Rick Porcello, Detroit Tigers Looking For Consistency
Sometimes, the Detroit Tigers look unstoppable, a super team that has no business being associated with the mediocrity that is the AL Central.
Then, right before they hit their stride to solidify themselves among the top in baseball, a skid comes that leaves everyone confused. Last night was another chance for the Tigers to prove that they were finally ready to roll at home against the last place Chicago White Sox with a Justin Verlander that seemed to be coming back to the MVP that he is.
However, the offense struggled again in a game that they should have thrived in, and the White Sox broke their season record in runs and hits in an embarrassing blowout that once again brings Detroit back to a state of confusion. The Tigers are now in a position of needing to avoid another slide but with Rick Porcello on the mound, life has been a proverbial box of chocolates.
Porcello’s path this season has been similar to the Tigers’ season: flashes of absolute brilliance (seven innings of shutout ball on the road against the Cleveland Indians in his last outing), followed by moments that make you wonder how he even has a roster spot (seven runs in 4.1 innings on June 25).
Sometimes the ball finds holes and that can explain some of the inconsistency, but there is no doubt that most of it has to do with how well Porcello’s stuff is on a given day. On some days, the cutter is Roy Halladay-esque and on others, it has absolutely no movement and just sits on a tee for the batter to crush.
Tonight is a night where the Tigers are going to need the quality version of Rick Porcello.
The Tigers are surviving purely on the weakness of the AL Central, but each day lost is a chance at gaining home field with the division lead. This team has struggled on the road this season, so it would be a useful to have home field advantage going forward. If anything, Tigers fans deserve a little stability and security — I mean, we’ve already lost years of life due to stress, why can’t we be spared for once?