whew

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 9:54 AM EDT in News Comment 153 comments

thank goodness that's over with.

i could recount all the hardships and bitter blows the cards and their fans had to suffer this season, but what would be the point. . . . . we all get an extra month off this year, and we need it. hell, we need a stinkin' day off; this is the first day since august 27 that the cardinals aren't playing baseball. in their deadly closing stretch of 35 games / 34 days, they went 15-20 --- the same record they opened the season with.

if that was la russa's last game for the franchise, he certainly went out on his own terms. 9 pitching changes on the final day of the season, in a game that meant nothing; 24 players into the fray. jim tracy nearly kept pace, with 7 pitching changes; the two skippers, anyway, were in no hurry for the season to end. it's often the case that season finales are over in 1:50 or thereabouts; this one lasted 3:11.

wrapping up a few odds n ends:

of the cardinals' last 5 pennant-winning teams (2006, 2004, 1987, 1985, 1982), 4 came back the following year to finish below .500, with between 76 and 79 wins. only the 2004 team managed to finish above .500.
the cardinals avoided breaking the franchise record for runs allowed. they finished at 829, the 3d-highest total in franchise history and 2d-highest total of the last 95 years.
they also avoided leading the league in negative run differential. that honor went to the team they swept this weekend, the pirates, who finished at minus 122. the cards finished 2d in the nl in that category, at minus 104; the marlins were minus 101, the nats minus 100.
the -104 run differential was 1 run worse than the 1955 team's, meaning the 2007 cards had the franchise's worst run differential in 91 years --- worst since the 1916 team, which came in at -153.
the cards finished 11th in the league in scoring (worst since 1997) and 11th in earned-run average (worst since 2003). they were 2d in unearned runs allowed, at 88 (the marlins led with 98).
st louis finished 30-19 against the three bottom teams in the nl central (pirates, reds, and astros); vs all other comers they were 48-65, a .425 winning percentage.

one last item --- skip schumaker's 5-for-5 finale, coupled with pujols's 0-for-5, created a significant first for the franchise player, if not for the franchise itself: for the first time ever, albert got outhit by a teammate who had more than 100 at-bats. schumaker finished at .333, beating albert by 6 points. the last cardinal not named pujols to post a batting avg that high in 100 at-bats or more was will clark, who finished at .345 in 2000. schumaker fell just short of batting .400 over the last 3 months of the year; from july 1 forward he went 48 for 121, a .397 clip.

look out, ted williams.

* * * * * * * * * * *

joe strauss's article yesterday contained a fairly remarkable quote about the tensions in the front office:

"It's not a healthy environment when you're worried about who you're seen speaking to. If you speak to someone, you risk making someone else in the front office mad. If you don't speak, you alienate the person in front of you. It's tough when you're caught in the middle of something like that."

this was attributed to an unnamed farm-system employee. bill dewitt himself acknowledged that a rift exists in the front office, although he downplayed its significance. but if things are really as bad as described in that quote, the organization is in trouble. healthy, creative tension is one thing; a circular firing squad is another. i've been in work situations where people have to be careful about whom they share information with; in my experience, such an environment never lends itself to good performance.

i will say that it's striking to note how many of this year's playoff teams have been built via player development. the rockies (not a playoff team just yet, but hopefully after tonight) are almost entirely homegrown, and the indians, angels, and dbacks mostly so; the phillies' 4 best hitters, rotation ace, and closer all came up through the system. even the yankees, lords of the checkbook, have a homegrown ace and closer, and their starters at all 4 up-the-middle positions were developed in-house. that's to say nothing of the teams that barely missed the playoffs --- brewers, braves, and dodgers drew most of their talent from within. that's why the approach bernie proposes this morning --- dewitt must open dewallet --- seems misguided to me. dewallet cannot fix what's broken with this team; sign a bunch of f.a.'s this year, and 2 or 3 years from now those acquisitions are apt to be as old and broken-down and useless as edmonds and rolen and mulder were this season. this organization's already too top-heavy; their overriding imperative is to get younger, a need they've had since 2005. they've made some progress in that regard (duncan, wainwright, hopefully ankiel and/or ryan), but they need to push it further. jumping whole-hog into the free-agent market won't get them there. only patience will.

that's not to say i think they shouldn't sign any free agents. they're gonna have to sign some; too many holes on the roster. but they need to be smart about it. i think they were extremely smart last year to stay out of the crazy free-agent market. it's a fair critique to say that the ownership has occasionally cheaped out and allowed good free agents to get away --- particularly aj burnett, who was the best free-agent pitcher on the market two years ago and wanted to play in st louis. but in the vast majority of cases the team's valuation has been accurate and their refusal to overpay has been vindicated. i don't like greedy rich guys any more than bernie does, but i don't think dewitt's tight dewallet has been the main problem with the team --- and i'm absolutely certain that raising payroll isn't the main solution going forward. it's much simpler, and more complicated, than that: they need to do a better job of evaluating talent and developing players.

