that team’s success.  He did pitch in game 6 of the World Series, however.

Tommy Bridges (R) numbers might appear deceiving.  He won 194 games in his career against 138 losses (.584 winning percentage), and had an ERA of 3.57 for his career.  His career spanned a time when hitters seemed to have the advantage, resulting in league ERAs frequently topping 4.50 (with the 1936 American League ERA at 5.04).  In fact, in each season listed he was in the top 10 of the league in ERA.  In 1936, his ERA was fourth best in the league; 1935 was sixth best; 1934 was ninth best, and 1939 was eighth best.  He made six All-Star teams in his career.

Bridges went 1-1 in the 1934 World Series, losing game three to Paul Dean, but beating Dizzy Dean and the Cardinals in game five 3-1.  In the 1935 World Series against the Cubs he went 2-0, completing both of his starts, and clinching the series in game six, after retiring the side in the 9th inning of a 3-3 game with a runner on third, and nobody out.  The Tigers scored in the bottom of the 9th to win their first title in franchise history.

Bridges won 20 games in a season three times in his career, and was among the league leaders in strikeouts on a frequent basis.  He held the team record for career strikeouts until Hal Newhouser broke it in 1951.  Jack Morris would later break Newhouser’s record in 1988.  Bridges also missed three seasons due to military service.  If not for this, he would have certainly won over 200 games, and possibly seen election into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1936	23	11	3.60	137	294.2	175	38	26	5	AS
1935	21	10	3.51	118	274.1	163	34	23	4	AS
1934	22	11	3.67	119	275	151	35	23	3	AS
1939	17	7	3.50	139	198	129	26	16	2	AS
Prime	21	10	3.58	128	260.2	155	33	22	4

The next pitcher was the ace of the Tigers’ pitching staff from 1979 to 1990.  Jack Morris (R) won more games and pitched more innings than any pitcher in the 1980s.  He was the anchor on the pitching staff that won the 1984 World Series and 1987 Eastern Division title.  His pitching repertoire featured a mid-90s fastball, hard slider, and the best forkball in the league.  He had two seasons of twenty wins with Detroit, a nineteen win season, an eighteen win season, and two seventeen win seasons.  He was on pace to win 20 games in 1981, but the strike shortened the season to 109 games, and Morris ended the year with 14, which led the league (I would use that season for his prime season calculation, but could not come up with a fair way to calculate this with the others, so it was omitted).  He finished his tenure with Detroit two wins shy of 200, and for his career he ended up with 254 wins (42nd all-time).

Jack often gets criticized from a historic standpoint, because his ERA appears higher than dominant pitchers who came before him.  The criticism is that Morris won because he happened to be a good pitcher on teams with a great offense.  This isn’t quite fair, because 1) offenses changed in the 1980s and 1990s, which resulted in higher league ERAs than the 1960s and 1970s, and 2) Morris consistently finished in the top 5 in innings pitched, and the top 10 in ERA each year.  He also struck out over 200 batters per year, leading the league in this category in 1983, and finishing his career thirty-second on the all-time strikeout list, just shy of 2,500.  He earned every win he had as a Tiger.

Tiger fans will remember and appreciate the role Morris played on the 1984 club.  He won 19 games to lead the team (including throwing a no-hitter) for the season.  In the playoffs he won his only start in the ALCS as the Tigers swept the Royals, then went on to go 2-0 in the World Series, pitching complete games in both of his starts, and giving up 4 runs in his 18 innings of work.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1986	21	8	3.27	127	267	223	35	15	6
1983	20	13	3.34	117	293.2	232	37	20	1
1987	18	11	3.38	126	266	208	34	13	1	AS
Prime	20	11	3.33	123	275.2	221	35	16	3

I kept trying to exclude this next pitcher from this team.  He was not the ace of the staff when he played, and his win-loss record always seemed to hover just above .500.  His 14 year record with Detroit was 161-153, and his career record was 170-161.  Given all that, he was too good to leave off this team.  He helped Detroit win the 1945 World Series, going 1-1 in the series itself, but posting an ERA of 0.66.  This was the reason he earned a place on this team – every year Dizzy Trout (R) logged a lot of innings, finished near the top of the league in ERA, and did everything he could to help Detroit win games, including pitching in relief between starts and hit (he’s 11th all-time in home runs by a pitcher with 20).  This is the kind of player anybody wants on their team.

