who's got the best starting eight?

by lboros on Dec 29, 2006 8:19 AM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

friday discussion: which national league team has the best starting eight?

the mets have an excellent case: three mvp-caliber players (beltran, reyes, and wright), a masher at first, an oldie but goodie in left field (alou), and a catcher who can hit. shawn green is their 7th-best hitter; they're strong up the middle defensively. that's a pretty good lineup.

the braves also have an argument. they return four guys who posted OPSs of .894 or better last season (mccann, laroche, and the joneses), and the guy who became their more-or-less-everyday left fielder after august 1st, matt diaz, had an .839 OPS. jeff francouer, who hit 29 homers, is only the braves' 6th or 7th-best hitter. they finished 2d in the nl in runs in 2006.

the rockies have an interesting club: four returnees at .880 or better (helton hawpe holliday and atkins), plus a new, useful bat in centerfield. they also have a young shortstop with loads of potential (tulowitzki), but the kid's only 22 and has just 517 minor-league at-bats; by the time he's really good, hawpe and holliday will be playing for anaheim or whatever. they could be a surprise team --- by pythagorean records, they were only 5 games worse than the nl west leaders in 2006, and only a game worse than the cardinals.

both florida and milwaukee have very talented young lineups that could gell; the dbacks are a step or two behind them, having moved four prospects into place (drew, jackson, quentin, tracey) with a 5th, chris young, on the cusp.

philadelphia's lineup is a lot like the cardinals': three great hitters (howard utley and burrell), some useful ones (rollins, rowand, helms), and some garbage. ditto the cubs, who drop off steeply after lee ramirez and soriano. the astros might score some runs if luke scott is for real and morgan ensberg bounces back, but lord that defense . . . .

the cardinals? they're no better than 3d, imho --- both the mets and braves are clearly superior. if both edmonds and duncan can slug over .500, i'd put the cardinals just below those two teams, but clear of the rest of the field. should either of the left-handed power hitters fail to produce, however, the cards fall back into a crowded pack.

i'm back home saturday, will have a new year's day post and resume a reg'r posting load. have a safe holiday ev'yone.

Tweet Comment 88 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd have to go with the Mets

But I agree with you if Duncan can replicate last year, and Edmonds remain healthy all year, the Cardinals are right up there. Also, ya gotta think Yadi will do better, say .250-.260 and continue his clutch hitting. Not to mention hitting lefties better as a team next year. Granted any team would be potent if they succeeded in all their questionable areas, but I don't think any of those are extremely far-fetched to hope for next year. Gimme three out of four and I will be happy.

"The good Lord was good to me. He gave me a strong body, a good right arm, and a weak mind." -Dizzy Dean

by vince eating tarp on Dec 29, 2006 8:43 AM EST reply actions

Mets.

Reyes and Wright another year older. Still have Delgado and Beltran. LoDuca and Green are predictable and solid pieces. Even if, Valentin and Alou don't pan out (the only real risk in this line-up), they will probably easily be a 900 run team. And last time I checked the Mets had a nice bench Milledge, Chavez, Easley...

I liked the Braves last year and McCann, Francouer, LaRoche are just now coming into their own. A.Jones and Renteria add stability. But, Chipper is the x-factor. If he stay healthy(and McCann), they can wait for someone to show up a 2b and the other corner OF spot. If not, this 850 run team regresses to a 750-800 run team.

I think the Phillies are due for a big decline. Howard, Utley, and Rollins is great, but the outside of Burrell(?) the rest of the line-up is suspect in my opinion. I'd rather bet on the depth of the Dodgers scoring more runs, but both are probably 800 run teams at best as they stand.

The Rockies shouldn't count. If they were not in the top five offenses the previous year, they cannot be that good. Count me as unconvinced of their talent. Pass.

The D-backs and Marlins may improve but the potential for sophomore slumps abound as each player has had time to develop their Major league books. Marlins more so then the d-backs, but the d-backs also lost quite a bit of offense this post-season.

Mediocrity abounds. Sigh...the Cubs probably stand the most obvious club due for a big improvement. A full season of D.Lee and Soriano alone probably gets them to the brink of an 800 run team. Ramirez and Barrett are both plus offense contributors for their positions and Murton and J.Jones are predictable if mediocre parts. Now if they could solve the Cedeno-Izturis-Derosa low obp issue. Good thing the Astros have the same issues in their line-up.

Cardinals have obvious health issues in my book. Rolen and Edmonds need to stay healthy to keep this line-up above average and take the pressure off the rest of the line-up. I don't see this team improving much beyond 781 they scored last year, if everything breaks right.

A bad offense got better (Cubs) and not much else changed.

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up imbittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Dec 30, 2006 10:12 PM EST up reply actions

I like the Padres

Not because they are particularly stellar at any one position but (and they remind me of the 2006 Tigers in this way) they get production from top to bottom.