* * * * * * * * * * *

once the rockies and pads settle the wild-card question, i'll post a poll to determine the community's official playoff endorsement. i'll also be soliciting your predictions for the postseason tournament. we'll have game threads here throughout the playoffs, and i'll have one tonight for the one-game playoff (technically a regular season game); during the nlds round, when there will be multiple games on most days, i'll just put up one generic thread covering all that day's contests. and while this is all going on, there's bound to be lots of news regarding our favorite team --- beginning with the official word regarding the status of our favorite manager.

let's go rockies.

0 recs | Comment 153 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Game thread

Any chance we will have a game thread for the Padres at the Rox?

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 1, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ug... nevermind

don't know how I missed it.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 1, 2007 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lots of time going forward

To hash out who should stay, who should go, and who should be traded to and fro

But, the criticism of Bernie's point is right on. Sure, there have been times in recent years when opening up the pocketbook to make sure the Cardinals sign an impact player would have been wise, AJ Burnett being the obvious answer.

That said, in most cases I would rather have the Cards dump the additional dough for free agent acquisitions into player development, taking risks on top dollar draft choices rather than going for slot guys. Better to pony up $2 million for Kyle Russel than 7 or 8 million for someone like Juan E.

by JMedwick on Oct 1, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the problem the Cardinals face is

that their player development is still atleast 2 years away. There may be a few players that if pushed, could start the season (or atleast May) with the Big League club from Springfield.

However, they will need to sign a few FA's or a better idea, trade for guys with 2 years left on contracts to fill the gaps. A power bat from the OF to replace Edmonds/Encarnacion and bridge the gap to Rasmus.

The farm system has produced Molina, Pujols, Ryan, Ankiel, Duncan but it has also produced middling guys like Cavazos, Skippy, Reyes, Thompson, Jiminez, etc. The Cardinals wouldn't be in near the shape they are now if the AAA roster could have given them a legit #3 starter to step in when Carpenter was injured.

Instead, they'll find stopgaps. They'll trade for Matt Morris, sign Pineiro for 2 years, take a flyer on an aging OF, maybe trade for Renteria. They'll improve the team for 2008, which won't need much with how terrible the NL Central is and probably will be.

I think if LaRussa stays, which seems likely now, he'll turn to the front office and say "Stop giving me guys like Reyes, Jiminez and Cavazos". Unlike in New York where Joba and Melky forced Torre's hand to have to listen to Cashman about who and how to use, the failure of many of the youngsters plays to LaRussa's advantage.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have to Agree

2008 does not look too appetizing: a rotation full of holes, no imminent help on the farm, and a lousy time to go shopping for a FA starter. My biggest concern is that we overpay (dollars and years) for middling/declining talent and hamstring ourselves for a few more years.

Signing Pineiro for 2 years would not be the end of the world, but I don't see much point in trading for Renteria (he'll cost young talent we cannot afford to lose) and hosting a Matt Morris reunion. I think Walt is smarter than that, but Tony's influence could be pivotal. After all, he brought us Mark Mulder for Dan Haren.

by Hungry Jack on Oct 1, 2007 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

^Which is

exactly why the Cards should be be blowing out the payroll big in 2008. Save up those dollars, invest them in player development, but don't waste them on what is a poor FA crop.

by JMedwick on Oct 1, 2007 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you wanted to win NOW

you could easily build an older, but more talented team through FA:

1B - Albert Pujols
2B - Jeff Kent
SS - Omar Vizquel
3B - Scott Rolen
LF - Barry Bonds
CF - Aaron Rowand
RF - Jim Edmonds
C - Yadier Molina

SP - Adam Wainwright
SP - Curt Schilling
SP - Livan Hernandez
SP - Bartolo Colon
SP - Joel Pineiro

Jeff Kent, Barry Bonds, Omar Vizquel will only look for 2 year contracts at most.

Likewise for Schilling and Pineiro. Colon and Hernandez would both probably want 4 year deals, although Colon may look for something shorter to re-establish himself.

That roster change would cost you about $160 M in payroll over the next 2 years, but for next year, you'd have a team that would be old, slow but score a lot of runs and eat some innings. And talent wise, it'd be better than anything the Cardinals could patch together through the farm system over the next 2 years.

Then in 2009-2010, you begin the 'correction' replacing that OF with Rasmus and the rotation with Walters, etc.

I don't condone making any of those moves, really but a team CAN be fixed quickly through spending money. Just ask the Cubs. Add Soriano, Lilly, Marquis, Floyd, Kendall, along with a healthy All-Star firstbasemen and 3rd baseman and you have a division winner.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem with this theory

is that, just as edmonds/rolen declined through age and became below-average players, a certain number of the players on the list above are bound to be below-average players next season. some of them already are below average --- bartolo colon, for example, who had a 6.34 era this year. omar vizquel had an ops of .621, much worse than aaron miles. livan hernandez had an era of 4.93 and a whip of 1.565, which puts his performance in the same range as brad thompson's and slightly worse than braden looper's. and jeff kent flat-out cannot play 2d base anymore --- as long as he slugs .500 he's still above average, but if he slugs .450 he's a bad player.

to me, this roster illustrates how you can spend a ton of money and make the team worse, rather than than better.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rolen declined because of injury

and it wasn't age related. I wouldn't want to be excluding 30-32 year olds from consideration because Rolen had a horrible base running collision.