Trout is the rare exception whose record does not necessarily reflect the talent.  He won 20 games twice in a season (leading the league in 1943 while pitching on a .500 team), made two All-Star teams, and finished second in the MVP vote to teammate Hal Newhouser in 1944.  Notice when you see his prime numbers that only Verlander and Newhouser have a higher ERA+ than Trout on this team.  That’s what turned out to be the deciding factor when creating this roster.  You simply couldn’t ask more out of a pitcher than Trout gave.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1944	27	14	2.12	167	352.1	144	40	33	7	MVP Runner-up, AS (9 relief G)
1943	20	12	2.48	141	246.2	111	30	18	5	14 relief appearances, 6 saves
1946	17	13	2.34	157	276.1	151	32	23	5	6 relief appearances, 3 saves
1945	18	15	3.14	113	246.1	97	31	18	4	10 relief appearances, 2 saves
Prime	21	14	2.48	145	280.1	126	33	23	5	10 relief appearances, 3 saves

Initially when I came up with the list of pitchers I only wanted to list six players who were predominantly starters in their careers, while giving the other three places to relief pitchers. After debating with myself on it, I felt I needed a seventh, against only two relievers.  To top it off, I chose for my seventh starter a player who never led the Tigers to the playoffs, and only had 123 wins for Detroit (128 for his career).  Frank Lary (R, R) makes this team for posting great seasons on some very mediocre teams.  “Mule” pitched for Detroit from 1954 to 1964, when the New York Mets purchased his rights.  He was the ace of the 1961 team, which won 101 games, but lost the pennant to the Yankees.  In that season he won 23 games and finished third in the Cy Young vote, behind Whitey Ford and Warren Spahn (before 1966 only one Cy Young award was given per year).

Most impressive about the Frank Lary resume is that from 1955-1961, when the Yankees won six AL pennants, Lary posted a 27-10 record against the Bronx Bombers.  This earned him the nickname “Yankee Killer.”  He won twenty games twice – the first season was in 1956 when Detroit finished fifth (out of 8 teams) in the AL.  He led the league with 21 wins and 294 innings pitched, and finished sixth in the league with a 3.15 ERA.  He also led the league in innings pitched in 1958, and finished fourth in ERA, despite only having a 16-15 record on a .500 team.

Year	Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO	Notes
1961	23	9	3.24	127	275.1	146	36	22	4	#3 Cy Young, GG, AS
1956	21	13	3.15	132	294	165	38	20	3
1959	17	10	3.55	114	223	137	32	11	3
1958	16	15	2.90	139	260.1	131	34	19	3
Prime	19	12	3.20	128	263.1	145	35	18	3

Before I defend those picks, I want to give the two relief pitchers I chose for this team.   The first is, in my estimation, the greatest relief pitcher in Detroit history.  John Hiller (L) played for the Tigers from 1965 to 1980, and at the time of his retirement pitched in more games (545) than any other Tiger pitcher.  He also had 125 career saves, which was later surpassed by Mike Henneman and Todd Jones.  The difficulty of measuring Hiller’s performance over his career is that the 1970s was a transitional time for relief pitchers.  It is not unusual to see a closer save 30 or 40 games in a season now, but when Hiller saved 38 games in 1973, this was a Major League record.  Dan Quisenberry broke the record ten years later.  In 1974 Hiller set the American League record for wins by a relief pitcher with 17.  His role was not to come in for one inning and close out a game, but rather to come in whenever he was needed, which could be any inning of a game, and keep the team close, or stop the opposition from scoring any more runs.  John Hiller was a master in these situations, retiring with an ERA of 2.83, while typically logging 120+ innings per year.  Most impressive is that Hiller’s best seasons came after he had a heart attack in 1971.

