new shack attack

Also don't forget the stiff batting lead-off...

...Top 5 in the NL in batting average. The key for Albert has been the #8 hitter. Miles keeps getting on, and Eck and Johnny Rod make sure Albert gets an opportunity to drive in runs.

by Hardcore Legend on May 30, 2006 12:49 AM EDT reply actions

it would be tempting

to start batting the pitcher 8th to increase the number of men on base when the lineup turns over.

8/13/79- Lou Brock 3000 hits

by lb3000 on May 30, 2006 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions

obviously have something to do with Albert's RBI rate being about 1.5 times what it normally is for him. It's nice to see people on base when he comes up. This has been a sore spot for me the past couple of years, because it seemed like Pujols was leading off innings or coming up with the bases empty far too often.

I suppose that Luna and Spiezio deserve some of the credit as well.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Cards Home Opener DVD for US Armed Forces

Anyone hear anything else this. I think it's great that FSN did this for the troops overseas. At the same time, I'd love to get a copy of the first game at Busch for my collection.

Thumbs up to FSN!

by Hardcore Legend on May 30, 2006 1:32 AM EDT reply actions

if you find out

that a dvd would be available to the general public, please let me know. the home opener was the day my son was born, so we've got a small collection of busch iii opening day memorabilia for him.

by gthedamned on May 30, 2006 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions

How awesome is that!

And a win makes it all the more special. My daughter was born the same day Albert Pujols made his MLB debut. She thinks that is the coolest thing ever.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on May 30, 2006 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions

nice stat"

"the 11th time one of his dingers has put st louis in front", but I'm curious how many games the home team has won in which el hombre has homered. It seems to me that sunday (el hombre homers, team loses) against sd was an aberration.

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 8:02 AM EDT reply actions

the cards are 18-4

when albert homers

by lboros on May 30, 2006 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

at the game, too

I was at the game as well, my first trip to the new park. I was in a party box, unbeknownst to me when I purchased the tickets. Can't wait to hear your impressions of the park. I didn't find it to be anything too special -- just a new park. Although in the party box area I received free food, free beer, and absolutely no lines in the rest room -- even after the game. Best part of the party room: shade. Our outdoor seats were under the second deck overhang.

by PhatAlbert on May 30, 2006 9:31 AM EDT reply actions

Stadium Impressions

First, let me wave my credentials. When I stepped into Busch III, it was the 26th major league park that I have been in--personal hobby. Anyway, the not "anything too special" comment is right on target. What I liked about the old girl was that, by the end, she WAS the only cookie cutter left, and so there wasn't anything like her in Baseball. What was cool about Camden and the Jake were that there wasn't anything like them when they were built. But now, Busch III looks just like Turner, which looks like Petco, which looks like PNC. The open air quality is nice, the view of the arch from the 3rd base side is better than the view of downtown from the first base side. The Cardinals are dominating teams in the park, so homefield is working. And yesterday being my 4th trip there, it's beginning to feel like baseball home. That being said...

The seats are more expensive, there's fewer of them, and they're harder to get. How is this a positive? And the last thing. With the enclosed Busch II, we could put up a deafening racket. Yesterday's shot was the closest I've come, and then in the 9th we tried to distract the last batter, but the acoustics just aren't there. The price you pay for the open feeling.

Sum up...the team might be better off, but the fans aren't.

by tinstl on May 30, 2006 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

whipping boys

Jason Marquis and Juan Encarnacion...the El Birdos whipping boys :)

I'm not sure why we are obsessed with "categorizing" Marquis. Also, all of his success can't be luck related. Is some of it? Sure, maybe. Im guessing if young Mr. Reyes throws up the exact same line tonight we would be singing his praises and clamoring him to have a permanent rotation spot.

I realize wins is an overrated stat but you need to usually pitch 5+ decent innings...work long into games..etc. He does that. He now has the second best opponent BA,second best WHIP and the least amount of hits/IP of any of our starters.

Yes, all blind luck I know. Right now I am alot less worried when he takes the mound than when Mulder or Suppan toe the rubber.

Maybe if we spent less time worrying about what Marquis DOESNT do and enjoy what he can do we wouldn't obsess over the lad's misgivings.

The guy is 35-25 as a Cardinal with a 4.05 ERA and 1.35 WHIP. An Ace? No. But a pretty darned good No. 3 guy. Let's focus on what he can do and not on what he can't.

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 10:00 AM EDT reply actions

chew on this

What Pujols is doing doesn't make sense, it is going against all logic and all formulas and most likely won't continue to happen at this pace all season. BUT, are we moaning and groaning about how its a fluke? NO! We are going crazy, enjoying it and hoping it lasts all year.

But when Marquis is doing good, some folks just want to harp on how he didn't have 10 k's or how he hit 3 batters or how he didnt post a 2-1 gb to fb ratio. Can't we just be happy that the guy is keeping us in games and pitching deep into the 7th and 8th inning in over 2/3 of his starts!?

He is no ace, but I'll take him as my #3/4 guy anyday. The double standard that some of you have on here is incredible.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions

If Pujols were Marquis

If we treated Pujols like we do Marquis, all you would have read on this site yesterday would have been people moaning and whining about why Pujols didn't hit that home run in the 5th. Why did he wait till the 7th and why did he only hit it a few rows deep? What kind of crap is that? He needs to put that in the 3rd deck!!! Besides, it didn't look pretty coming off his bat, but somehow it got out. If that would have been hit in the Nats park, it would have been out...or if the wind had been blowing in, we woulda lost the game cuz Albert didn't come through.

I know I'm being a bit extreme, just trying to show my point.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

i never said

marquis wasn't a serviceable #4 starter. but the cardinals already have two other serviceable #4 starters. they're named ponson and suppan. the team doesn't need another one of those.

moreover, the point isn't whether marquis is a serviceable #4. the point is whether his high win total -- tied for 3d in the league -- is an accurate reflection of his skill level. i don't think it is -- and it sounds like even you don't think so.

i guess i could compliment marquis for outpitching roy oswalt, but i don't think he outpitched anybody. i think marquis pitched a sloppy game and got away with it.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Correction: The Birds have

THREE other #4 starters. Match up Marquis' and Mulder's numbers. MM has a better (but not good) K/BB, but has given up more hits and has a worse WHIP.