Think of the number of good pitchers there were this year who were older. In fact, if we looked at the effective older pitchers, they probably faired much better as a group than the '06 FA signings.

I think the problem is that '07-'08 simply doesn't have good FA pitchers available. '08-09 looks much better. Perhaps we should wait on someone from this list or try to trade for them now and then work on extension into their contract.

Here's the '08-09 list of FA pitchers:

Kris Bensen BAL
A.J. Burnett TOR (may opt out)
Paul Byrd CLE
Jon Garland CWS
Tom Glavine NYM
Mike Hampton ATL
Rich Harden OAK
Orlando Hernandez NYM
Jason Jennings HOU
Randy Johnson ARZ
John Lackey LAA
Esteban Loaiza OAK
Braden Looper STL
Derek Lowe LAD
Pedro Martinez NYM
Matt Morris PIT
Mike Mussina NYY
Jamie Moyer PHI
Mark Mulder STL
Carl Pavano NYY
Jake Peavy SD
Brad Penny LAD
Odalis Perez KC
Oliver Perez NYM
Andy Pettitte NYY
Mark Prior CHC
Horatio Ramirez SEA

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the names on the proposed roster weren't 30 to 32

kent vizquel bonds and schiling are all 40 or older.

i wouldn't categorically exclude 30 to 32 year olds from consideration just because of rolen's injury. but i would be leery of players that age because it's been well proven that most position players decline after 30. if you're signing a 31-year-old to a 5-year deal, you run a high risk of having that player decline and/or break down. it has nothing to do with rolen's baserunning collision. it has to do with what happens when players get older.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't sign a 31 year old to a 5 year deal

but I agree that 30-32 year olds should not be excluded from consideration.

It is interesting that a number of older pitchers this year have done well and have helped their teams to be in a playoff position.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitching doesn't follow the age curve

the same way position players do. Pitchers have much, much more random variation in their performance. Put another way, they tend to be unpredictable.

Quick, Name any pitcher that has gotten a 5+ year contract and lived up to the terms.

Sign position players to big deals, draft pitchers and roll the dice.

by DriverZn on Oct 1, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

looks like a long list

but i bet it gets real short once the best pitchers are resigned to long-term deals.

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The list was a toss together

not how I would build a lineup. But it was an example of how you could improve a team's offense overnight. We'd have less production out of SS (with better defense) but increased production in LF, CF, 2B. They could all fall apart and spend a combined 372 games on the DL. Then you have players like Kennedy, Ryan, Duncan, Ankiel coming off the bench.

If I were to spend money freely, without any restriction on spending, I'd put together a lineup of:
[code]
SS - Brendan Ryan
RF - Bobby Abreu
1B - Albert Pujols
CF - Andruw Jones
3B - Scott Rolen
LF - Jim Edmonds
C - Yadier Molina
P - Pitcher
2B - Adam Kennedy

SP - Adam Wainwright
SP - Curt Schilling
SP - Greg Maddux
SP - Braden Looper
SP - Joel Pineiro
[/code]

Is that how I'd fix/build the team? No. But a team with no real payroll restrictions can go out and overpay for 2 OF bats who did not play to their talent level in 07 and can patch together a starting rotation with two old pitchers on short term deals. Even if Schilling and Maddux have their arms fall off, you need them for however long it takes to get Carpenter back into the rotation (August?).

That's patching together a team that could a) win the NL Central and b) if the arms DON'T fall off, probably wins a 5 game series.

I don't believe in just throwing money away and ignoring the farm system and player development. However, for the Cardinals, the pitching isn't going to get much better unless they a) sacrafice the farm system in trades b) overspend for some short term fixes.

So with the pitching not really going to be spectacular, you are going to have to outslug teams (Philadelphia Phillies). I don't know if a guy like Bobby Abreu is really the player he was in 07 or if he (at 34) is still an OBP guy of .400+. I know for the last 2 years, I'd have loved to have Abreu in the #2 hole ahead of Pujols, getting on base and getting knocked in.

Overspending for fixes doesn't damage the farm system, just DeWitt's wallet.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well your quote about LaRussa remindes me

That for all the complaints about him being reluctant to give youngsters playing time, when he has received top tier talent that can contribute right away to the big league club, LaRussa has usually found space for that player (Alan Benens, Matt Morris, Pujols, Ankiel, Bud Smith, Wainwright, Duncan, and Molina). The reluctance to see what he can get out of the likes of Reyes and others may more accurately be a description of what LaRussa thinks of the "talent" produced by the organization than what he thinks young players (in general) can accomplish. The truth is that between 2002 and 2007, the Cards haven't had much top talent to add to the team.