In addition, Hiller appeared in thirty-nine games throughout the 1968 season, posting a 2.39 ERA, and pitched in two games in the World Series.  He also played a key role down the stretch in 1972, helping the Tigers win the Eastern Division.

Year	Wins	Losses	Saves	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	Games	Notes
1973	10	5	38	1.44	283	125.1	124	65	Comeback POY
1976	12	8	13	2.38	156	121	117	56
1974	17	14	13	2.64	143	150	134	59	AS
Prime	13	9	21	2.18	194	132	125	60

With only one position left on this team, and four deserving players, I was again left with a difficult choice.  In 2012, Jose Valverde (R) completed his three year stint with the Tigers.  He helped Detroit make the playoffs twice, and in 2011 he led the league with 49 saves, on 49 chances.  Unfortunately, his inability to pitch effectively in the 2012 playoffs left a stain on his record, and is the ultimate reason why I could not choose him for this spot.

Before Valverde, the most prominent closer was Todd Jones (R), who had two stints as a Tiger closer, from 1997-2001, and 2006-2008.  He finished his stint in Detroit with 206 saves, the current team record.  He also helped the Tigers make the 2006 World Series, saving 37 games.  I wanted to make a place for him on this team, but even though he produced big save numbers, his ERA always hovered in the high threes, which you can’t have from a closer position.  Jones seemed to lack the dominance you expect out of a one-inning, shutdown closer.

Before Jones broke the team record for saves, the record was held by Mike Henneman (R).  Henneman pitched for Detroit from 1987 to 1995, when he was traded to Houston.  He racked up 154 saves, relying on his forkball.  He took over the closer position in late 1987, saving seven games and helping the Tigers surge late in the season to win the Eastern Division.  I would have placed Henneman on this team, but the fact that his Tiger teams never made the playoffs other than 1987 meant I could not justify putting him on the team ahead of the other closers in team history.

With that, the closer I selected for the All-Time Tiger team is Willie Hernandez (L).  With the screwball as his out-pitch, Hernandez posted exactly three productive years with the Tigers before losing his effectiveness in 1987, having modest success in 1988, and being released in 1989.  Still, Hernandez was the final piece needed to help Detroit win the World Series in 1984.  He was traded to the Tigers from the Phillies before the 1984 season, and immediately took the closer role.  That year he pitched in an incredible 140 innings in 80 games, winning 9, saving 32 (in 33 chances), and posting an ERA of 1.92.  He won the Cy Young award and the American League MVP.  He also pitched five innings in the World Series, saved two games, and yielded one run.  He was on the mound when the Padres recorded their last out for the series.

Hernandez followed in 1985 with 31 saves and a second All-Star appearance.  In 1986 he posted 24 saves, and notched his third All-Star appearance.  The mid-1980s was just before teams figured out how to properly utilize closers, because in today’s game, no closer would log even 100 innings, yet Hernandez did that twice for Detroit.  This over-use is probably the reason he lost effectiveness so quickly in 1987.  Still, his later years with Detroit do not diminish his dominance as a closer for three incredible years.

Year	Wins	Losses	Saves	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	Games	Notes
1984	9	3	32	1.92	204	140.1	112	80	MVP, Cy Young, AS
1985	8	10	31	2.70	151	106.2	76	74	AS
1986	8	7	24	3.55	117	88.2	77	64	AS
Prime	8	7	29	2.60	157	112	88	73

That concludes the roster of the All-Time Detroit Tiger team.  I did want to take the time to mention the starting pitchers who missed the cut of this team, however.  The criticism I will probably get is that I left off the three pitchers who posted the most wins in team history, and I did.  I could also get the criticism that I didn’t place a pitcher before the 1930s on this team, not to mention a pitcher from the 1907 through 1909 seasons, when the Tigers won three American League pennants.  I feel justified in my choices, but will take the time to explain.

