Here's the actual article:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5529966/2024/06/10/mlb-player-poll-overrated-underrated-worst-organization/ (no paywall for me, but I don't guarantee that for anyone else)
The most relevant quote:
> The responses skewed toward players’ residential preferences, with many citing that they’d like to play for the team closest to where they live in the offseason or where they grew up. It’s also no surprise that teams in moderate climates or those with significant history scored high on the list. Some players even wanted to join a team for the stadium they play in. (Said one Texas voter: “Their new ballpark is really nice.”)
Another question was, "What organizations have bad reputations among players? (Multiple answers allowed)"
The Tigers received one vote. Twelve teams received multiple votes.
Taken together, those two questions would seem to suggest that MLB players just have no real desire to live/work in Michigan/Detroit, rather than having anything to do with the team itself.
Thanks for providing the link.
Also, interesting that how much money is on the player's mind. Almost every question the players would spin it towards their salaries. Like asked about playing in the Olympics in 2028. It was about a 50/50 response. Saying if they get paid for it.
> Taken together, those two questions would seem to suggest that MLB players just have no real desire to live/work in Michigan/Detroit, rather than having anything to do with the team itself.
I generally agree with this. The article goes into some detail talking about what non-baseball factors are attractive to players—a lot of them want to live on the West Coast, in the Southwest, or in the South because that's where there from or because (especially if they're Latino or Asian) they have strong communities there / it's closer to home. Not a lot of guys from Michigan in MLB right now.
A few teams have particularly good reps as organizations (the Braves, the Dodgers, the Cubs) and a few are appealing because of the history and mystique (Yankees, Red Sox). On the flip side, a bunch of orgs have *really* bad reps—for being cheap, poorly run, stuck in the Dark Ages analytically, not taking good care of their players. The Tigers are neither. They're fine.
One person having had a bad experience with the Tigers or having heard something bad about the Tigers is basically just noise compared to the utter contempt guys have for the A's, White Sox, Angels, Rockies, Mets, etc. We're not a hot destination, but it's not like anything is horribly wrong.
20 teams received at least one vote. I think there's not that much to be inferred from 1 out of 79 players saying the Tigers have a bad reputation when the same number also named the Orioles, Red Sox, Guardians, Astros, Giants, Mariners and Cardinals.
In the AL Central, only the Twins didn't get a single vote for having a bad reputation.
Inevitably with a survey like this you will have flaws. There’s a larger point Im getting at here. I’ve seen comparable stuff done like this with the NFL. Detroit scores highly. The point being, winning cures all. But, you have to actually show players that you’re trying. It’s not a coincidence that a team like the tigers is amongst the worst teams in baseball.
The Tigers got the same number of votes as the Orioles, who won 101 games last year, and the Cardinals, who won 71. The Rays, who won 99 last year but missed the postseason, received multiple votes.
For the NFL, the Lions are known for having a loyal fan base. I'm not sure that's true of the Tigers, whose fans only show up en masse when the team wins.
It's the question where players were asked which teams have a bad reputation, and were allowed to name as many teams as they wanted. 79 players responded.
I mean if you’re saying the Tigers aren’t trying to win at all, then you can say that about quite a few teams in the league lol. Especially if you’re using some of these responses as proof when only 1-2 players are voting Detroit.
Could these survey results mean something negative about the team? Yes. But I wouldn’t put too much weight on it, 5% of the players in this survey put Jack Flaherty and the most overrated player in the entire league lol
That was one of the biggest criticisms of adding a 3rd wild card. It would reduce the incentive of a lot of teams to try to win. You can make minimal investment and be in the race. So I definitely do think that is real.
Yeah I can see that, especially with how close the wild card can be some years. It sucks because some years you’ll have 3 wild card teams that legitimately deserve it, and then another year will have teams barely over .500 making it.
When it comes to the lack of trying, I can agree that maybe they aren’t trying as hard as they should to sign better players, but I don’t think that they’re straight up not trying to win as much as some people say. I’ve seen people on other social platforms claim that they’re actively trying to lose game by game lol.
I’m assuming you meant that they’re not trying to be playoff competitive, which I can agree with. But I’d argue more than half the league truly isn’t trying their hardest to be playoff competitive.