As for how this ties into payroll, while I understand that if LaRussa returns, he will be reluctant to he his "retooling" money spent on draft picks what won't be up before 2010 or 2011 or so, I also don't think the Cards, as Bernie seems to suggest, should be throwing top dollar at middle of the order hitters. I don't mind adding veteran players who can add some value to the team (think signing someone like Shannon Stewart or trading for the likes of Burnett, Renteria or Coco Crisp) the Cards should not be bidding on top dollar free agents at this point, regardless of what LaRussa says.

by JMedwick on Oct 1, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My one exception

Would be A-Rod.

by JMedwick on Oct 1, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They will bid

They will offer him a contract that pays him, on average for 6 years, $14MM. Of course the first couple of years they will only pay him $4MM per year and there will be two club option years at the end for $20MM per season. Then the Red Sox will offer him $250MM over 8 years...and we will hear how we put in a "competitive offer"

We will then trade for Julio Lugo who AROD just put out of a job and sign Matt Clement and re-sign Piniero. The payroll will go up by $8,000,000 and we will be told that we "just missed" on several big name guys.

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

by Elvis on Oct 1, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that the Cards should

concentrate only going the trade route for the bare necessities: a shortstop and a good #2 starter(wainright, I think will prove to be a #1). You get burned all too often in trades. Jack Wilson and Dan Haren being examples. Now the greatest need is what has been plundered away. The Cards would have won in 05 with Haren and certainly 06. and Jack Wilson should have been with this club for the last 5 years. The Kennedy move was the dumbest of all( a three year contract, WHY, was anybody else even after him. Eckstein should have been on 2nd base for the last 2 years. Develop players, even if you have to wait a couple years to compete. It is the only thing that makes sense, the Cards are not going to be able to compete with the big spending franchises. Who wants to pay to see a bunch overpaid free agent veterans like the Mets fold.

by ridgesee on Oct 1, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NLDS

I hope the Rockies win for more reasons then one, but one of them is so we have 7/8 teams new this post season over last that to me is a very interesting occurrence in baseball, even 6/8 wouldn't be bad though.
I can't wait to see everyone's predictions compared to the "experts"

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 9:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So many things about this

year are different from last year. But one principle that will almost certainly reassert itself in 2007 is that "The Experts are [Still] Idiots."

"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Oct 1, 2007 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

like any of us around here could do a better job.

Don't be jealous that those guys get paid to watch sports all day.

by Jhusk on Oct 1, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't help it

That would be such a sweet gig!

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last year was the suprise

No one had the Twins, Tigers, A's, and Mets playing like they did last year.

This year I heard many have the Indians, Phillies, and the rest as expected to contend. The Rockies are the only shocker in my opinion.

by enoscountry on Oct 1, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

the continuing trend in baseball is to develop talent and then lock them in early to long term contracts. Most are pulling it off successfully - although Howard and the Phils couldn't agree this preseason (I bet he gets locked in now).

Only low budget teams like A's and Marlins fail to do so. This consequently shrinks the free agent market, increases FA cost, and makes the free agency approach less beneficial.

Speaking of, I think we need to do so with Yadi. I think he showed he can hit this year despite our terrible lineup.

by enoscountry on Oct 1, 2007 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I usually don't mind Bernie

But I think his article today was a little silly.

Who exactly does he think is out there that is worth opening DeWallet for? Given this year's FA crop, such thinking will lead us to handcuff ourselves for the future. This is one year that stopgaps may actually make sense -- in 2009, we will (i) have a lot more money to spend, as Izzy/Mulder/Edmonds/Enc/Looper all come off the books, (ii) hopefully have league-minimum guys like Rasmus and Perez ready to make substantial contributions, and (iii) be considering a more attractive group of FAs. Spending now may just prevent us from taking advantage of that opportunity . . . .

by tdawg on Oct 1, 2007 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

It's funny how Bernie and others simply say, "They have to spend money," as if just spending on anything is the answer. You don't just buy to buy.

"Well, no one's perfect. Only one guy was ever perfect, Jack, and they nailed him to a tree!"

by lightbulb on Oct 1, 2007 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Support

I agree that simply spending money isn't the answer. But I think his point is that DeWitt should consider how fans are supporting this club. Fans spending that much money deserve committed ownership if you think baseball is, in any way, a public trust. DeWitt, therefore, should spend more if the right people are available. I think players like Abreu, Andruw Jones and Schilling might put us right back at the top of the division. So, why not?

by templetown on Oct 1, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one will argue agains spending money

If it helps the team. But simply replacing a cheap player with an expensive one doesn't help unless it improves performance.

i.e. Replacing Reyes with Colon (both 6+ ERA) doesn't help.

by DriverZn on Oct 1, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the thing is

people are acting like if they don't spend money "wisely" it's going to prevent them from spending money elsewhere....when it all just goes to DeWitt's bottom line.