OF - Giles, Cameron, Sledge/Cruz
IF - Gonzalez, M. Giles, Greene, Kouzmanoff
C - Bard

Only Kouzmanoff strikes me as a 30HR guy but you could have everyone hit at least 15 and maybe Gonzalez and Cameron are 20+. Combine that with some good OBP numbers (esp. B. Giles) and it could be a potent offense. I can't claim full credit for this idea (BP article referenced it I think) but they look like a team that can have individuals slump and see little impact to the offense.

That said, the Mets are the best.

by azruavatar on Dec 29, 2006 8:52 AM EST reply actions

The cards problem is

We have an OBP sinkhole in RF and C. Neither SS or 2B is above average.

However, we have the best combo at 1b/3b. Its anyones guess what CF will do. I'm willing to bet we get decent offense from LF assuming its Duncan and not so playing.

Basically we are probably about the 5th best offensive team. Mets, Phils are both clearly better. You can make a case for the Atl and Reds.

by DriverZn on Dec 29, 2006 9:11 AM EST reply actions

CF OBP Sinkhole?

I think that's a bit strong. Jimmy still managed a .350 OBP in what was a very down year for him. His career OBP is .382, & for his years with the Cards is about .405. I personally expect Jimmy to rebound a bit this year and post something like .270/.385/.515 in 425 AB's.

by cardzfanbub on Dec 29, 2006 9:34 AM EST up reply actions

It says

C, not CF.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 29, 2006 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

Oops!!

Big oversight on my part. I would have to agree with RF and C as big OBP problems. However, I do believe Yadi will bring his numbers up this year. Maybe .250/.300/.375? Still pretty awful.

by cardzfanbub on Dec 29, 2006 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

Braves?

The Braves don't belong anywhere near this discussion.

It's gotta be the Mets, IMO.

by birdjam on Dec 29, 2006 9:48 AM EST reply actions

Braves

their offense was underrated last year and it can only get better with Francouer McCann continuing to progress (the sky's the limit with these 2). Chipper Jones is great when healthy. From top to bottom, the Braves' lineup is better than the Cards'.

Neither team can hold a candle to the Mets, however. Jose Reyes is a dream leadoff hitter: Good OPS, triple-machine, great base-stealer, 15+ HR's. They have a great mix of young and old. David Wright should be even better this year. Delgado is a pimp, and Beltran is Beltran. Lo Duca is a perfect #2 hitter for this team.

No other team in the league has as much "damage" (sorry for the TLR term) up and down the lineup.

by silent_bob on Dec 29, 2006 10:00 AM EST up reply actions

the Braves are underrated

but Francouer needs to learn some plate discipline.

by azruavatar on Dec 29, 2006 10:10 AM EST up reply actions

Francouer

All he does is hit his HR's and nothing else: all or nothing. 132:23(!) K/BB?? Yow.

LoDuca shouldn't be batting 2nd in that lineup. There's no reason they should be giving their 6th best hitter the 2nd most plate appearances.

That said, the fact that LoDuca is their 6th best hitter is impressive. Too bad their pitching is going to be absolutely brutal...

Pujols > God

by joker24 on Dec 29, 2006 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

Check Your Stats First

Birdjam,

I think you may have dismissed the Braves without checking the facts first.

Last year, the Braves had FIVE players with more than 20 dingers. That's better than the Cardinals or the Mets, even if you substitute Alou for Green. After those five, the sixth guy was Renteria, who turned in a .293, 14 homerun, 70 rbi season. Pretty respectable for an SS.

The 7 and 8 spots are their only real problems--2B and LF. But their 2B is comparable to ours, and they balance out their deficit in LF with their advantage behind the plate.

Position for position, the Braves stack up well against any NL competitor. I just don't see the case for dismissing them.

Their pitching on the other hand, now there they have problems . . .

So says, The Dude

by Titus Pullo on Dec 29, 2006 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

Braves Pitching

I expect their pitching to be very good this season. They've fixed their bullpen, and I've heard excellent reports on both Tim Hudson and (believe it or not) Mike Hampton. Those two, plus John Smoltz and an improved Chuck James could be a very good front four in the rotation.

Rafael Soriano wants to start and I'd expect him to be able to succeed in that role. Unless one of those starting four has problems, though, he'll setup for Wickman.

by liam on Dec 29, 2006 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

I still can't believe they stole

Soriano away from the Mariners for Ramirez, that still hurts. I know that while he was still with the Mariners, he wasn't planning on starting anymore, but it would be interesting to see if he could make it as a starter.

by Frerken on Dec 31, 2006 1:38 AM EST up reply actions

This question is easy

It's the Cardinals. This is strictly based on having "game." Our players stepped up when they had to. Other teams could not. I wish I could go back and show a reply to a post I made back in the day. It basically said something to the effect of It doesn't matter which NL team made the World Series, they were going to get throttled by the "bigger, tougher" American League. But the Cardinals of the NL won. So obviously that statement of the American Leeague being superior is false. Another thing is how "weak" the National League central is. That statement is false. If it was weak, then the last three years were luck? Or was it that the Central knows how to step up their game when it mattered. Bottom line is we have only changed one position. 2B with Adam Kennedy. So essentailly the winning attitude has not gone anywhere. Oh and we have Pujols.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 9:55 AM EST reply actions

Hmm...