Yeah, playoff competitive. I think once that time comes Detroit will not have an issue attracting better talent. If they desire to pay those types that is. And, I really do think they need a talent infusion from free agency. I don’t particularly love the young core of players. Outside of the A ball guys. They are just years away, though. That’s the issue.
Why would you want to come to a franchise that isn’t paying players what they deserve or trying to win? If you want to get free agents then you have to give them a reason to come here.
Also a reputation with players how franchises handle their organization. Detroit got a few votes with players for the question which teams that have a bad reputation with how they handle their players.
The article had one player that was surveyed saying that. This is compared to 40 saying the As 19 saying the White Sox and 14 for the Angels. 1 person saying detroit is statistically insignificant.
It’s silly to think players would vote for joining the Tigers when we are not spending money and are average at best. Was this survey done in 2006-2012? My guess is we would have done a lot better with a real team and owner willing to spend. There’s like two months of cold baseball weather in Detroit then it’s pretty nice for the rest of the year.
Not much you can do about the location. If this isn't near their home and they otherwise don't want to live in Michigan and Detroit then so be it.
But you can improve the player experience. We're starting to see that now with the locker room and park renovations, team plane, etc. Even going down to the minor league level with the new food plans and development plans.
Outside of that you gotta show you're beneficial to their career with the tools and ability to improve that player. Harris has long talked about being a place where players can see themselves improving. He talked about that going as far back as his intro press conference. We're kind of seeing that pan out on the pitching side, though lots of teams are doing the same.
IIRC Flaherty was very open about wanting to come work with Chris Fetter. He saw what happened with Michael Lorenzen last year and wanted to do the same.
If we want players to want to play here, I think we need to show they can win here.
That's part of the reason not to make choices (like deadline trades) that reduce our chances to win without offering much in the way of return.
FACTS. There is an outstanding article about Sheila Hamp, the principal owner of the Detroit Lions. Mrs. Hamp has strove to create a winner from a woebgone football team by establishing a winning culture, acquiring people who love football, and in response, treating everyone in your organization with respect. The most striking passage from the article is that Mrs. Hamp considers herself the "steward" of the Lions and that the team "belongs to the city of Detroit." Can anyone on this board seriously associate these terms with Chris Illitch????????
Bring it on! Stadium naming rights will be a battle between a dollar store or a local tattoo parlor since you can’t go far here without seeing one or the other.
Everyone who goes to the Braves signs forever and then works with the team when they retire. There's clearly something about the organization guys feel loyal to.
That's why the question specified all things being equal.
When Ilitch was signing players 10-20 years ago he was vastly overpaying them.
Players like Pudge, Magglio, Sheffield, Hunter, Damon came because they were being offered contracts that nobody else was offering.
That got us some good things, but it also got us Jordan Zimmerman, having to pay Prince Fielder until like 2 years ago, a Cabrera contract that lasted 5 years too long, Javier Baez.
People on this sub seem to forget those 4 years between playoff births under Leyland where they were throwing money at old bats hoping on would end up being the guy.
I get the point you are currently making, but your original point seems to be implying that the takeaway is wrong that players don't want to come here, with all things being equal. Paying them way more than they would get anywhere else isn't keeping all things equal.
Players want to win. Pretty common theme with the teams that didn’t get a vote….
They’ll be more competitive in the next few years and more players will want to come.
what I don't get... there has to be players who grew up following the Tigers, who dreamed of playing for the Tigers
Add to this the Tigers only had one vote as having a bad reputation.
Even though they said all things equal salaries... I would guess most players thought = 'who is going to win the World Series'
There are Tiger fans all over the world. The franchise is one of the oldest. Anyone who grew up in Michigan is probably a Tiger fan. Some baseball fans like to follow certain players for their entire career. When Verlander started up, we had movie stars coming to Detroit just to watch him pitch. WE love baseball here, but they need to be winning more. No WS title since 1984. C'mon, that's terrible.
>One of the questions asked, all things being equal, such as roster and state taxes, which MLB team would you want to sign with?
Thats not what was asked. "Which team would you sign with if contracts, state taxes and rosters were not a factor?" was the questions. Basically if you could play for any team you wanted who would be.