The first pitcher I snubbed is Hooks Dauss (R), the pitcher who has the most wins in team history with 222.  He pitched his entire career in Detroit from 1912 to 1926.  His nickname comes from his use of an excellent curveball.  Dauss pitched for no pennant winners during his tenure, although the 1915 team won 100 games, finishing one game behind Boston for the year.  That year Dauss had his best season, winning 24 games, posting a 2.50 ERA, and even finding time to make eleven relief appearances.  Those numbers today would win a Cy Young award, but in 1915 a 2.50 ERA was just a little below the league average, which was 2.93.  Dauss finished fifteenth among starting pitchers for ERA that year (the middle of the pack in an eight team league), which makes his numbers look less impressive.  This would also be the highest position he would finish in terms of league ERA for his career.  In the end, Dauss had a rubber arm, and won a lot of games on the back of the best hitters in the league, Ty Cobb and Harry Heilmann, but he was not very dominant.

The second pitcher I left off was the ace of the early pennant winning teams, and is second in team history in career wins, with 209.  George Mullin (R) was another pitcher who could throw 300 innings per year, and still come back for more.  His best season was 1909, when he led the league with 29 wins for the pennant winning Tigers, and had an ERA of 2.22.  Again, by today’s standards these numbers look amazing.  Mullin’s ERA was 17th in the league that year, out of 34 starting pitchers who qualified based on innings pitched.  Mullin finished in the top ten in ERA one time, in 1903.  Beyond that, he hovered around the league average in ERA for his career, posting a career ERA+ of 101 (remember 100 is exactly the league average).  Like Dauss, I feel he doesn’t deserve a place on this team because I cannot see any dominant seasons he had as a pitcher.

The pitcher with the third most wins in team history (207) is the one most people will feel deserves a place on this team.  His 1968 World Series performance alone makes him a Detroit legend, going 3-0 with three complete games, and a 1.67 ERA, including his classic performance in game seven, when he outpitched Bob Gibson on two day’s rest.  Mickey Lolich (L) was the number two starter behind Denny McLain in 1968, winning seventeen games.  In 1970 he became the ace of the Tiger staff, and had career years in 1971 and 1972, while anchoring the team on to the 1972 Eastern Division title.  Here is what his prime season would look like (using his top four seasons):

Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO
21	12	2.92	121	304	255	39	20	1

The pure numbers suggest that Lolich is clearly a better pitcher than Frank Lary.  His prime season consists of more wins, a lower ERA, more innings and more strikeouts.  However, Lary twice led the league in innings pitched, while Lolich only accomplished this once.  The ERA+ is in Lary’s favor as well (128 to 121).  Again, we have to look at time period to determine who was more dominant, not just the pure statistics.  Even though their careers overlapped (in 1963 and 1964), hitters dominated in the late 1950s and early 1960s (especially the expansion year 1961).  1968 was considered “the year of the pitcher” because of the pitching records which fell in that season (Denny McLain’s 31 wins, and Bob Gibson’s 1.12 ERA both occurred that season).  In 1958 Frank Lary was fourth in the AL in ERA with a 2.90 (with an ERA+ of 139).  In 1971, when Lolich posted an ERA of 2.92 (with an ERA+ of 124), he finished tenth in the league.  Similarly, in 1972 Lolich had an ERA of 2.50 (with an ERA+ of 127), and this again was tenth.  In 1956, Lary had an ERA of 3.15, which appears high, but was sixth in the league (and yielded an ERA+ of 132).