I disagree... The White Sox players stepped up when they had to in 2005 but they clearly did not field the best lineup in '06. Same thing goes for the Cardinals in my opinion. I'll concede that the Cards miraculously found "game" throughout the playoffs but the fact remains that they won 83 games last year. The fact that they pulled off a World Series upset (which I still celebrate daily I might add) does not necessarily discount the American League as superior. Rather, the Cardinals just played better and made less mistakes in the four games that they won.

As many have noted, if Jimmy's healthier than last year, his numbers could be expected to rise somewhat (although health becomes less of a concern each season than age). Also, it seems likely that we may see a jump in Rolen's production: prolly a few more homeruns and a few less doubles since his shoulder has had some more time to strengthen. C-Dunc will prolly have more HR's and RBI's than he did in '06 but they will come at a much lower rate. Let's hope Molina can't help but improve. Encarnacion will post his career average numbers and Eckstein will hopefully grind out another respectable season. As you said, Adam Kennedy has essentially been the only addition to our starting eight. While he may be expected to marginally improve production from that spot, he's not a guy other teams will be worrying about. No need to mention Pujols.

I'll agree that the Cards offense looks to see improvement in '07, but it seems optimistic to consider them better than the Mets when Green is their 7th best hitter.

by AndyB83 on Dec 29, 2006 10:50 AM EST up reply actions

It doesn't matter

who wins the most regular season games. 105 didn't cut the mustard in 04. What it means is you can still lose in the playoffs. The Mets were the best regular season team this year, but lost in the playoffs. That's kinda what makes me mad about the current system. The NL and AL aren't neccessarily sending their best representatives to the WS. But oh well it's more exciting to watch I guess. Anyways a best line-up to me is the line-up that can step up when they are called upon. Yadier Molina hitting a game-winnning home run? No way! Our staff shutting down the Mets? No way! But they did. That's why they were the best line-up. Since nothing really changed, they still are the best line-up.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 11:24 AM EST up reply actions

On the other hand...

... How could the current system be improved? I am not convinced it needs to be. The playoffs shouldn't - and don't - exist so that the best team can be put on display (although FOX may beg to differ). The only way to ensure that the best representatives from each league be in the World Series would be to punch tickets for the AL and NL teams with the best overall records immediately upon the regular season's end. Although this may lead to superior teams playing in the World Series (it may NOT lead to superior teams when considering how various teams' schedules vary in difficulty), it sure wouldn't lead to superior competition (which is what the playoffs are all about). Teams have had 162 games to find themselves, and whoever is on top of their respective divisions at the end of those games, is allowed to display what they've got. Taking the month of October away would have far too many important implications, and, in a nutshell, as you said, "it's more exciting to watch."

Anyways, I feel like I just rambled a lot. What was I getting to? Just because a team completed the final competition on top does not automatically warrant them top-dog status come dawn of a new season. Also, just because a player steps up in a particular situation does not mean that his greatness continues except for in that moment. Think Aaron Boone and his HR for the Yankees. I wouldn't go too far out of my way to acquire him despite his past heroism. The Cardinals don't have the best line-up; they just played the best October baseball.

by AndyB83 on Dec 29, 2006 4:44 PM EST up reply actions

Here's how it could be improved:

A return to the old, two-division formant, without a wild card, and with only two rounds to the playoffs. I have yet to see how the current format is better than the format that existed before the mid nineties.
'
Perhaps, it's just me missing the rivalry against the mets, but I don't think so. I think the old format didn't allow for quite so many fluke teams as the current one does.

It's not exactly like the way that things are done are how they have been done since time immemorial.

by Valatan on Dec 29, 2006 9:51 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah...