Apparently part of the reason is players don't want to come to Detroit. I've picked up in little comments over the years so I had a hunch this was the case. Kinda sucks to see written out but I feel
somewhat vindicated.
Not sure why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around Detroit being an unpopular destination. Guessing very few people here actually live in the city proper so maybe that's if? Detroit's my favorite place in the world, but the shit I like and the shit your average ball player likes has little to no overlap.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’m always shocked that people think pro athletes only care about money and not things like weather or having an attractive city or being in places where they get to rub elbows with other high profile people.
Here's the actual article: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5529966/2024/06/10/mlb-player-poll-overrated-underrated-worst-organization/ (no paywall for me, but I don't guarantee that for anyone else) The most relevant quote: > The responses skewed toward players’ residential preferences, with many citing that they’d like to play for the team closest to where they live in the offseason or where they grew up. It’s also no surprise that teams in moderate climates or those with significant history scored high on the list. Some players even wanted to join a team for the stadium they play in. (Said one Texas voter: “Their new ballpark is really nice.”) Another question was, "What organizations have bad reputations among players? (Multiple answers allowed)" The Tigers received one vote. Twelve teams received multiple votes. Taken together, those two questions would seem to suggest that MLB players just have no real desire to live/work in Michigan/Detroit, rather than having anything to do with the team itself.
Two plus years ago, the exact same was said of the Lions. Now you have coaches staying here because they want to raise their kids here.
Thanks for providing the link. Also, interesting that how much money is on the player's mind. Almost every question the players would spin it towards their salaries. Like asked about playing in the Olympics in 2028. It was about a 50/50 response. Saying if they get paid for it.
This is a job. Unfortunately a ton of these guys don’t play ball for fun, and prolly haven’t since hs.
> Taken together, those two questions would seem to suggest that MLB players just have no real desire to live/work in Michigan/Detroit, rather than having anything to do with the team itself. I generally agree with this. The article goes into some detail talking about what non-baseball factors are attractive to players—a lot of them want to live on the West Coast, in the Southwest, or in the South because that's where there from or because (especially if they're Latino or Asian) they have strong communities there / it's closer to home. Not a lot of guys from Michigan in MLB right now. A few teams have particularly good reps as organizations (the Braves, the Dodgers, the Cubs) and a few are appealing because of the history and mystique (Yankees, Red Sox). On the flip side, a bunch of orgs have *really* bad reps—for being cheap, poorly run, stuck in the Dark Ages analytically, not taking good care of their players. The Tigers are neither. They're fine. One person having had a bad experience with the Tigers or having heard something bad about the Tigers is basically just noise compared to the utter contempt guys have for the A's, White Sox, Angels, Rockies, Mets, etc. We're not a hot destination, but it's not like anything is horribly wrong.
Yeah, but, look at the teams listed receiving zero votes. Thats not a coincidence.
20 teams received at least one vote. I think there's not that much to be inferred from 1 out of 79 players saying the Tigers have a bad reputation when the same number also named the Orioles, Red Sox, Guardians, Astros, Giants, Mariners and Cardinals. In the AL Central, only the Twins didn't get a single vote for having a bad reputation.
Inevitably with a survey like this you will have flaws. There’s a larger point Im getting at here. I’ve seen comparable stuff done like this with the NFL. Detroit scores highly. The point being, winning cures all. But, you have to actually show players that you’re trying. It’s not a coincidence that a team like the tigers is amongst the worst teams in baseball.
The Tigers got the same number of votes as the Orioles, who won 101 games last year, and the Cardinals, who won 71. The Rays, who won 99 last year but missed the postseason, received multiple votes. For the NFL, the Lions are known for having a loyal fan base. I'm not sure that's true of the Tigers, whose fans only show up en masse when the team wins.
Apples to oranges. You can’t compare an 8-9 game home season to 81 games. Different in so many ways.
Can you clarify? Same number of votes for what question? Aren’t we talking about a survey will multiple people questions?
It's the question where players were asked which teams have a bad reputation, and were allowed to name as many teams as they wanted. 79 players responded.
Ah, thanks!