It's not like they're saying...well, instead of spending 16 mil on a 10 game win player we'll spend 8 mil on two 5 game win players. As fans we shouldn't care about his bottom line, at all.

by rocKStark5 on Oct 1, 2007 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I second that emotion

Larry, I know you weren't specifically making the connection, but the first half of your post perfectly justifies the argument you make in the second half. That is, if the Cards were a team (like the 2003 squad) that had a strong foundation but a few obvious but fixable holes, then it would make sense to "open up DeWallet" and plug the gaps with free agent signings.

But there's no way anyone could read your list of odds n ends (actually there's no way anyone could read your blog all season) and come to the conclusion that this is a fixable team in the near future. We are broken on offense, defense, and pitching. In fact, while I'm genuinely pleased that we won our last 5 games and came in with a disappointing-but-far-from-embarrassing 78-84 record, this is NOT a 78-84 team at its root. It's more like a 90-loss team.

Now obviously 90-loss teams can turn around in one year and win the NL Central with a few free agent signings (just look at the Cubs)... but ONLY only if the core of the team is fundamentally sound. Outside of Pujols I would not say that of this Cardinals team.

Brian Gunn

by briangunn on Oct 1, 2007 11:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bernie

seems like he is influenced by his forum press box and the multitude of young irrational posters that drop by to complain about the cardinals.

If he wanted to complain about the reluctance for ownership to spend money, he should have done it with the last draft, when most of the picks were overdrafts compared to the consensus. The cardinals left players, that even by their own organization, were regarded as better talent than what was taken in particular rounds due to signability.

Management stated that the money saved by not signing free agents would be redirected to the draft, and it wasn't.

I love lamp

by Some witty name on Oct 1, 2007 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dunno about obsessed

but I think he's just taking the side of, dunno what to call it, ticket pricing or something. He recognizes that DeWitt is squeezing everything he can out of the franchise, and expects him to pour resources back into the franchise.

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Too much time

spent hanging out at the Pressbox forum seems to have affected his thinking. There are a lot of voices over there for whom winning the WS every year is merely a matter of have the will to "get" whatever players we need to win.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Oct 1, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Opening DeWallet for DeDraft

The big probelm with the Cardinals' draft is that they played by Bud Selig's book on "slotting" - essentially, a league-wide mandate to assign salary to a player according to what pick/round he was drafted at. It's an ass-backwards attempt to fix the signability problems that cause players like Rick Porcello and Kyle Russell to slip down the draft board, and an attempt to take leverage away from agents at this early stage. However, it ignores the league-wide trend toward free-agent madness, and postpones the path to rebuilding for many teams like the Cards who are maxed out on free agent dollars.

Tim Purpura went the opposite route with the Astros, and drafted the best talent available in each of the first four rounds, only to find out that Drayton McLain was also playing by Selig's book, and wouldn't pony up to sign ANY of them. Hence, Purpura, whose specialty was player development (he drafted and brought up Berkman, Lidge, Ensberg, Everett, et. al.), lost an entire top shelf draft. And was fired.

If Bernie is going to call out DeWitt to draw a line in the sand, it should be here. Just say no to slotting. Say yes to paying market value for the talent you need, come draft time.

by taiko on Oct 1, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This also effects Luhnow

If Luhnow is lobbying so hard for the GM post, he should take a minute first and decide if DeWitt is going to give him rein to acquire the best talent available. This last draft was unpleasant ... a repeat of the Astros' draft would be disastruous.

by taiko on Oct 1, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i had the impression

that what sunk the astros' draft was free-agent signings. i thought they lost all their picks in rounds 1 through 3 for the privilege of signing carlos lee, woody williams, and mark loretta.

which is yet another reason why it would be stupid for the cards to buy a bunch of expensive talent this winter.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking it up now...

And it's a combination of both. They lost a first-round pick to the Rangers for Carlos Lee, and a "sandwich pick" - 40th overall - to San Diego for the right to sign Woody Williams (!). They didn't have a pick in the 2nd round for an unspecified reason - perhaps due to an earlier signing or trade.

They also failed to receive any compensatoin picks for their departing free agents (Clemens, Pettite, etc.), because none were offered arbitration.

Then, they failed to come to terms with both of their picks in the third and fourth rounds. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5057770.html

Disastruous.

by taiko on Oct 1, 2007 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Richard Justice's take

The columnist for the Houston Chronicle has a very good blog post about their failed draft, that also links to a blurb in the NY Times about Selig and "slotting."

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2007/08/are_the_astros.html

"The excessive draft spending did not please Commissioner Bud Selig, who delivered a stern lecture to the owners at their quarterly meeting Thursday. Some who attended the meeting had the impression that Selig believed the recommended bonuses for each slot of the first five rounds was a hard slotting system, akin to the N.B.A.'s.