... but unlikely a return will happen given the amount of revenue generated through wild-card entries from each league. Of course I don't have the actual figures, but I doubt MLB would be willing to forfeit 4 or 5 games worth of 40,000 fans buying tickets. Also, it keeps a couple additional fan-bases involved in the action for a bit longer. I doubt there's an imminent change on the horizon for the playoffs other than maybe the all-star game determining WS home-field advantage.

by AndyB83 on Dec 30, 2006 10:16 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I know

I would be willing to at least live with a best of seven divisional series. A five game series in baseball is stupid.

by Valatan on Dec 30, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

I'll concede that point.

by AndyB83 on Dec 30, 2006 4:28 PM EST up reply actions

Why are they called Pythagorean records?

n/t

by eeyorethedog on Dec 29, 2006 10:17 AM EST reply actions

You take

the number of runs scored, and square it, and the number of runs given up and square it. Add the squared #'s together to get a total. Divide the squared runs scored # by the total and that gives you a %. Multiply that % times 162 and that gives you the # of games the team should have won given their #s of runs scored and runs given up. Subtract the # from 162 and that gives their expected losses. It's the Pythagorean theorem for expected wins.

by chuckb on Dec 29, 2006 11:42 AM EST up reply actions

That

has nothing to do with Pythagoras or any of his theorems.

by eeyorethedog on Dec 29, 2006 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

No but the (mathamatical) mechanics are similar.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Bill James

Named it so because it resembled the Pythgorean theory in a way. It doesn't really make any sense but that's how it goes.

There are actually more accurate ways of measuring a record that account for the scoring environment, but the Pythag record is basically easier to remember and do.

Pujols > God

by joker24 on Dec 29, 2006 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

YaMo

I love Yadi to death, but man... it's hard to be the best offensive team in the league when your C is hitting .216. I said before last year that I expected Yadi to have a breakout year in '06, something akin to .260/15/70-ish. I still think he has the potential to pull that off (sited source: playoffs), but it may still be a few years away.

That being said, the best offensive team in the NL: Albert Pujols.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Dec 29, 2006 10:20 AM EST reply actions

I think Oquendo as his hitting coach will help.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

No doubt

Just by actually following Oq's advice to drop his back shoulder and take the ball to the opposite field whenever necessary led to Yadi hitting so well early in the playoffs that he got bumped up a spot in the lineup for Game 7, NLCS.

And thank God he did...

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Dec 29, 2006 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

On "paper"...

the Mets look like the strongest lineup, but Carlos Beltran (and, to a lesser extent, Carlos Delgado,) seemed to be "hurt" by their home park. Beltran, #5 in the league overall in OPS at .952, hit only .224 with 15 (of his 41) homers at Shea. He did walk 53 times at home (42 walks on the road,) so his Shea OPS was .855.

Delgado hit .226 with 18 of his 38 "taters" at Shea, with a home OPS of .816 as opposed to his overall OPS of .909, good for 14th in the league.

David Wright was #11 in the NL in OPS at .912, with Jose Reyes #29 at .841. That's four awfully good hitters to build a lineup around.

El Hombre led the league in OPS with 1.102 (only Ryan Howard and Lance Berkman joined Pujols with 1.000+ OPS,) while the next Cardinal on the list was Scott Rolen, #22 at .887. (Guys such as Duncan and Edmonds didn't have enough ABs to qualify at The Hardball Times stats page.

Where the Mets are hurting is in the rotation... they didn't get Zito, they won't have Pedro at the start of the year (at least,) and Glavine is another year older.

"A man should live forever, or die trying." -- Mike Callahan

by The Ol Goaler on Dec 29, 2006 10:42 AM EST reply actions

Mets

I think the Cardinals' performance in the playoffs helped prove that the Mets' offense can be contained. They're always a threat but not the unstoppable force everyone made them out to be.

Check out my new Cardinals blog: http://rockinred.blogspot.com

by rockin the red on Dec 29, 2006 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

it seems...

... any offense can be contained with good pitching.

by AndyB83 on Dec 29, 2006 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

Good pitching

beats good hitting in the playoffs. Every time. You can't ignore a whole year of the Mets dominating the league offensively. We shut them down 6/7 games in the series, but do not discount the regular season. I like the home/road splits in the comment above. This proves even more that the Mets have the best offense. Despite the pitcher's park they play in, they still dominated the legaue.

And they will again this year. They're going to have to score some runs. Their #1 starter is over 40.

by silent_bob on Dec 29, 2006 10:57 AM EST up reply actions

Agree

The daunting task of beating the Mets lineup in 06 NLCS came down to Carpenter, Weaver, Suppan, and Reyes. With the exception of Carpenter, the rest of the staff was suspect. (Suppan, like Glavine relies on location and "the corners." If those weren't there this would have been a different game.) Nobody here really thought the Cards had a fighting chance but they won. Why? Again it comes down to heart or game or whatever you want to call it. So yes I agree the Mets are the most potent line-up. But when it comes to that "gut-check" time, their knees buckle looking at the sickest curve I have ever seen thrown.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 11:00 AM EST up reply actions

It comes down to luck

Anytime you have a sample size as small as best of five or best of seven, it's just luck. Who's hot, who's not.

Old sayings like 'pitching wins championships' are old sayings. There's no basis of fact. The Cardinals actually had a horrible staff and yet, for a span of 15 games, pitched pretty well overall.

Even the worst teams can have pretty decent half-month stretches in the season.