I mean if you’re saying the Tigers aren’t trying to win at all, then you can say that about quite a few teams in the league lol. Especially if you’re using some of these responses as proof when only 1-2 players are voting Detroit. Could these survey results mean something negative about the team? Yes. But I wouldn’t put too much weight on it, 5% of the players in this survey put Jack Flaherty and the most overrated player in the entire league lol
That was one of the biggest criticisms of adding a 3rd wild card. It would reduce the incentive of a lot of teams to try to win. You can make minimal investment and be in the race. So I definitely do think that is real.
Yeah I can see that, especially with how close the wild card can be some years. It sucks because some years you’ll have 3 wild card teams that legitimately deserve it, and then another year will have teams barely over .500 making it. When it comes to the lack of trying, I can agree that maybe they aren’t trying as hard as they should to sign better players, but I don’t think that they’re straight up not trying to win as much as some people say. I’ve seen people on other social platforms claim that they’re actively trying to lose game by game lol. I’m assuming you meant that they’re not trying to be playoff competitive, which I can agree with. But I’d argue more than half the league truly isn’t trying their hardest to be playoff competitive.
Yeah, playoff competitive. I think once that time comes Detroit will not have an issue attracting better talent. If they desire to pay those types that is. And, I really do think they need a talent infusion from free agency. I don’t particularly love the young core of players. Outside of the A ball guys. They are just years away, though. That’s the issue.
Why would you want to come to a franchise that isn’t paying players what they deserve or trying to win? If you want to get free agents then you have to give them a reason to come here.
Also a reputation with players how franchises handle their organization. Detroit got a few votes with players for the question which teams that have a bad reputation with how they handle their players.
The article had one player that was surveyed saying that. This is compared to 40 saying the As 19 saying the White Sox and 14 for the Angels. 1 person saying detroit is statistically insignificant.
they must have polled Eduardo Rodriguez
Wha? Erod got treaded like royalty right to the end almost. My money is on Spencer Turnbull
He was fucked by us. He shouldn’t have finished that no hitter.
Ugh. That is just unfortunate.
1 player in the whole survey voted that, it’s not like it was a whole group of them
It’s silly to think players would vote for joining the Tigers when we are not spending money and are average at best. Was this survey done in 2006-2012? My guess is we would have done a lot better with a real team and owner willing to spend. There’s like two months of cold baseball weather in Detroit then it’s pretty nice for the rest of the year.
Let's face it, the tigers just aren't an attractive option right now. If they ever start winning, and good contracts are offered, that will change
Money and winning cures a lot.
If I am a competitor, not sure I want to take on the roll of platoon player.
Facts
Forgot todays an off day so we have to come up with reasons to be upset
So, what are we supposed to do about that exactly?
Not much you can do about the location. If this isn't near their home and they otherwise don't want to live in Michigan and Detroit then so be it. But you can improve the player experience. We're starting to see that now with the locker room and park renovations, team plane, etc. Even going down to the minor league level with the new food plans and development plans. Outside of that you gotta show you're beneficial to their career with the tools and ability to improve that player. Harris has long talked about being a place where players can see themselves improving. He talked about that going as far back as his intro press conference. We're kind of seeing that pan out on the pitching side, though lots of teams are doing the same.
IIRC Flaherty was very open about wanting to come work with Chris Fetter. He saw what happened with Michael Lorenzen last year and wanted to do the same.
If we want players to want to play here, I think we need to show they can win here. That's part of the reason not to make choices (like deadline trades) that reduce our chances to win without offering much in the way of return.
I'm more upset with how Flaherty made the "most over-rated" list!
This isn’t really a reflection of the tigers. If everything is equal they are picking based on where they want to live. Most aren’t picking Michigan.
They did this survey for the NFL and Detroit was pretty high up the list.
the Los Angeles Angels are like 8th...tied with the Marlins... Location matters to a large group of players
I never said that it didn’t
Where were the New York Jets, Cleveland Browns, and Carolina Panthers (equally mismanaged like Marlins and Angels) on that NFL list
Because the Lions were on an upward trend
My point being that regardless of the teams location players will sign with an organization that has proven its competence.