It is not a fixed system, however, because the union wouldn't agree to it in the negotiations for the current collective bargaining agreement."

by taiko on Oct 1, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It seems apparent

that the only fix for the draft is a hard slotting system, it just makes so much sense from a teams perspective.

I don't believe that the cardinals adherence to Selig's bonus recommendations can be held responsible for their draft picks. If that was the case would they have taken Russell as low as they did. Anybody could tell that Russell wouldn't sign for slot money, and obviously they took him knowing they would have to break Selig's recommendations.

Management had to realize the system was exploitable and they could have added several impact players with one draft, something their system lacks. However, rather than do that they reached on all of their early picks and took low ceiling picks. With as much credit the farm system gets, it's still in the lower half in talent and needs to supplement an aging roster sooner than later

I love lamp

by Some witty name on Oct 1, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the astros draft

was heavy on signability. It was monumentally awful.

Kevin Goldstein has a better recap but the Astros realy blundered this year specifically.

by azruavatar on Oct 1, 2007 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rockies?

I'll oppose that and say let's go Padres.

stlfan

by stlfan on Oct 1, 2007 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Opening up dewallet

is all well and good, but if no one wants to play in St. Louis, it won't matter. That "I'll sign for less because it's the Cardinals" line doesn't hold water anymore, and hasn't for years.

by cardsrul on Oct 1, 2007 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

An Attack of October Phillie-itis

If there's a team that has an abundance of power/speed and pure mojo going into the playoffs, it's those red hot Phils. If they get ANY pitching, they'll steamroll the first two rounds.

Deja Vu Department: It wouldn't be October if we didn't read yet another account of how JASON MARQUIS IS IN DANGER OF BEING LEFT OFF THE POST SEASON ROSTER, because, you know, he's got this bothersome habit of pitching worse and worse as the campaign winds down.

by Urban Pawnee on Oct 1, 2007 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

just like jason marquis

if charlie manuel has any sense, adam eaton will not see a non-bullpen mound in the postseason. that's addition by subtraction.

the phils have a solid top 3 in the 'pen (myers, gordon, romero) and an ace in hamels with serviceable guys lohse, moyer, and kendrick to round out the rotation. the problem for that staff arises when the underbelly of their bullpen is exposed, i.e. mesa, alfonseca, geary, etc. you'll notice that sunday, despite moyer only pitching 5 1/3 innings, that none of these guys were used. with the off days in the playoffs, the phils might be able to get by relying on only their horses.

the rox look like the better team and could very well beat the phillies at their own game, but i can't see the padres doing it - pitching and a big park is nice, but chris young has struggled mightily down the stretch and peavy will only go once in the series thanks to the playoff. a pitching-heavy team going into citizens bank band box (which should be a HUGE home field advantage, judging by the atmosphere there sunday) doesn't seem to bode well.

by moboiler on Oct 1, 2007 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

PS

This would be a great time to talk to Oscar Minaya about a certain devalued shortstop on his roster.

by Urban Pawnee on Oct 1, 2007 11:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Omar?

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, I can't get away with anything here!

Give me a C- in my Met franchise acumen.

Oscar Minaya? Must have been a futility infielder in the Twins organization back in the 70s.

by Urban Pawnee on Oct 1, 2007 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets

have a shortstop named Omar? =)

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 1, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the same thing

We'd take 5 months of what Jose Reyes did in NY this year and find a way to work around his .197 September. Mets fans don't want ya, Jose? Have we got a deal for you . . . come play with Albert hittin' behind ya . . .

TSF

by TedSimmonsFan on Oct 1, 2007 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus -

he's the most exciting player in the game!

by Urban Pawnee on Oct 1, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could we get him

without the Jose! Jose! Jose! Jose! chant?

If so, I'm all in.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 1, 2007 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we could do a lot with Jose Reyes

He really does not seem to do well with the Mets' crowds (in fact the team as a whole has a horrible home record). I can't imagine that they would let him go. But he may want to leave eventually since he's constantly booed and has been identified as "the reason" the Mets season fell apart by a lot of the NY press. He would certainly need veteran leadership to make him better focused and more professional, but I do think that could be done in our clubhouse.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will be interesting to see . . .

what effect the Cards' high ticket prices will have on the 2008 season.

One question is will the "new ballpark" fans, paying the 3rd highest average ticket prices in the country, still come out to the ballpark in comparable numbers to recent seasons to essentially watch a stopgap 2008 team, and, if they don't, what effect will that have on ownerships' willingness to spend in 2009 and beyond?

by bailorg on Oct 1, 2007 11:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The stadium

will still have that "new car smell" for at least another year or two, and DeWitt knows it. Plus he still has the Ballpark Village thing to hang over fans' heads, which will keep them coming to games.

by cardsrul on Oct 1, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to go out on a limb here

And say that there won't be a significant drop in attendance next year, regardless of how the club performs. Another losing year and we might be looking at a lousy 09 attendance, but I think it's going to take more than one bad year to stop Cards fans from coming out to the ballpark.

by stl tyler on Oct 1, 2007 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

and one of the reasons I do is because even when the team was in that dreadful losing streak, they still had healthy attendance. Also, I was amazed at how long the crowd stayed even when they were playing poorly.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The leadoff man?