This is why WJ and DeWitt are actually smart by not bending to the market and the whims of the younger fans who bash for not 'doing what it takes' to get top name free agents to sign. There's no way to predict you will actually win the World Series...even if you have a completely over the top team.

The best team hasn't won the WS in over 10 years. It's a crap shoot. The best philosophy is one like we have...aim to make the playoffs year after year and some years, luck will be on yous side. You will have unlucky years like 2004, and very lucky years like 2006.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 29, 2006 11:23 AM EST up reply actions

WOW

That's the best analysis i've seen this posting session. That's the reason to me this system is broken, but working. I don't like the current system because it doesn't take the regular season into account. Or there is no reward for being the best team during the regular season. Switch teams and be a mets fan for a second. You just lost to an 83 win team. Just because they were hot at the right moment. But you have been toughing it out day in and out winning games that ultimately are meaningless because all you really have to do is get in and get lucky. I think they need to figure out a way to have the team with the best record automatically get to the NLCS or ALCS. They earned at least that with there regular season performance.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

There is an advantage

They had home field for the division series and the LCS. Plus, they were, ostensibly, the best team. Put the best team at home for 4 out of 7 games and they should win, right? What are we supposed to do, give them an extra 2 wins? You want to give them a whole series? If they're truly the best, they shouldn't have had any trouble beating us with their home field advantage.

The only time they wouldn't have had home field is in the World Series where, I'll agree, the team with the better regular season record should have home field advantage. Bud's ridiculous system of rewarding it to the league who wins the All-Star Game makes me wonder if he's been doubling up on his medication!

by chuckb on Dec 29, 2006 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

True, but...

There's enormous pressure on the team with the better record to win its first two games at home. If those 2 games split, then the advantage shifts to the visiting team returning home for a 3 game series, giving them the chance to win in 5. You could argue that if the team with the worse record can take 4 of 5, then they are simply playing better baseball and deserve to advance, and thus justify the current 2-3-2 system.

But what about 2-2-2-1? It seems to me this would give the team with the better record an improved shot at winning in 6 or less, but would eliminate their advantage in a 7 game scenario. This would force the team with the worst record to have to win 3 games to get the advantage, not just 1.

by age3in82 on Dec 29, 2006 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

That's not a big enough one

Let's say that a 105 win team played a 83 win team. Who would win? The 105 win team? Right? But they haven't for the past three years. Is this a small sample size? Maybe. The problem I have is that there is NO REWARD for being the best team in your league. Home field advantage is not a big enough factor. It's 4 games or 3. All you have to do is win one away and then it's a bigger advantage of having 3 home games in a row at home to clean house. Maybe it would be better to have the better team play all of their 4 games in a row. Since they should win, that shouldn't be a problem. Then if they screw it up, they have to "re-prove" themselves by having to win one on the road. Again I keep coming back to the regular season. This current system makes it seem like the regular season seem unimportant. All you have to do is get in, then it's anybodys game. It should be the team that proved day in and out they could withstand the rigors of the regular season. If it isn't important, then we don't need so many games. Knock it down by 50 games since it really doesn't matter anyway.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

So really you're not going to be happy

Unless the team with the most regular season wins advances to the World Series right? So then just don't have the playoffs and proceed with the two teams with the best record in each league to play each other.
If that is not what you are saying then I don't see your point. Look, the team with the best record has an advantage. Yes it is not an overwhelming advantage, but it is an advantage.
This is a good system and it has the last few years made for really enjoyable playoff series.
Also your theory makes some sense when considering a 103 win versus an 83 win team, but what if you have one team that won 95 and another that won 97? Why should the team that won two more games get a huge advantage like playing four consecutive home games to start the series?
The system is set up now so that the regular season and playoffs remain interesting and competitive. There is no reason to make it absurdly difficult for wild cards or division winners with fewer regular season victories to actually win a series. If that is what you are going to do, then why even have series? And don't forget that owners/management/fans want each series to go seven games so that they get the maximum number of butts in seats and television viewing.

by OCCardsFan on Dec 29, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Kind of

I realize this is a business. I realize they are trying to maximize revenue. I do think it's better to send the teams with the best records to the world series. They deserve it by essentially winning the regular season. However we currently have a playoff format. This format makes everyone equal. So the 83 win team or the 105 win team is not that anymore. They are 0-0. Or equal. The regular season is thrown out the window. I think the playoff should be more of a second chance type of thing. The team with less wins must prove they belong in the World Series. They must play at a disadvantage and if they still come out on top, they should go. That way it recognizes what a team did during the regular season, and gives the other teams a chance to go. What's so bad about that? Because it's not fair? Well it shouldn't be! The 83 win team needs to be at the bottom of the mountain and earn it every game.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Bust most years you won't have this disparity

What about if you have two teams with the same or similar records? How would your system deal with that?