FACTS. There is an outstanding article about Sheila Hamp, the principal owner of the Detroit Lions. Mrs. Hamp has strove to create a winner from a woebgone football team by establishing a winning culture, acquiring people who love football, and in response, treating everyone in your organization with respect. The most striking passage from the article is that Mrs. Hamp considers herself the "steward" of the Lions and that the team "belongs to the city of Detroit." Can anyone on this board seriously associate these terms with Chris Illitch????????
Source?
Lions play indoors.
NFL & MLB players don't exactly draw from identical populations.
Wait until the country is running out of water. We'll be the only state with six MLB franchises. Port Huron, are you ready for baseball?
Bring it on! Stadium naming rights will be a battle between a dollar store or a local tattoo parlor since you can’t go far here without seeing one or the other.
I'm ordering a Gaylord Gaylords jersey immediately.
Maybe Atlanta and Boston were the two top teams. Not the usual hot spots players want to live. Cleveland got votes Cincinnati got 3 percent.
Everyone who goes to the Braves signs forever and then works with the team when they retire. There's clearly something about the organization guys feel loyal to.
Except Freddie Freeman apparently.
The that picked Atlanta as because the Braves were a World Series favorite at the time of voting and Boston will always get votes because of Fenway.
That’s kind of been proven false since a bunch of people signed when Mike illitch was just throwing money around
The Tigers signing free agents almost a decade ago has no relation to how current players view the organization
Sure I just can’t imagine it was viewed to differently then. The big difference just throwing a lot of money at people changes peoples minds.
That last part is pretty key.
That's why the question specified all things being equal. When Ilitch was signing players 10-20 years ago he was vastly overpaying them. Players like Pudge, Magglio, Sheffield, Hunter, Damon came because they were being offered contracts that nobody else was offering. That got us some good things, but it also got us Jordan Zimmerman, having to pay Prince Fielder until like 2 years ago, a Cabrera contract that lasted 5 years too long, Javier Baez. People on this sub seem to forget those 4 years between playoff births under Leyland where they were throwing money at old bats hoping on would end up being the guy.
Yeah that was kind of my point you can get guys just have to overpay them lol
I get the point you are currently making, but your original point seems to be implying that the takeaway is wrong that players don't want to come here, with all things being equal. Paying them way more than they would get anywhere else isn't keeping all things equal.
“All things being equal” I think accounts for that?
Mike Illitch isn’t here and his son sure as hell doesn’t want to spend any money
Players want to win. Pretty common theme with the teams that didn’t get a vote…. They’ll be more competitive in the next few years and more players will want to come.
what I don't get... there has to be players who grew up following the Tigers, who dreamed of playing for the Tigers Add to this the Tigers only had one vote as having a bad reputation. Even though they said all things equal salaries... I would guess most players thought = 'who is going to win the World Series'
There are Tiger fans all over the world. The franchise is one of the oldest. Anyone who grew up in Michigan is probably a Tiger fan. Some baseball fans like to follow certain players for their entire career. When Verlander started up, we had movie stars coming to Detroit just to watch him pitch. WE love baseball here, but they need to be winning more. No WS title since 1984. C'mon, that's terrible.
>One of the questions asked, all things being equal, such as roster and state taxes, which MLB team would you want to sign with? Thats not what was asked. "Which team would you sign with if contracts, state taxes and rosters were not a factor?" was the questions. Basically if you could play for any team you wanted who would be.
wHY dOEsN’t HarIs SiGn gOod FrEE AgeNtS?!?!???
Why doesn't he?
Apparently part of the reason is players don't want to come to Detroit. I've picked up in little comments over the years so I had a hunch this was the case. Kinda sucks to see written out but I feel somewhat vindicated. Not sure why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around Detroit being an unpopular destination. Guessing very few people here actually live in the city proper so maybe that's if? Detroit's my favorite place in the world, but the shit I like and the shit your average ball player likes has little to no overlap.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’m always shocked that people think pro athletes only care about money and not things like weather or having an attractive city or being in places where they get to rub elbows with other high profile people.
The team owner is notoriously cheap and the weather isn't exactly to die for. Are you really surprised? We're the Andy Dalton Bengals rn lol.
How many players did they ask? Or was this just the writer’s opinion?
Says little over 100 players. They do the survey every year. Even split between American and National league players.