And yet, the wins keep on coming.

by MdRedbirdFreak on May 30, 2006 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

see below

mulder's got 8 quality starts in 11 outings. marquis has 5.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions

This, to me,

is the heart of the "Marquis Argument." It's not so much a dislike of Marquis; it's that they have three #4's already. Ponson has been the best, but he's been lucky at times too. Still, he displays a level of consistency. Soop, as well, tends to be at least somewhat consistent. Marquis is the question mark, and on top of it he can be a crybaby. He's the odd-man out in that trio IMO, so he's the guy I'd try to deal. What we need is a real #2. Imagine Carp, [say, Jason Schmidt or his like], Mulder, Ponson, Soop. Now that's a rotation I could feel comfortable with. Marquis is just too much a headcase for me. Outside influences seem to have way too much sway over how he will perform on a given day.

by rockin redbird on May 30, 2006 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I believe that Lboros has made the point

that Marquis is regressing each year and that's the problem I have with him. He had a very good first year in St. Louis, but hasn't pitched that well since, other than flashes of brilliance here and there. He did the same thing with Atlanta, so you might say that it's to be expected.

Having said that, I think we are too hard on him sometimes. At the same time, however, I think most of us like him personally and would love to see him put everything together. But if your TLR, then how do know which Marquis is going to show up when you're making out the schedule? How do you know when you've given him enough chances to become the awesome third starter he could be or when it's time to realize that he's only getting worse and there are better options than Marquis at the top of your AAA rotation? These are questions that Marquis has to answer on the field and we seem to be moving further away from them as time passes.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

apples and oranges

I hope that you're right about Marquis, but El Hombre's performance defies description, but there is precedence for it. He has incresed production this year over that which we've come to expect. But Mcgwire and bonds have had hr seasons like this and his other nubmers compare favorably to his previous seasons. As per numerous discussions here, can we count on his continued performance in the posteseason. It's likely. Ask Brad Lidge.

On the other hand, when Marquis is good, he's very, very good; or very, very lucky. Doesn't matter which, when he's good or lucky, el birdos win. When he's bad, he's very bad or very unlucky - but usually bad and the team loses. What can we count on in the postseason from Jason? Unpredictability. Not what I'm looking for.

I don't think it's harping, but I don't think that we can bury our heads in the sand with pleasure that he's pitching deep into games when the stats indicate we're due for another 3 or 4 game losing streak that looks as bad as the winning streaks look good.

I don't believe that's a double standard. Pujols has proved himself over and over again. He defies description, categorization, statistical analysis. Marquis is common. An innings-eater with great stuff who alternates flashes of brilliance with flashes of crapulence with flashes of mediocrity with flashes of stud starter with flashes of frightening starter.

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions

This isn't a very good analogy,

No matter how many times you post it.

For one thing, Marquis isn't even very successful this year--the guy's ERA is over 4.70. He's not "going against all logic", and unlike Pujols he hasn't shown he can be successful over an entire season doing what he's doing, which is striking out nobody, showing poor control, and allowing as many flyballs as grounders.

Pujols may be a strange case, but it's not totally without comparison; he's just in the upper echelon of all-time hitters, and he's off to the best start of his career. If Jason Marquis had an ERA in the low 3s and was getting a ton of groundballs or showing off that late-2005 control we would be a lot more lenient, because even though he probably wouldn't keep the ERA up--like Pujols probably won't keep the slugging up--we could see what it is that was making him successful, and it would be a repeatable skill. Low BABIP, unless you throw a knuckleball, isn't a repeatable skill. It isn't for Marquis, and it isn't for Ponson, so I don't think I'm setting a double standard.

by DanUpBaby on May 30, 2006 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

pujols' superlatives

accurately reflect his abilities --- best player on the planet.

marquis' superlatives -- ie, 3d-highest win total in the nl -- in no way reflect his true level of ability. he's not even the 3d-best pitcher on the team, much less 3d-best in the league.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

While I agree

with most everything said about Marquis, it's those issues which will make it hard to deal him, at least for any player of substance. I fear that letting him walk after the season may be the only way to get rid of him.

by cardsrul on May 30, 2006 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions

So,

who is the third best pitcher on the team? I'm assuming we can all name #1, but I'm curious as to who you think is 2, 3, 4, 5, and why. I'm sure that will generate some debate, which is what drives a good blog, (and why I take counterpoints so often!)

by flynn on May 30, 2006 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

My order

Carp
Mulder
Ponson
Suppan
Marquis

Mulder and Suppan have struggled, but I think their record speaks for itself. Ponson's the big unknown, because I don't know about him and he hasn't had enough games yet, but I like what I've seen so far.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions

rotation

If you are basing it on W/L record, wouldn't Marquis be #1?

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not basing it on record though

Other than yesterday's impressive win over Oswalt and the Astros, I don't remember who Marquis has faced this season, but it wouldn't be fair to compare records if he's faced much easier competition than Carpenter, which I'd say is likely. I point this out because records aren't a good reflection of a pitcher's abilities imo.

If you disagree then you must believe that Marquis has been better than Carp and I doubt that you do.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions

I have to type something here...

No chance Marquis is better than Carp. But in your previous post you said that Mulder and Sup's records spoke for themselves. So if that's the criteria, than Marquis should be #1. But like you said, that isn't necessarily the best criteria bc Carp is facing other team's aces and Ponson is facing the #5's, etc.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

I meant their past performances in general

While Suppan and Mulder have struggled at times this year, they've been more consistent then Marquis in the past and both have won more games and have equaled or bettered Marquis' ERA in past years. Mulder's a little up and down like Marquis, but unlike Marquis, he's more up then down.

You have a point if you only take this year's numbers into consideration, but that's a small sample size and nothing that I've seen leaves me to believe that anything has changed.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

my opinion

just looking at the rotation, mulder has been 2d best behind carp. 8 quality starts in 11 outings, and he has two reliable strengths: a low walk rate and a high g/f ratio. trouble signs are a high homerun rate and low strikeout rate. i discount the blowout in s.d. because of the flu.

3d-best in the rotation -- make mine ponson. hasn't allowed more than 3 runs in any start, and can be counted on to throw strikes and keep the ball on the ground. he is not particularly good, but he's better than marquis and supps, who i would rate 4th and 5th respectively. both of the latter have been inconsistent, yield too many baserunners and give up too many homers. supps also gets a pass for his flu-induced outing vs s.d.; i rank marquis ahead of him mainly because he leads the team in innings pitched.

out of the pen, wainwright, is'hausen, looper, and hancock all have pitched better than marquis this season, in my opinion. so i guess that means i'm ranking marquis as the 8th-best guy on the staff. if i wanted to be mean i could put thompson and flores ahead of him, too; if i wanted to be generous i might rate marquis ahead of looper and hancock.

personally i think they could plug hancock directly into marquis' rotation slot without losing a thing.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

numbers

Hypothetical..You are a fan of Team A.