Consider:
2004 ALCS - Yankees 101 wins, Red Sox 98 wins
2003 NLCS - Cubs 88 wins, Marlins 91 wins

I don't see why a few wins over the course of the season should be the predetermining factor in who wins the playoffs and the world series. Further conflating the problem is the fact that there are unbalanced schedules and interleague divisional rivalries.

I agree that it seems strange that 83 win cardinal team wins it all, but really the NLCS was a very close series. I just don't see any need to change the system (except maybe the five game format for the first round).

by OCCardsFan on Dec 29, 2006 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

I get it

but this is my answer to LB's question. It doesn't matter who has the best starting 8, cause all you have to do is get in. Then it doesn't matter. it just depends what kind of team shows up. Again it throws what a team did during the regular season out of it. I just don't think a team deserves to be on a level playing field that proved during the regular season they weren't.

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 2:02 PM EST up reply actions

so why even play the playoffs

why not just decide the champ based on who has the best regular season record?

Isn't it exactly the same in every professional sport?

And, not enough of an advantage? They have the best team! That's the best advantage of all! They should bbe able to beat an 83 win team if they played on a neutral field!

by chuckb on Dec 29, 2006 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

But they haven't

for at least 3 years. Why?

Official member of the Willie McGee fan club.

by OKCardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

The White Sox

were the best team in '05 (in my opinion); but other than that, I don't think the "best team" has won since the Yanks dynasty.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Dec 29, 2006 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

It Counts

The regular season counts more in baseball than other sports. Only 8 teams make the playoffs in MLB while 16 make it for NBA and NHL and 12 for NFL. (83 win teams rarely make the playoffs in baseball), but mediocre, sometimes sub .500 teams make it in other sports.

In baseball, if you get in, you earned it.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Dec 29, 2006 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

Copy editor alert

The 1998 Yankees were far and away the best regular-season team that year. They swept the Padres in the World Series.

But your point is still right-on.

Sign Kurt Kepshire! The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Dec 29, 2006 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

Barring some big surprises,

I don't believe the Cards starting 8 is very strong anymore. If you go down the lineup and give our guys "plus" and "minus" grading, you get something like...

C --
1B +++
2B 0
3B +
SS 0
RF -
CF +
LF 0

I know its possible that the various positions could do better, but I think my grades are pretty realistic. I may be underestimating Ya'Mo, but I am cutting Eck, A'Ken, and Miles some slack. Basically we have a slightly worse than average line-up without Pujols. Pujols puts us into above average territory, but if he goes down we are screwed.

As for the original question at hand, off the top of my head, I'd say the Mets, but like LB, I wouldn't count the Braves out.

In our own division, I expect that the Brew-Crew to have not only the best hitting but the best pitching. (If they had the managerial/ coaching talent the Cardinals have they would run away with the division.) I think everyone sorely underestimates the Cubs and I'd put them a solid number two. The Cardinals will be mixed in with the rest.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 12:56 PM EST reply actions

No one ever went broke

by underestimating the Cubs.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 29, 2006 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

The cubs offense should be pretty good.

The problem is their pitching.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 8:13 PM EST up reply actions

Has anyone seen the Zips projections for the Mets?

Hate 'em. Very bearish on Beltran and they see drops for Delgado, Reyes and a huge drop for Paul Lo Duca, which comes as no surprise considering he'll be 35.

Very old team that is going to score about 785 runs.

The best offense would have to be either the Braves or Phillies. Both teams had extremely underrated offenses last season, with the Phillies piling up 865 runs. The Braves are going to see a small drop if they deal Adam LaRoche -- but McCann and the Jones Boys can give any Top 3 a run for their money.

by ryanisforever on Dec 29, 2006 1:48 PM EST reply actions

The Best Team Winning the WS

I keep reading (here and other places) that the best team hasn't won the WS in 10 years. Am I remembering incorrectly, or didn't the Yankees win something like 114 games in '98 and then the WS?

by Pokey Joe on Dec 29, 2006 2:08 PM EST reply actions

More on the Mutts

A blind comparison on who has the edge:

1B - Cardinals
2B - Cardinals
3B - Cardinals
SS - Mets
LF - Cardinals
CF - Mets
RF - Push
C - Mets (by a slight edge)

I think it's important for people to remember just how old this lineup is. Remember the 2005 Cardinals? The Mets are going to have offensive sinkholes at C and 2B and possibly RF because Green is on the way down.

by ryanisforever on Dec 29, 2006 2:37 PM EST reply actions

Lo Duca a sinkhole?

Wow. You're drinking too much red koolaid.

Wright and Rolen is a push, at best. I personally think Rolen is going to bust out again this year, but Wright will too. Wright is younger. Tell me who you'd rather have on your team at this moment. I also don't think we have an edge at LF or RF. If anything, RF is a push with Juan E. vs SG.