Lboros' stats on Skip are interesting. When Eck leaves, we'll need a good leadoff guy. I had thought maybe Ryan deserved a chance at that.

Do we need to consider Skip? He's got great outfield defense, great arm, and can play all 3 positions.

If we do, whom are our 3 regular outfielders? I assume we'd need to get rid of Duncan or Ankiel.

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the concern about schumaker

is that his BABIP was .363, which is ridiculously high. if it comes down to, say, .320 next year --- which would still be well above average --- then his batting avg ends up in the .290 range, and his obp is only .325ish, which isn't very good. and if schumaker's BABIP comes down to league average, then he's a .275 hitter with a .310 obp.

i'm not trying to denigrate his achievements this year, but i wouldn't count on him replicating those numbers next season.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BABIP question

Not a stat-head here (yet) and am still trying to makes sense of these metrics. But it seems to my logic that a good hitter can target the ball well enough to hit it away from defenders on purpose (a line drive rather than a ground ball, a gap rather than at the left fielder, ....). That is - a good hitter SHOULD have a higher BABIP than a mediocre hitter. Not saying that Skip is an above average hitter, but I am wondering whether this metric can really be used to argue that this is a fluke year.

by cdb on Oct 1, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

empirically that's not true

the cards' position players this year had BABIPS in a very narrow range --- all but a few players had BABIPs between about .285 and .315, and that's true throughout MLB. but their overall batting averages ranged from .240 to .330.

BABIP is highly influenced by luck. if you have a high line-drive rate, then maybe the BABIP reflects a higher-than-usual degree of skill --- but schumaker's line-drive rate was 19.1 percent, which is about league average.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

more on BABIP

here's a series of old posts about it:

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2006/1/17/92555/6441

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2006/1/18/83519/9499

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2006/1/20/82029/1173

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

skeptically sold....

Well,

I am a beleiver in numbers, and the numbers do support your point, so I am sold. However, I will remain optimistic that the number are lying - just this once.

by cdb on Oct 1, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha

It appears that we disagree to disagree. Or something.

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'd rather classify this one

as a "great minds" phenomenon. . . .

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But..

Isn't the luck-dependence of BABIP much more established for pitchers than it is for hitters? I can see how a pitcher's BABIP is very, very luck-dependent, but a batter's BABIP would have to at least correlate with speed--if all balls in play are equivalent, then the faster hitter should be the one reaching base first. Skippy, Ryan and So are the only two players on the team that really have much speed of note, and they all outperformed their BA with their BABIP.

Just for fun, I checked Ichiro's BABIP, and it was in the .400s. Curtis Granderson's was .465. Barry Bonds' was .255.

by Valatan on Oct 1, 2007 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

btw, I'm not saying that Skip can sustain

a BABIP of .370. But I am saying that it's reasonable to think he might be able to consistently maintain an above average BABIP.

by Valatan on Oct 1, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i've got granderson at .360 in BABIP this year

and .344 for his career.

ichiro has a career BABIP of .357, and close to .400 this year.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, there's another interesting stat today

n/t

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

THAT is VERY interesting..

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Oct 1, 2007 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True that

If you add LD% by .120, you get a quick and dirty estimate of where his BABIP should sit. That can help to determine whether he's hitting it where they ain't because he's hitting it good or because he's hitting it luckily. Better models are out there and even better models would be easy for some people to produce.

Skip's LD% is .191, so his Q&D expected BABIP would be .311...

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip

I've always been irrationally high on Skip Schumaker since his first call-up, when he threw a one-hopper home from the wall.

But I paid close attention to his pitch-by-pitch plate appearances during 2006 (didn't keep the data) and he seemed to strike out on a lot of full counts. He's got great hand-eye coordination—he can get the bat on the ball fine—but he doesn't seem to have good strike zone recognition. He doesn't walk enough, and he strikes out too much trying to walk—at least as a minor leaguer. Tony and Hal have been trying to get him to take aggressive at-bats.

I still think he's got it in him to develop into a Brian Giles-lite type, but at his age, he's going to need to figure out which pitches to take, which to foul off, and which to smite.

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder how his 2006 performance

compares to his 2007 performance. He seems to have really come into his own this year. The adjustments he in the second half of the season, compared to the first half seem to be pretty striking. It would be interesting to know if the second half gives us indications of maturing in these areas that you are concerned about.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know, but his approach is getting results

He isn't walking nearly as much as he'd need to as a lead-off man, but his aggressiveness in putting the ball in play has gotten his average up. Hopefully that would make pitchers work him differently and he'd get more opportunities to work a walk.

The team would rather him swing the bat than draw a walk at this point in his career, and that's probably smart in the role he plays and the type of gap-power hitter he is. If he can establish himself as a dangerous hitter and get his confidence high, ideally he'll start walking more as a side effect.