Team A has a pitcher (pitcher X) who has the following ranks in a 16-team league. Five starters per team thats 80 starters in the league.

Pitcher X has the following ranks.

Wins, 3rd
H/9 IP, 12th
WHIP, 16h
OBA, 25th
SLG, 31st

So, in five different pitching categories the guy ranks in the top 32% of all starting pitchers. I mean, only 20% of ALL pitchers in his league have a better WHIP. Only 15% of ALL pitchers in his league have given up less hits per nine innings.

Call me crazy but those are numbers of a pretty solid pitcher. I certainly wouldn't obsess over HOW he got to that point...just that he got to that point.

Right now Marquis is our second best pitcher. The numbers back that up. To argue otherwise would be silly.

I like how we use numbers/stats to back up our argument that Reyes should start, someone else is great, etc....but yet we completely ignore numbers when they prove Jason Marquis might be, just MIGHT be, a pretty solid NL starter.

Why the double standard?

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions

if he sustains his current run of success

through the end of the season, i'll admit i was wrong

by lboros on May 30, 2006 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

and i have nothing personal

against jason marquis, nor against any cardinal player. i just see red flags in jason's pitching line; i see reason for skepticism.

maybe i've got it all wrong

by lboros on May 30, 2006 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

We know you LB,

Something tells me that if Marquis continues to have games like yesterday, and finishes with 17 wins or so, you'll still be skeptical about how he'll do next year. :)

Hey, I'm not arguing with you on this one. He confounds me as well! Plus, I gotta believe his bat and baserunning ability are more important to TLR, who likes the short bench, long bullpen set up, than we deem so.

by flynn on May 30, 2006 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions

flynn, you don't

know me at all, man

by lboros on May 30, 2006 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

What's that suppossed to mean?

No, I don't know you, man, but I think I "know" your arguments by now. They are well-reasoned and explained,and you stick by them. Because of that, I find it hard to believe that, if Marq won 17 games all like the game he won yesterday, you'd change your tune at the end of the year and say, "hey, that FB, low-K approach is not a fluke and Marquis will continue to succeed with it." That just doesn't jibe with what you say in other places, like below where you point out that Bottenfield won 18 games once, too.

by flynn on May 30, 2006 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions

what it means

is don't pretend to know what i'm going to say before i say it.

last year i didn't think mulder could sustain his success either, and repeatedly said so. but at a certain point i gave it up and admitted that i must be missing something. also gave mulder his due:

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2005/9/8/152538/7835

the other thing i mean by that comment is that i don't accept your pop-psychoanalysis of the blogger, which you express directly below --- viz., that i shade my opinions based on some strategic calculation of what other people will say if the opinions turn out to be wrong. this is the "CYA" approach, as you termed it the 1st time you trotted out this notion

if that's what you really believe, then you don't understand where i'm coming from.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Peace

by flynn on May 30, 2006 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

different things

Beano says "right now" marquis is our 2nd best. LB says "give me until the end of the season." You guys aren't talking about the same thing.

"A Cardinal optimist who is proven wrong looks like a lovable, loyal, buffon. A Cardinal skeptic who is proven wrong is usually forgiven, since nobody cares that he was wrong, just that the player/team did well, and hey, we're all happy about that, right?" - drunken sage met in a bar over Memorial Day weekend.

by flynn on May 30, 2006 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

good point

Hey..I have no idea how Marquis will end up. I'm not a psychic nor a prognosticator. I can only go on what has happened to this point. At this point Marquis has been the Cardinals second best starter and one of the top 25% of pitchers in the NL.

Will that hold up? I hope so, but I cant say for sure.

Lboros and I could both be right ;)

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

flynn, you gotta stop

spending so much time in bars . . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Bars

Well I live near a real big one called Wrigley Field! (burp)

by flynn on May 30, 2006 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

why categorize?

because he's a diff'nt pitcher from game to game and inning to inning. one moment he's a sinker/groundball pitcher; then he's a control pitcher; then he's a get-hammered-lose-10-in-a-row pitcher.

saying he defies categorization is another way of saying he's inconsistent and unreliable. it's a way of saying that his 4-game win streak gives me no confidence that he has turned a corner and will pitch well for the next four games.

as for anthony reyes: let's just see how he pitches.

by lboros on May 30, 2006 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe

Maybe, just maybe Marquis has developed into another type of pitcher. You have K pitchers, FB pitchers, GB pitchers and as the case was for me in my career - line drive pitchers. Apparently Marquis doesn't fit into any of those, BUT the guy is getting people out as his .242 baa signifies. So maybe the guy has honed his skills on getting guys to hit balls right at his perfectly positioned defenders. Marquis is a very good 'attem pitcher'. Its a tough thing to do, but Marquis is doing it and should be commended. Right?

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Occam's Razor in effect

What's the simpler thing to think: that Marquis has gotten lucky on balls in play for a few starts in a row, as countless pitchers have before, or that he's become an entirely different breed of pitcher than anyone we've ever seen before?

I'm pleased by the way he pitched yesterday, like I blogged; his control in the strike zone seems better. But until it manifests itself in a reduced BB rate consistently, it's the luck that's carrying him.

by DanUpBaby on May 30, 2006 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I hope

you're joking about Marquis "honing his skills on getting guys to hit balls right at his perfectly positioned defenders."

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

yes

that was very tongue in cheek. and i'd also like to give danup big props for repeatedly showing off his extremely vast vocab. well done!

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

This is not a misprint

Rastronomicals, the Astros' version of LBoros, posted the Cardinals' batting averages with runners in scoring position. It's worth looking at here. The highlight is this number:

Albert Pujols .537*

*This is not a misprint

(The asterisk was part of Astronomicals' original posting)

Rodriguez's .444 average is noteworthy as well. Looking at the other numbers, though, it's scary to think about how much the Cards would demolish teams if Pujols was getting more active assistance . . .

So says, The Dude

by Titus Pullo on May 30, 2006 10:18 AM EDT reply actions

Surprising to me

that Yadi's avg with RISP is so high, and that Rolen's is so low.

by BTown Birds fan on May 30, 2006 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting post on Rastronomicals

I think they mentioned Pujols' RISP on FSN sometime recently, so I was already aware of it. Molina's has been mentioned periodically as well, so it wasn't a surprise either. The one that stood out to me was Eckstein's .244. His RISP last year was .373, but that was well above his career average of 2.78. Considering that he has the 4th best BA in the NL, however, I would have expected it to be considerably higher than it is.