How can Lo Duca be a "slight edge" over Molina when he is the #2 hitter for the best middle of the order in the league?

by silent_bob on Dec 29, 2006 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah...

it's ok to be a little biased, but this is taking it too far.

2nd base is a push at best: Valentin slugged 490 last year with decent defense... even if he drops off he'll be better than Kennedy.

3rd is a push at best: Wright was superior last year and will likely get better.

RF is advantage Mets: Green seems destined for another 270/350/450, which is basically Juan with 30 fewer outs made... OTOH Juan is better defensively (really!)

LF is advantage Mets: Alou is old but Duncan might revert to pre-2006 form. If both have good (for them) 2007s, Alou will be better b/c he can play everyday.

C is advantage Mets by a lot: No explanation should even be required for this...

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 29, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

Alou can play everday?!

Ahahahahah, come on now man, that's just dumb. Alou will be lucky to play 100 games next year. He only played 98 games last year, 123 the year before that. Duncan will play just as many games next year as Alou will.

I agree with you about second base, Valentin has the advantage over Kennedy. I disagree with Wright being better than Rolen. Rolen was at 75% health and was just as good.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 29, 2006 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

What I meant...

was that Alou can handle lefties and righties, so a platoon situation is unnecessary.

A "good" year for Alou is one in which he stays relatively uninjured and plays 130 games, taking off days when the skipper feels its appropriate. That's more or less playing everyday in my book. It's about as likely to happen as Duncan replicating his 2006 season. At best Duncan will sit against lefties again, be subbed out in late inning situations, and play brutal defense even worse than Alou.

Advantage: Mets.

Acquire Randy Johnson!

by guayzimi on Dec 29, 2006 8:03 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree on Wright.

Both Rolen and Wright faded down the stretch. But, Rolen was obviously worn down from that shoulder. Do you remember how dominant he was halfway through? He carried us while Albert was out. I think Rolen is going to have a really good year. I think at worst it will be a push.

by Carps on Dec 29, 2006 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly.

A worn down Rolen still played better defense and was toe-to-toe with Wright offensively.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Dec 29, 2006 6:26 PM EST up reply actions

This is going to be a tough season...

I really think we'll have trouble winning the NL Central. We really didn't improve much at all this offseason (so far), but our rivals did (except the Astros, who I feel got worse). However, I totally support WJ's lack of overspending on mediocre free agents. I still feel that the market will revert back to normal next year, and alot of teams will be stuck with stupid contracts.

I'm happy to accept one year of struggles to not be hampered for the next 4.

Miller sucks.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Dec 29, 2006 2:49 PM EST reply actions

Who should win

OK. What you all are missing is the human element to playoff baseball. You forget that winning 100 games is as much a testament to depth (see the '04 Cards rotation) as to greatness. Teams that win a lot of games in the regular season are good from 1 to 5 in their rotation, have a deep bullpen, and a good bench.

Teams that win in the playoffs don't have to be that deep for a myriad of reasons. They only need 3 starters (4 is a nice luxury), they don't need a deep bullpen, and they don't even need a really deep lineup. All they need is a few great performers. The Card's top 3 starters were good all season last year. They stacked up against anyone. They had a couple of great bullpen arms emerge. They also had a lineup that was thin, but deadly in the middle.

It's not the difference in sample size that makes playoff baseball so much different. It is simply that a team can be built to win in the playoffs and not be that great in the regular season. The opposite is true for a great regular season roster as well.

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Dec 29, 2006 2:57 PM EST reply actions

I agree with your assement of pitching,

but disagree with you about playoff hitting. IMHO, a solid lineup is more important in the post-season for a variety of reasons, but perhaps the best I had mentioned here.

Basically since weaknesses are attacked so mecrilessly, guys with obvious weaknesses or holes are rendered ineffective. I you have too many weak hitters, the few that are left can be pitched around.

I do agree that bench depth is less of an issue. While obviously a big game can be decided with a well timed pinch hit, I think that is more than offset by not having to rest regulars in the short term.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Hands down: The Mets

I don't see much of a discussion here. On paper, the Mets have the best starting 8 in the NL and they are in the top 5 in the AL.

Viva El Hombre! http://nwcardsfans.blogspot.com/

by nwcardsfan on Dec 29, 2006 4:33 PM EST reply actions

Apropos of nothing, but...

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061222&content_id=1766868&vkey=news_mlb &fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Brosius? A Hall of Famer? Are you kidding?

by svengali on Dec 29, 2006 5:59 PM EST reply actions

Ever Read Bill James' book

The Politics of Glory?

The atrocious Brosius should never be on a bollot. If he even gets more than 2% I might puke.

A career line of .257/.323/.466 playing 3rd base on two very good offensive teams in the American League during the steroid era over 11 seasons, only 7 of which he was a starter is not even remotely hall-worthy. How do you put him on the ballot when a guy like Will Clark only got 4% last year and is droped from the ballot?