Where I might get called out on this one is that Lary never played for a pennant winner, and that is fair.  Frank Lary was the ace of a team which won 101 games, however.  Plus, his success against the great Yankees teams of the late 1950s and early 1960s shows me that Frank Lary was a clutch performer.  Lolich did manage to help the Tigers make two post season appearances.  In 1968 Lolich was clearly not the ace of the pitching staff, Denny McLain was.  Is this a knock against Lolich?  No, and yes.  The Tigers don’t win the World Series without Lolich, but they don’t make the World Series without McLain.

In 1972 Lolich was the best pitcher on a playoff team.  That Detroit Tiger team finished with the third best record in the AL (86-70), behind both Oakland and Chicago (and both in the Western Division).  Frank Lary’s 1961 Tiger team had the second best record in the AL, and they won 101 games, but because of the rules of the day, they could not make the playoffs (and still would not have under the 1972 rules, because they were in the same division as the Yankees, who won the 1961 pennant).  I challenge anyone to show me how the 1972 Tigers were better than the 1961 Tigers.  This was a close decision, one which I have gone back and forth on, but I do feel that Frank Lary was the better pitcher than Lolich.

The next pitcher who was left off was a key component of the 1934 and 1935 teams, along with making a large contribution to the 1940 pennant winning team.  Schoolboy Rowe (R) was a very popular player in his day, and a helped give a formidable 1-2 punch along with Tommy Bridges.  His best season was in 1934, when he posted a 24-8 record, with a 3.45 ERA (good for sixth in the league).  He won 19 games in 1935, and another 19 in in 36.  Here is what his prime season would look like (using his top four seasons):

Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO
20	9	3.79	122	239	116	31	18	4

Each of Rowe’s numbers are just slightly behind Tommy Bridges.  Rowe’s ERA appears high, but his ERA+ is just below that of Jack Morris, and just above Mickey Lolich.  Rowe gave a lot of innings, pitched in relief when needed, and became a fan favorite with his easy going, friendly manner.  He just misses making this team, however, because Bridges edges him out in each category.

The last pitcher I left off this team is actually a Hall of Fame pitcher.  He started with the Tigers, before coming into his own with the Phillies in the National League.  Over his career he pitched two no-hitters (one being a perfect game), and at his retirement he had the second most strikeouts in Major League history with 2,855 (it now stands as 17th).  He won 224 games, 118 with Detroit.  Jim Bunning did not make this team, because I felt his accomplishments were overshadowed by Frank Lary, who was hit teammate from 1955 to 1963.

Wins	Losses	ERA	ERA+	Innings	K	GS	CG	ShO
19	10	3.16	127	264.3	187	34	13	3

He and Frank Lary provided a potent 1-2 punch, and their numbers are very similar over this span.  Bunning had one monster year in 1957, where he led the league with 20 wins, and had the third best ERA in the league at 2.69.  Beyond that season, Frank Lary was the dominant pitcher on the team.  In the 1961 season, when Detroit won 101 games, Bunning managed a 17-11 record, with a 3.19 ERA.  If Bunning had his best years in baseball as a Tiger, he would get stronger consideration, but as it stands, he is known more for his years with Philadelphia, and rightfully so.

I am sure many people would disagree with my choices.  I challenge anyone to come up with their own criteria for selecting a team, and then go through the process of actually picking their All-Time Detroit Tiger team.  Or, better yet, pick a different team to do this with.  I would love to compare this team to other teams in Major League baseball.

Starting Pitchers:

Hal Newhouser (L)

Justin Verlander (R)

Denny McLain (R)

Tommy Bridges (R)

Jack Morris (R)

Dizzy Trout (R)

Frank Lary (R)

Relievers:

John Hiller (L)

Willie Hernandez (L)

Up Next: Batting Order and Pitching Rotation

All-Time Detroit Tiger Catchers

Throughout the history of the Tiger organization, catchers have played a very prominent role in leading the team to the World Series.  Because of that, the challenge I had with the All-Tiger team was narrowing down the position to two players.  In reality I could easily place 4 players on this squad, and I would have no issue with any of these 4 players being placed on this team.