Rastronomicals seems a little over-confident with the pitching matchups imo. He said:

Marquis Carpenter and Suppan for the Astros vs. Oswalt Pettitte and Buchholz in this three-game, and as Garner or just about anyone else on the Astros would tell you, you're just looking to win two of three.

Besides that he apparently doesn't realize that the Astros won't face Carp, he apparently doesn't realize that Marquis is 5-1 versus Houston and that, according to my calculations, although Suppan is only 2-5 versus the Astros since he's been in St. Louis, his ERA against them is a respectable 3.58 (and that's inflated thanks to two bad games when he first arrived in St. Louis) and he opposed Clemens in five of those games. I guess he thinks that Taylor Bucholz is the next Clemens or that the Astros have the advantage with Pettitte facing Carp, because Oswalt versus Marquis is obviously a mis-match, but I don't know where the other one is that he seems to think exists somewhere.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Pettitte and his ERA over 5

haven't exactly been setting the world on fire this year.

8/13/79- Lou Brock 3000 hits

by lb3000 on May 30, 2006 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitching Matchups

If you look further, when they discover that Reyes is pitching instead of Carp, they all of a sudden assume that the advantage in Game 2 has shifted to them. They were HOPING to get 2 out of 3, and realized that yesterday was they're best bet for the first one. The players won't, but I bet the Houston fans go into tonights game with an overextended sense of well-being.

Further in that thread, they took great joy during the GLOG to post the status of the Pujols vs. Astro's Pitching matchup: 0 - 1, 0 - 2, 0 - 3....and then silence. I felt it my duty to complete the record, which I did. The next poster labelled me inflammatory, and called for a deleted post. It was meant to be inflammatory, I'll admit, but to the victor belong the spoils. I've been taking my lumps for 23 years.

by tinstl on May 30, 2006 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Win Probability Added

Absolutely love the Fangraphs site. Lots of great information, both for players and teams. Fun stat: the Cardnials are the only team (thru 5/28) to be in the top three in their league for offense, starting pitching and bullpen. Also, Pujols' lead in WPA is amazing, by roughly a 2-to-1 ratio.

by Solanus on May 30, 2006 10:33 AM EDT reply actions

Marquis

I've occasionally viewed this site but haven't posted before because of all the Marquis trashing. If you guys have to talk trash about a Cardinal pitcher who throws a 3 hit, 1 run winning game, then you aren't true Redbird fans. Period!!

by dennis on May 30, 2006 1:59 PM EDT reply actions

Dennis,

Some people just gotta be crying about something at all times...apparently being 5 games up in 1st place isn't good enough. So they have designated Marquis as the whipping boy - rather undeservedly I would say.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions

It's not crying

Crying is another term for whining or bitching. For the most part, I think people here are just analytical and their analysis on Marquis hasn't been positive. That's different.

It's the analysis that I like about this site and it would be difficult to do if you only looked at the positives, so it doesn't bother me any. Rather, I'd suggest that some people can't stand to see negative analysis, which I can understand, but I'm not one of them.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

thanks for making

the distinction between "crying" and analysis, rob. well said

by lboros on May 30, 2006 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

You're quite welcome lboros

And thanks for the great site and all of the great analysis you do!

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

rob - i agree

stats are what baseball is all about and the stats unfortunetly are not nice to Marq, except his BAPIP (i think that is the acronym) - which says that he has been getting "lucky".

However, ballsy start yesterday (lucky or no) and he got it done for the W. I didn't like all the flyballs though

by jroman on May 30, 2006 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions

FB ratio

I understand the desire for Marquis to get the grounders. It makes sense that his sinker would translate into getting batters to pound the ball into the ground and let Rolen and Co. do their thing. However, if the guy is getting fly ball outs don't they still count the same? Sure, they can leave the park but Marquis was giving up his share of HR's even when his GB ratio was higher. There are PLENTY of cases of pitchers who have been very successful and who are FB pitchers.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I also agree...

There are sucessful FB pitchers who tend to give up a homer or two.
But I think that Marq when at his best (with his best sinking stuff pounding the strikezone) sends groundball after groundball into the hands of the infielders.
He made me a little nervous with the high pitches in the strikezone and sending the outfielders backpedalling to catch the flyballs.
However, he got it done without his best stuff - a sign of a good/great pitcher.

by jroman on May 30, 2006 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

misconception

I agree Marquis gave up too many fly balls yesterday. But for the year he is 8th in the NL in ground ball outs and 25th in GO/FO ratio.

Again, the numbers don't really back up our concern/thoughts. The dude is getting plenty of groundball outs this season.

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions

analysis

I too like the analysis. But its inconsistent. We use numbers to back up our arguments 95% of the time. Yet with Marquis, when the numbers actually do validate him as a good pitcher, we change course directly and use very non-quantitative methods of saying he isn't a good pitcher.

Why judge 95% of the guys one way, yet use a different scale when judging Marquis?

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

exactly

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the most common thing that's been said

about Marquis and his numbers this year is that he's been lucky. This conclusion was arrived at using numbers - specifically, his extremely low BAPIP. That number suggests his other numbers won't hold up. Does that not count as a valid analysis to you? For the most part it doesn't look to me like people are using a different scale here. They're just looking at all the numbers, good and bad.

by BTown Birds fan on May 30, 2006 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Make that BABIP. Kooky acronyms.

by BTown Birds fan on May 30, 2006 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Ok

So now BABIP is the only valid number?

His good WHIP isn't valid? His low H/9 IP isnt valid? His wins arent valed? His low OPB/against isn't valid?

Why is BABIP valid yet the others arent? Again, its inconsistent.

I understand Marquis has been lucky with the low BABIP. But I also realize he has made some pretty good pitches and been good enough to win seven games and keep his WHIP under 1.30. That's valid right?

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

No, it's not the only valid number.

But it is a valid number. That's where the part about using all the numbers, good and bad, comes in. And it suggests he's been lucky and gives a legitimate reason for concern about his keeping up his current success. That's all - no more, no less. No inconsistency there.

by BTown Birds fan on May 30, 2006 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

his low h/9 and WHIP

are caused by his low BABIP. If he was striking a bunch of hitters out it would be different, because his H/9 would be affected by that; likewise, if he wasn't walking and hitting tons of guys it would be different, because his WHIP would be affected by that. But right now all his success, and both of those good numbers, are flowing from his extremely low BABIP.