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 8:10 PM EST up reply actions

I think...

We all know why he has even a remote shot at the HOF.

by svengali on Dec 30, 2006 6:17 PM EST up reply actions

Weaver

Don't know if this has been brought up before, but Weaver is supposedly looking for 4/40.

link: http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061229/SPORTS01/612290391/1108

by CougarCard on Dec 29, 2006 9:13 PM EST reply actions

Who is stupid enough to pay that?

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 29, 2006 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

The Brewers?

n/t

by sdrone on Dec 29, 2006 9:40 PM EST up reply actions

You comparing soup to the mullet?

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 30, 2006 12:33 AM EST up reply actions

this market is so out of control right now

that he might get a 3 or 4 year contract. I'm not sure who will give it to him but I hope it isn't the Cardinals. We all remember his postseason heroics but he was to the Angels what Marquis was to us during the regular season. Weaver was well below replacement level for the better part of the first half.

by azruavatar on Dec 29, 2006 10:01 PM EST up reply actions

just remember

Weaver isn't nearly as bas as he was with the Angels, either. He has had some pretty respectable numbers in the NL if I recall.

by madding on Dec 30, 2006 12:20 AM EST up reply actions

and in the AL w/ the Tigers

He's 29 or 30 and has been solid for 5 of the last 7 seasons. He'll get $8-10 M per year. Besides, that's what he's looking for, not his minimum. He'll probably get around 3 years, $27 M.

by chuckb on Dec 30, 2006 12:41 AM EST up reply actions

I think he will get

Jason Marquis Money... $8M/ year over 3 years or so. His history is just too suspect and he is really weak against lefties.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 30, 2006 1:23 AM EST up reply actions

Looking back.....

Considering the starting 8....it's hard to believe we beat the Mets. But it happened!

by Louisville Slugger on Dec 29, 2006 11:19 PM EST reply actions

Hmmmm..

Any opinions on how the execution of Saddam Hussein will affect the 2007 Cardinals? I feel it can only be a positive.

Seriously though, my X-mas wish is Weaver at a reasonable price...maybe Ohka too.

by Fitz on Dec 30, 2006 1:11 AM EST reply actions

8 names leaked

ESPN reported that 8 names were leaked, but did not give the names..I wonder how long until that happens...What would be really funny is if these tests while everyone is saying Bonds, Clemens and others turned out to be like Journey men pitchers and a guy like Julio Lugo...it'd be real ironic.

I never am one to really throw guys into this cloud, other than Bonds and his drastic body change there is another that bulked and lost it...Did anyone notice in the series how small Pudge looked?

heres a marlin pic http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.poyi.org/61/04/photos/61-04-DuyoR-01.jpg&imgre furl=http://www.poyi.org/61/04/duyos01.php&h=400&w=312&sz=49&hl=en&start=1&t bnid=uZ3QllmoamxZzM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIvan%2BRodriguez%2Bas%2Ba%2Bmar lin%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Dactive

and Tigers
http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/det/images/fan_forum/wallpapers/pudge_1024x768.jpg

He just looked tiny in the WS may have just been me, but maybe he just lost weight
I like the guy always have but I noticed his body change not as drastic as Bonds head becoming the goodyear, but slight

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 30, 2006 2:00 AM EST reply actions

Slight weight changes

Hmm you could be right, but slight weight changes could be a matter of conditioning, eating, rest, sickness...

Besides while Pudge looks like he is leaner and toned, than before, in either mode he doesn't look bulky. And his power has been pretty consistent since 2001.

I may be niave, but considering the knee problems associated with steroids, I'd guess that catchers would be among the least likely users.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 30, 2006 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

good point

about the knee thing...I know his name has been mentioned and if you google his name and pics of him he has def changed looks throughout his career he was heavy then bulked to muscle then got lean...He never was a beast so it could all be natural...I just noticed during the series he was a lot leaner.(again could all be natural)

Kenny is a "dirt" bag?

by punchinjudy on Dec 30, 2006 9:29 PM EST up reply actions

ESPN dis'es the cardinals again

On their poll of top sport stories of the year the Tigers, A-rod, Bonds and Steriods (in general) are mentioned, but the Cardinals are not.

He called fate's bluff on a cool New York night, October 19th, 2006.

by Number47 on Dec 30, 2006 9:35 PM EST reply actions

The Cards were #2 in votes

For the Best Championship Team, however, on the site with 17% of the vote.

A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Dec 30, 2006 11:28 PM EST reply actions

Dissed again

On espn, there's also an article about the top underdog stories of the year. i think we can agree that the cardinals were very big underdogs this year. they didnt even make a list. detroit making the world series was on the list though. no love for the greatest baseball town on the planet.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2710302

by roscoe on Dec 31, 2006 2:06 AM EST reply actions