The Detroit Tigers played 35 seasons before winning their first World Series.  They won 4 American League pennants without being able to overcome the National League in the Fall Classic.  Their fifth pennant was the charm, as they defeated the Chicago Cubs in 1935 to become World Series Champions.

Throughout the 1920s and early 1930s the two dominant teams in the American League were the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Athletics.  Upon falling on financial difficulty in 1933, Connie Mack began to sell off his cache of talent to other big league teams.  It was at this time the Tigers obtained Mickey Cochrane.  Cochrane immediately improved the team from an offensive standpoint, handling the pitchers, and managing the Tigers.  Cochrane’s addition was the key that pushed Detroit over the top, allowing the Tigers to win the pennant in 1934 (losing a thrilling series in 7 games to the Cardinals) and winning the World Series in 1935.  Unfortunately for Cochrane, he only played two full seasons for Detroit, as injuries limited his play in 1936 to 44 games, and 27 games in 1937, when his playing days ended.

Year	Average	HR	RBI	Hits	Runs	Doubles	BB	K	Notes
1934	.320	2	76	140	74	32	78	26	MVP, AS
1935	.319	5	47	131	93	33	96	15	AS
Prime	.319	4	62	136	84	33	87	21

The 1960s saw the rest of the American League chasing down the Yankees.  New York won each pennant from 1960 to 1964, followed by Minnesota, Baltimore, Boston, and Detroit in 1968.  The mainstay behind the plate for the Tigers during this decade was Bill Freehan (R, R).  Freehan made 11 All-Star teams (the most ever by a player not in the Hall of Fame), won 5 Gold Glove awards, and retired with the highest fielding percentage of any catcher in history (it was later broken in 2002 by Dan Wilson), most putouts (later broken by Gary Carter), and most total chances by a catcher (later broken by Bob Boone).  He had a .262 career batting average, and hit 200 home runs in his 15 years.  He was runner-up for the American League MVP award in 1968 (behind teammate Denny McLain), and was key in helping the Tigers win the World Series that year, as well as the Eastern Division title in 1972.  After he retired in 1975, he helped an up and coming catcher named Lance Parrish with his technique behind the plate.

Year	Average	HR	RBI	Hits	Runs	Doubles	Triples	BB	Notes
1964	.300	18	80	156	69	14	8	36	AS
1967	.282	20	74	146	66	23	1	73	GG,AS
1974	.297	18	60	132	58	17	5	42
1968	.263	25	84	142	73	25	2	65	MVP Runner-up, GG, AS
Prime	.285	20	75	144	67	20	4	54

In the late 1970s the Detroit franchise saw a youth movement, as several players who would later become the core of the 1984 team began to cut their teeth in the majors.  Among those who started their career in Detroit in the late 70s were Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jack Morris, Dan Petry, Aurelio Lopez, Kirk Gibson, and Lance Parrish (R, R).  When Sparky Anderson arrived to manage the team in 1979, he claimed he could win a World Series in 5 seasons.  These guys made that prediction come true.

Lance Parrish’s influence on the team was vital, because he was not only the best defensive catcher in the league during the early to mid-80s (3 Gold Glove awards), but he was also the clean-up hitter on the 1984 team, hitting 33 home runs (an American League record for catchers)and driving in 98 runs.
He had a great arm behind the plate, often leading the league in one category or other for assists, throwing runners out stealing, and percentage of runners caught stealing.  He ended his career with 324 home runs, 299 of which were hit in the American League (6th all-time for AL catchers).  He was an 8-time All-Star for his career, and 6 times while with Detroit.