And if you believe that BABIP is something that pitchers don't have a lot of control over, then it doesn't matter what his h/9 and WHIP are, because when it goes back up they will, too.

by DanUpBaby on May 30, 2006 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Im not positive

but I think the extremely low BABIP Marquis has this year suggests that his other numbers (such as WHIP, ERA, average against, etc) are not completely accurate measures of Marquis' ability, and once Marquis BABIP goes back up to his normal career value, as it statistically should, then his other numbers will rise as well. So basically, people aren't saying he hasn't put up results thus far. People are just saying that its highly likely that his numbers will get worse as the season progresses bc Marquis won't keep up this string of good luck, as shown by his BABIP.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

people

are replying quickly today. so I didn't mean to repeat what everyone else had said. they just got up while I was typing. Marquis causes quite the discussion.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

marquis

Here is what you two seem to not understand. No one has a problem with Marquis as a 4th or 5th starter during the regular season. (well maybe some people have a problem with him there, but its unreasonable to expect a 4/5 to have better production) However, when thinking ahead to the playoffs, 4/5 starters don't help the team that much, if at all. And since there's a decent chance the birds will make the playoffs again this year, why waste roster space with someone who won't help the team when it matters.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

It's your opinion

what constitutes a "true Redbird fan". I would say only that a "true Redbird fan" wants a WS championship for his or her team each and every year. If I thought this team should be satisfied with winning the Central, I wouldn't care one bit about Marquis' performance and then I'd go buy a Reds hat. But I want to be able to read a story about the Denkinger call and not get sick to my stomach. I want to see the Metrodome demolished and not say "good riddance" because of the wind-aided homeruns. That means I want to finish October with a title for my team. And as it stands right now, I'm not comfortable with the thought of Marquis on the mound opening Game 7... and trusting flyballs like the one Albert hit yesterday to stay in the park.

by Matt @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

I've been a Cardinal fan

for over 45 years, so using the "true fan" line on me, and 99.9% of the people that post here, doesn't wash. We are simply expressing our concerns about our favorite team.

by cardsrul on May 30, 2006 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Finally, someone older than me....

At least, I think so -- my first memories of true rooting for the Cardinals are during the 64 season and series.

by cyclone on May 30, 2006 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Born in 1952...

saw my first baseball game on tv in 1960; saw my first MLB game live in '63(Tigers-Senators at old Griffith Stadium).

by cardsrul on May 30, 2006 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

old timers

I remember the first time Bob Gibson reported to spring training at Al Lang Field in St. Pete, and when a friend of my Dad's from Tennessee mentioned a kid from Christian Brothers in Memphis named Tim McCarver. Vinegar Bend Mizell gave me a baseball autographed by all of the Cardinals at spring training one year in the late 50's.

by madridbend on May 30, 2006 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Sweet Jeebus...

When will people quit with that ridiculous "true fan" crap? There's not a person who posts on this site (aside from the odd troll from other team sites) who isn't a "true fan." A "faux fan" wouldn't spend the time it takes to register, read posts, think about them, and then respond. We're here cause we love our Birds and want to discuss ways to make them better. That we don't all agree is exactly what makes this pursuit interesting and fun. To say a "true fan" wouldn't say this or that because it might be a critical statement is complete jingoistic horse manure. Don't people hear enough of that shite on the news concerning patriotism? Since when did rigid, lockstep thinking become a virtue in this country? Now it even has to apply to Cardinal fans? Talk about trying to squeeze all the fun out of something we love. Sheesh.

by rockin redbird on May 30, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions

well said rr

If blind devotion is what identifies a "true fan", then call me an untrue fan all you want.

I will always resent Tino's 'performance' with the birds on the bat, not to mention roger cedeno or the 'big rat', andres galaraga...

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

grrrrr galaragga

i might have to delete this whole thread to purge his limp-lumbered spirit from the site . . . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Why I Like Marquis

Here's what I like about Marquis:

I think he always plays hard
He hits a ton, for a pitcher
Durability, meaning 32 starts per year
No evidence of whining or disruptive behavior

I share the view that we need a playoff dominator to go with Carp, and Marquis isn't dependable enough for that, but those factors put him above the theoretical "replacement level" pitcher. Good enough for a fantasy team -no; good enough for pretty much anybody's real life rotation - yes.

But I admit I'd like him better if he didn't have weird lapses like three hit batsmen yesterday. What was that all about?

by madridbend on May 30, 2006 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Whiny behavior

What about last year during the playoffs when he was pouting the whole time because he wasn't starting?

by stevenucla on May 30, 2006 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

20/20 Hindsight and A.J.

Just in case any of you folks haven't read this yet...Burnett to the 60-day DL:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2462599

by bgh on May 30, 2006 2:25 PM EDT reply actions

Wow.

I don't think I could've been any more wrong on this non-deal if I had begged the Cardinals to add JT Leroy as Burnett's official memoirist.

by DanUpBaby on May 30, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Holy Crap!

An honest to goodness mea culpa from a Cardblogger!

Hey, I wanted AJ too. So, yes, allow me to join you in the collective "D'oh!"

Funny how we spent about 450,000 words on this guy over the winter and we write him (and our past-obsession with him) off in a few sentences. Makes that GM job seem a little tougher than ours, eh?

by flynn on May 30, 2006 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

who?

Wait...AJ who? I don't remember any ink (or website space) being used talking about this guy. Whoever he is.

Ok, I'll give the "phew!" as well because I wanted him with the birds on the bat pretty badly.

by jroman on May 30, 2006 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Burnett

Is it a retroactive move or has something else happened that will keep him out another 3 months?

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 3:23 PM EDT reply actions

retroactive

That doesn't mean it won't keep him out another three + months, just that he could come off earlier.

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm a big Marquis supporter...

..however, I completely understand where the doubters are coming from. Marquis and Izzy are in the same boat: Great stats but you can hear a pin drop when they take the bump.

You expect them to have an implosion because historical they don't find a way to endear confidence. They skate by on the seat of their pants. Yes, they get the job done, but they don't do it with any particulary dominance. Look at Wainwright yesterday. He blew through the Houston heart of the order. He comes in and I have no doubt he's going to get the job done as quickly as possible. I think he even dialed it up to 99 mph yesterday in that 8th inning.

Anyways, Marquis should recieve his fair amount of praise for his record and his versatility as a hitter. Some days, I think he should get a crack at left field on 'bench' days for Tony. But at the same time, I'm not throwing Marquis in Game 7 of the World Series, either.

by Hardcore Legend on May 30, 2006 3:35 PM EDT reply actions

well said, Hardcore

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on May 30, 2006 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions

is'hausen vs marquis

interesting comparison. isringhausen has a set of skills you can trust: he'll keep the ball in the park, throw strikes (although he has struggled with command this year), miss his share of bats, and close out games. he is a model of consistency.

marquis, by contrast, no longer seems to have a trustworthy set of skills. he used to be (ie, in 2004) a guy who threw hard and had a nasty sinker, which resulted in a pretty good strikeout total and a lot of groundballs. but he doesn't get strikeouts or groundouts reliably now; he has, for four straight games, gotten people out, but jason simontaachi was capable of stringing together four good games too. so was brett tomko.

kent bottenfield won 18 games for us once . . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

so did

Danny Cox.

by cardsrul on May 30, 2006 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

so

These last four games are the only times Jason Marquis has proven worth as a Cardinal?

Again, look at his career numbers in STL. 35-25. ERA right at 4.00. WHIP at 1.30.

Is that bad??

to give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.

by beanocook on May 30, 2006 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Marquis since mid-June '05

This is about when Marquis' season turned south last year. It may not be fair to begin at this point, but his lack of consistency has been off the charts since about this time and it seems like an appropriate point to me.

Since mid-June 2005, my calculations show Marquis as having posted a 13-15 record with a 4.75 ERA, which is exactly the same as what he's posted up to this point of this season alone. To be fair, he pitched several good games during this time and took a loss with some of them anyway. At the same time, however, some of us don't think that his record represents the way he has pitched this year, so that evens things out a little.

In his time with the Cardinals before this point he went 23-11 with an ERA probably somewhere around 3.55 or so (this includes the entire 2004 season and up to mid-June in 2005.) That's a pretty significant drop if you ask me.

So it seems logical to me that we should expect an ERA of around 4.75 and an even record from Marquis from here on out. Will we be satisfied with him if this holds up?

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions

if he were a 4.00 pitcher

that'd be one thing. but his 2006 era stands at 4.75; last year it was at 4.13. and if we just take his last 32 starts --- one year's worth, a total of 210 innings -- his era is 4.59. that's per the day by day database:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/PitcherInfo.py?StartDate=06%2F01%2F2005&EndDate=05%2F29%2 F2006&GameType=all&PlayedFor=0&PlayedVs=0&Park=0&PlayerID=105

having watched marquis pitch the last season and a half, does it really seem unreasonable to you that a person might have doubts about the guy? i don't understand why marquis, of all people, deserves such a benefit of the doubt

by lboros on May 30, 2006 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions

rob, i see

you were thinking along the same lines . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

But I started at 06/15 with the game against Toronto and left out his impressive win against the Yankees.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Thoughts on Carl Crawford...

Ken Rosenthal says the D-Rays might deal Crawford.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5649680

by Matt @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 4:14 PM EDT reply actions

His value may be going up...

was just named AL Player of the Week. He has an OPS of .757 and 20 steals. Could spell Jimmy in centerfield when he's not playing left.

by Matt @ Viva El Birdos on May 30, 2006 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

carl over soriano

I've said it many times, but I have no interest in Soriano.
Would love to have Carl, but it would take reyes / wayne to get him.

by jroman on May 30, 2006 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Does anyone on this board

have attention deficit disorder? I think I have a mild case of it, not enough to be a huge disability, but enough that I can understand how it can lead to inconsistency in many different areas of life. Might I suggest that pitchers like Marquis and Izzy (and maybe Ponson) perhaps have some degree of ADD? An inability to "lock in" to a certain mindset for an extended period of time? Or to put it more broadly in the form of a question, what are the "human factors" that might allow a guy's RESULTS to be out of alignment with the peripherals that we would normally associate with effective ML pitching? Is it plausible that here we have a guy with a lot of talent, who nonetheless has a habit of losing focus quite often. Then, when he finds himself in a tough situation, because he is talented, he is often able to make that big pitch that will get him out of trouble. [Presumably, the other ADD guys with less talent aren't able to make that perfect pitch when they need it, and end up with the Royals.]

by MdRedbirdFreak on May 30, 2006 4:21 PM EDT reply actions

I don't

but I've taught loads of students who do. (disclaimer - I don't do the diagnosing) I don't really suspect ADD in Marquis - I think it's a psychological/nerves thing which could interrupt concentration, but not a concentration thing in origin. Ponson seems like he's more laid-back and can get a bit too laid-back when making pitches. Izzy, well, I'm not sure what to say about Izzy. He does things in his own special way.

However, your theory is still interesting and plausible.

Adam LaRoche has ADD and is currently unmedicated.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2446298&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

by Elle on May 30, 2006 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I believe

Derek Lowe has been diagnosed with Adult ADD as well...

by BozCardsFanSF on May 30, 2006 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Not only

do I have it, but have taken classes to learn about it.

General misconception 1: add means that you can't pay attention to anything.

Correction: it can mean that, but is just as likely to mean that you're paying attention to everything. This can be a strenghth as well as a weakness.

General misconception 2: add = hyperactivity.

Correction: add can be paired with hyperactivity. We've all known these kids... More often, it's diagnosed using a set of 20 or so standards in the DSM IV including impulsivity and irregular behavior.

I could go on, but let's not bore everyone. Bottom line: could marquis have undiagnosed add? sure. could it be affecting the way he pitches? also sure.

Based on clubhouse reports (both from Atl and Stl) it seems more likely that he's a bull-headed snot who's not interested in taking direction/coaching.

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Marquis

I'll repeat what I said earlier. 3 hits, 1 run and a winning performance and all you guys can do is complain that our outfielders catch the ball in the air instead of our infielders catching it on the ground. You guys trash Marquis more than you do the Cub's Pitchers. I'm 62 years old and have been a Redbird fan since "Stan the Man" and Enos "country" Slaughter were mainstays of the team, so I have a right to opine on who is a true Cards fan. You guys are picking on the wrong part of the team. Albert and the pitching staff are the heart and sole of the team. Most of our position players are mediocre at best. Give Marquis a break. You can analyze til the cows come home with stats, but the only stats that mean anything are won/loss.

by dennis on May 30, 2006 4:37 PM EDT reply actions

As I looked out on the players yesterday,

I asked my buddy how many all-stars he saw. Thought about 2 seconds and said "one". You aren't kidding when you say that this team is built on pitching and pujols.