Year	Average	HR	RBI	Hits	Runs	Doubles	Triples	SB	Notes
1980	.286	24	82	158	79	34	6	6	AS
1982	.284	32	87	138	75	19	2	3	AS
1983	.269	27	114	163	80	42	3	1	GG, AS
1985	.273	28	98	150	64	27	1	2	GG, AS
Prime	.278	28	95	152	75	31	3	3

The fourth major impact catcher in Tiger history was Ivan “Pudge” Rodriguez (R, R).  The Tigers signed Pudge in 2004 to a 4-year contract.  At the time he was a 32 year old catcher, with a recent history of injury issues with his knees and back.  No other team in the league was willing to offer him a 4-year contract, and the Tigers were at the time the laughing stock of baseball.

Going into 2004, Detroit had last seen a winning season in 1991, when they won 84 games, and they had not made the playoffs since 1987.  Worse, in 2003 they lost 119 games, earning consideration as one of the worst teams in baseball history.  Pudge Rodriguez was just coming off a World Series win with the Marlins, but in typical Florida Marlin’s fashion, his contract was not picked up at the end to the year.  The Tigers needed a marquee ballplayer who could lead their team back to respectability.  They rolled the dice on Pudge, and did the same with Magglio Ordonez in 2005.

Instantly the message was out that Detroit was an OK place to play ball again.  Other players were willing to consider coming to Detroit, because Detroit was now willing to pay for good players.  The gamble paid off.  By 2006, the Tigers were back in the World Series, and Pudge was a key component in the team’s newfound success.

Rodriguez is considered by many estimates to be the best defensive catcher who ever played (fans of Johnny Bench will no doubt disagree).  For his career he threw out over 45% of the runners trying to steal off of him.  The league average is about 20 points below that.  He had a career batting average of .296, 2,844 hits, and 311 home runs; amazing statistics when you consider the wear and tear a catcher endures over the course of any year, not to mention a career.  He was a 14-time All-Star (earning 4 selections with the Tigers), and 13-time Gold Glove winner (earning 3 in Detroit), and he won the American League MVP in 1999 while playing for the Texas Rangers.  More importantly to Tiger fans, he brought respectability back to Motown.  Without Pudge, I don’t see a way the Tigers win the American League Championship in 2006.  Not only was his presence on the field important, but because of the respect he had with players around the league, when he came to Detroit, others were more willing to give the Tigers a chance as well.  I view his addition to the team as being as important as the addition of Mickey Cochrane in 1934.

Year	Average	HR	RBI	Hits	Runs	Doubles	Triples	SB	Notes
2004	.334	19	86	176	72	32	2	7	GG, AS
2006	.300	13	69	164	74	28	4	8	GG, AS
2007	.281	11	63	141	50	31	3	2	GG, AS
Prime	.305	14	73	160	65	30	3	6

 Who would you choose?  If Cochrane had a third productive year, he would be on this team.  His leadership was second to none, and he helped the Tigers win their first World Series.  Since he is not eligible based on my criteria, I am left with choosing two players from the other three.

Defensively, all three were at the top of the league when they played in Detroit.  Pudge may be the best of the bunch, but he was in the twilight of his career in Detroit.  His best defensive years were a little behind him, although he was still the best in the league at his position while with the Tigers.

Freehan and Parrish both played on World Series winners, and both were key in the offensive production of the teams when they won the World Series.  Both also produced better power numbers than Pudge, and this with the consideration that Freehan had to play in one of the most difficult hitting eras in baseball history.  Pudge, however, did hit for high average, and had some pop in his bat as well.

On this one, I wish I could take all three catchers, but when I look at the overall body of work, and what each player did for Detroit, I have to give an edge to Bill Freehan and Lance Parrish.  They played the best of their careers with Detroit (and Freehan did not play anywhere else).  Their impact on the Tigers is greater as a whole, and if for no other reason, they both were catchers on World Series Championship teams.  I love Pudge Rodriguez, and enjoyed watching him play as much as I ever enjoyed any player, but when I have to choose an All-Time Detroit Tiger team, I cannot leave off Bill Freehan or Lance Parrish.

All-Tiger Catchers:

Bill Freehan

Lance Parrish

Up next: Pitchers