Some broadcasters were saying that that was the quietest 12 hit attack they've seen until Pujols' shot. I can tell you why so quiet...all singles. So even in the 5th, when we had two hits and some shoddy Astro's play, we still couldn't plate the run. Yes, I know that J-Rod, and Spezio, and Luna, and even Gooch at .290 are hitting, but they're hitting singles. (Speez with a little power). Still think the power-hitting OF is a more important piece than the flamethrower.

by tinstl on May 30, 2006 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Truth be told,

I think we need the OF with power AND the power arm. Just one of those two makes us a better team, but not a championship team, and I don't see us filling both holes this season (unless Reyes can get into LaDuncan's good graces and then be the pitcher we'd like him to be). I think our window of opportunity is closing fast. That rendezvous with the Team of Destiny in the '04 WS is going to haunt us for years.

by MdRedbirdFreak on May 30, 2006 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Same here

although I still think we have a shot without a slugger in the OF. We're not on pace to score as many runs as in the previous two years, but we're not that far off either (currently ranked 4th in the NL, behind LA, Atlanta and Arizona, in that order.)

As for not hitting as many homeruns, it doesn't bother me a bit. We could definitely use more slugging this year, but I thought we relied on it too much in the past two years. We seemed to have too many solo homeruns and I would guess that it's more difficult to rely on homeruns in the playoffs.

by rob is back on May 30, 2006 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

My two cents

I have never written anything negative on Marquis, but have read the vast majority of the critical evaluation of him as a pitcher. I don't see the vast majority of it as "trashing" him. This analysis is generally part of a larger discussion where an objective opinion of a player based on his statistical output is sought after and more often than not, achieved.

We were universally ciritcal of Juan Encarnacion's poor start statistically across the board and now we have praised his rise overall but are still concerned with his roughly .200 BA with RISP. Is it unfair to be worried, in the face of Jimmy's possible sports hernia, about Juan batting in the #5 hole with a .200 BA with RISP?

I'm attempting to understand how "most" of our position players are mediocre at best.

David Eckstein
200 AB/.335 BA/.406 OBP/801 OPS/1 HR/14 RBI

Scott Rolen
143 AB/.315 BA/.393 OBP/896 OPS/5 HR/26 RBI

Aaron Miles
121 AB/.306 BA/.393 OBP/.765 OPS/0 HR/6 RBI

Hector Luna
90 AB/.333 BA/.381 OBP/.870 OPS/3 HR/10 RBI

John Rodriguez
84 AB/.345 BA/.406 OBP/.846 OPS/0 HR/8 RBI

Scott Spiezio
90 AB/.300 BA/.402 OBP/.902 OPS/3 HR/16 RBI

So Taguchi
109 AB/.294 BA/.342 OBP/.727 OPS/1 HR/17 RBI

Jimmy Edmonds
145 AB/.241 BA/.345 OBP/.724 OPS/5 HR/29 RBI
(Despite his line, I would not consider him "mediocre.")

Juan Encarnacion
181 AB/.249 BA/.281 OBP/.706 OPS/6 HR/23 RBI
(Yes, mediocre.)

Yadier Molina
134 AB/.172 BA/.228 OBP/.437 OPS/0 HR/ 15 RBI
(Worse than mediocre.)

I'm interested to know who, aside from Yadi, Juan, and Jimmy has had less than mediocre production this season?

The reason that this blog fixates on Marquis is because he will probably turn out to be the most valuable trade chip due to his age and we all feel that we don't have a rotation or enough bats (which you apparently agree with) at this juncture to win a world title.

Ending the season with a win in the playoffs is the hope of every single individual who posts on this site and I view them all as "true" Cardinal fans. I enjoy their posts for the most part and the empirical discussions that are backed by statistical analysis. I find it to be one of the best and most-grounded Cards chat rooms on the internet and read it every day. I have yet to see baseless trashing of St. Louis players and probably never will on this site. I respect your opinion, but if you are going to attack the blog, please back it up and join the discussion.

by bgh on May 30, 2006 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions

thanks bgh

that is the spirit of discussion i hope we'll have here --- honest debate, in which we all state our opinions and back them up with the best reasoning and facts we can muster.

nearly everyone who posts here adheres to those principles -- including the folks whose opinions diverge sharply from mine, and/or from the majority. as somebody said above, if we all agreed all the time, it wouldn't make for very interesting discussion . . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, you

have the right to "opine" about who meets your rigid criteria for being a "true fan." And we, the accused, have the right to tell you to stuff it. Pointing out Marquis' inconsistencies and suggesting that they are reason not to trust his numbers is not "trashing" him anyway. It's a perfectly legitimate point of view that doesn't happen to agree with yours. My grandma was one of the most intense Cardinal fans I've known in my life--her pedigree went back to the Rogers Hornsby era. But she was never shy about stating her opinion, even when one of her favorite players made her suspicious of his performance. So I guess she wasn't a "true fan" either. Depending on her mood, she's have either laughed at you or told you where to stick it. Point is--that kind of finger-pointing should be beneath anyone who considers him/herself a "true fan." It adds a layer of baloney to a post that makes it easy to ignore your real argument--which is far more compelling without the yap.

by rockin redbird on May 30, 2006 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions

ADD

As far as ADD goes...

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Danny Cox was a much much better pitcher than Bottenfield. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the...

I like sunny days.

Howza bout we pontificate on how great Carp has been this year?

And chocolate. Puppies.

by Pokey Joe on May 30, 2006 5:01 PM EDT reply actions

LOL!!

What?

by MdRedbirdFreak on May 30, 2006 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Marquis

Nobody on this thread has trashed Marquis.

Everybody appreciates his performance yesterday.

Everbody is glad he has seven wins.

Everybody would love it if Marquis continued to pitch effectively for the rest of the season, and throughout the playoffs.

The nature of an analysis-oriented site such as this is to ANALYZE; sure, people celebrate, people whine and moan, but there is a ton of analysis on this site, ALL of it by TRUE CARDINAL FANS. What, because you aren't only acknowledging the positives then all of a sudden you're less of a fan? (Where have I heard THAT one before!!)

The main beef with Marquis is his lack of consistency, and buried within his four-game win streak are some alarming red flags (for those who care to dig) that suggest Marquis's recent success are less the result of some new-found skills or approach and more the result of luck.

I love the fact the Marquis is 7-4. I loved watching him pitch yesterday, and the game before that---even though he gave up 2 in the first and five overall---I was impressed with the way he seemed to attack the hitters in a way I hadn't seen in a while.

But I recognize that Marquis is just as likely to get bombed in his next four starts---more likely, I'd say, than Carp, Mulder, Supp, Ponson or Reyes---and that's just history talking.

The people who are pointing this out---and who have astutely tied in his currently low WHIP and H/9 with his unsustainably low BABIP---aren't trashing Marquis, and they're not unappreciative. They're just true fans who have a sense of how the past informs the future, and what that might mean to this team's chances at a championship in 2006.

by salvomania on May 30, 2006 5:27 PM EDT reply actions

Marquis

I guess the main point I would like to make about suggesting that this site "trashes" Marquis is this: Everyone has a right to bring up any suggestions or stats about a players perceived worth that he wishes to and I wouldn't call that "trashing." However, when Marquis pitches a winning game and allows only 3 hits and is the winning pitcher he should receive accolades and not negativity from Cards fans. If you gripe about that performance then you are not realisticm but simply a Jason hater.

by dennis on May 30, 2006 5:27 PM EDT reply actions

Nobody's griping about that performance,

They're griping about how completely unsustainable his recent performance is in their minds. If blogging was just about talking up what happened yesterday there'd be no point to it.

He pitched well, but it's not the kind of well you can expect somebody to keep up over the course of a season. Only walking two was nice, but the HBPs are evidence that he still has a ways to go on it.

by DanUpBaby on May 30, 2006 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions

DanUp I Agree,

but this site picks on Marquis more than any other Cardinalm when there are many other players with inconsistancies.

by dennis on May 30, 2006 5:53 PM EDT reply actions

dennis, thanks for sticking around

and clarifying your position. let me try to do the same:

i tend to focus on pitchers because, like the cliche says, it's what wins championships. and marquis merits keen attention because he's a pivotal pitcher on a number of counts.

first, he is currently the team's ostensible #3 starter, which means he would have to be counted upon to make 2 starts in any playoff series. based on what we have seen from him this year (including yesterday), do we think we can count on him to deliver in those two postseason games and help us win a series?

second, marquis is in the walk year of his contract. based on what we have seen this year (including yesterday), is he a pitcher who should figure in the cardinals' future plans?

my own opinion is no, we need a better option for october, and we should not include marquis in the team's long-range plans. i've stated my reasons for those opinions and won't repeat them here.

i also want to get something out in the open: i appreciate that nobody has played the "religion" card and accused me of picking on marquis because he is jewish. but just in case that idea is in anyone's mind, let me blast that one out of the ballpark: i'm jewish, too. it was a bar mitzvah, in fact, that brought me to st louis over the weekend -- my first cousin once removed, zev, who is as big a cardinals fan as ever there was.

don't know if that thought is under the surface or not, but just in case: it's about what jason does on the mound, and nothing else. it's not personal. i just want want's best for the team . . . .

by lboros on May 30, 2006 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Since the season began

I've read people "picking on" (your phrase) or addressing weaknesses in the play of (my phrase): JuanE, Izzy, Jed, Mulder, Sotag, Blooper, Bigb and Yadi (extensively, and deservedly of late) in addition to discussing and expressing concerns about Marquis' overall reliability and consistency. We do not look at any Cardinal with rose colored glasses...well, with one notable exception. And even El Hombre came under scrutiny at times last year.

We just pick on Marquis after his starts;)

Yes, he only gave up 3 hits yesterday, but also hit 3 batters. Yes, he picked up the win, but will he next time he takes the rock? This doesn't mean that I hate him, only that I'm concerned for the well being of the team.

by sdesserman on May 30, 2006 6:24 PM EDT reply actions

anyway

im glad people are starting to notice we could use a power arm to compliment carpenter in our rotation..ive been mentioning it since i found to my horror mulder is a soft tossing lefty, i thought he was our second power guy.. cardinals brass thought so as well since they gave up so much for him..

lets clarify the term power arm,i dont mean velocity necessarily,(marquis can hit 94mph and seen soup hit 93 before) im talking about a live arm, movement with the velocity, not depending always on location to be succesful, some swings and misses more often...less left to chance..cause honestly our groundball style of pitching lends itself to chance.

i mean mulder is the poster boy of our teams pitching philosphy, pitch to contact and get groundballs..its not automatic..sometimes pitching to contact gets you jacked all over. these are major league hitters, i mean pujols hits homeruns at near eye level. beltran hit homeruns off his shoelaces in the 2004 nlcs...you can have perfect location and get hurt..anyone who has ever pitched at ANY level is in on this little "secret." i lost a game once in high school on a homerun and the guys eyes were closed when he swung..

/rant on

im tired of seeing hanging curveballs that hitters missed called good pitches, and table dropping wicked sliders a batter jacks off the ground for a dinger a bad pitch. i see broadcasters and analysts call everything a hitter doesnt hit as a good pitch, and everything that gets hit is a bad pitch? um, no...sometimes you have your best stuff and control, and you get rocked, sometimes you got nothing and pitch shutout ball. there is so much chance in baseball..

/rant off

we need a guy that can make hitters miss and have some consistently to give us a a 1-2 punch in the playoffs. pitching to contact is great for your pitch count, but does it help ya keep a runner on third with less than two outs from scoring in the playoffs when 1 run can mean the difference between going home and a title? we need another guy who can fool some people.

anyway, needing a power arm is so yesterday(12 months ago for me) i think mulder is close to being an unconventional number 2 starter. he cuts out a mistake or two a game, much like carpenter did sometime early in the 2005 season, he can catapult himself from number 3 guy to a number 2..he has some great movement at times and has come up sith some strikeouts when needed this year.

im not worried about the rotation if carpenter will be back...

mulder,ponson,suppan,marquis,wainwright,reyes,hancock, thompson could all start in his absence and i wouldnt be as nervous as when matty mo pitched from 2004-2005..i also think we could stay atop our division without carpenter for a bit..

our main concerns for me at the moment for a potential title run is......

1)shutdown lefty reliever..

flores is a proven second lefty, thats it...we need a "stud" lefty..."stud" lefty upgrades flores, flores moves down and upgrades completely unproven tyler johnson. improve two slots with 1 new player..

2)OF/power arm for rotation

a tie for second, the tiebreaker is edmonds and carpenters health...

by 2ndprize on May 30, 2006 6:38 PM EDT reply actions