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's very helpful

in helping me understand how they might be coaching him and why. Thanks.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what adjustments

did schumaker make?

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He started hitting and getting on base...

I would think that is due to more experience at the big leagues since it correlated with his increasing number of at bats. He has signficantly improved in every area of hitting as the season has gone along. Who would have guessed that Skip would end the season with a .333 avg. after watching him during the first month or two of the season?

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but the point is

better results don't always reflect real improvements in ability. sometimes --- especially in a sample as small as 177 at-bats --- the improved results are based at least as much on luck (which isn't sustainable) as on skill.

my suspicion is that schumaker's results reflect luck more so than skill, and the clue is his unsustainably high BABIP. not even albert pujols gets a hit on 36 percent of his balls in play; his career BABIP is .320, and nobody hits it consistently harder than albert does.

if schumaker's BABIP falls to .320 or below, he's no longer a .330 hitter; he's a .290 hitter who doesn't walk or hit for power. ie, a decent 4th outfielder, but not a guy i want batting leadoff every day.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had similar discussions on this site

concerning luck and skill about Wainwright and his limited sample size in the majors. I argued for skill; others for luck. I think he has proven his successes to be based on skill more than luck. Others may disagree.

If we put Skip in the leadoff position, that's not set in stone. We can always remove him if it doesn't work. If his performance this year is based on skill and not luck, then we have a geat leadoff man.

So since we don't know with certainty whether its luck or skill (just as people didn't know that about Wainwright), what is the loss in determining that through performance? And we don't have other good options at this point if Eckstein leaves and if Ryan isn't an everyday player.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problem is, if you give a guy a trial

at the leadoff spot, the only fallback you have for that spot is basically Kennedy. None of your other hitters are gonna be a leadoff type.

That's assuming that we get a SS and play Skip. If we play Ryan, there's a fallback too.

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nycardfan, i remember that conversation

and i think you are still missing the point about it. go back and read the original post. it doesn't say that wainwright's success is due to luck; it says his lack of success early on was due to bad luck. i documented his bad luck back on may 27 (posted here), when wainwright was carrying a 6.02 era. using BABIP analysis, i concluded that his high ERA was a mirage. "as long as wainwright continues to keep the ball in the park, he's going to be okay," i wrote. "hitters simply are not going to sustain a .388 BABIP against him for a full season."

even when his stats looked awful, BABIP told us that he actually was pitching with a fair degree of skill and his stats would probably self-correct. the same is true, in reverse, with schumaker --- BABIP suggests that he was hitting with less skill than suggested by his batting average.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The discussion

I was recalling had to do with whether Wainwright would be a back of rotation or front of rotation guy. The people I was arguing against had Wainwright's ERA predicted to be around 4.30 and they did not believe it would fall under 4.00. And I'm fairly sure that discussion did use "luck" in arguing Waino only looked like he might be a front of rotation guy, but he would fall back to his average.

I don't think you (lboros) were involved in that discussion. So that example was not addressed to you.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Luck vs. skill

if you can link that argument, I'd be interested. I'm pretty sure that Wainwright has been projected to be a legit Ace throughout his minor league career.

I've seen your posts on here and they are articulate and well-thought out. But I can't help but notice that you are not a SABR fan.

BABIP is a legit metric, and Larry makes good use of it in his arguments. LD% is also very useful, although I wonder how many of Pujols' HR's are classified as line drives. Seems to me that half of his homers are laser shots. The numbers do show that Skippy McSingles has been quite lucky - and I trust those numbers more than I trust your gut.

by silent_bob on Oct 1, 2007 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thx Larry

for the link.

by silent_bob on Oct 1, 2007 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I find SABR interesting and useful

but I do have a critical distance. I think it often forecasts skills well. But I also think it can lead to certain decisions where a player who has shown promise at the major league level is not allowed the opportunity to demonstrate whether that talent is real or not. Their demonstrated skill on the field can be written off simply because it does not accord with his minor league record or other stats, and that's the end of the story.

In that way, it reminds me of the movie "Gattica" and how genetic determinism can lead to misguided conclusions about complex capabilities that develop in complex environments. I am concerned about a kind of "statistical determinism" that can block out opportunities of young players.

I am not going on "my gut" in saying that Skip should be given an extra look. That sounds as if I just like the guy and there is no evidence for his success. The evidence for his success this year are in his major league stats.

So I do find predictive numbers important and often right. But I also want to leave room for players who have performed well at the major league level to prove themselves.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't see your post before I wrote

a similar one below about Skip.

What if Duncan became a fourth or fifth outfielder and was used for pinch hitting? Because of Ankiel's arm, I'd rather focus on developing him as an everyday player in right field. We know what Duncan can do in the outfield and he has a rotten throwing arm. Ankiel could keep a lot of runners on first base who would otherwise get to second.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duncan is an Everyday Player

IMO, and he should probably be starting as a DH somewhere, like Minnesota or LA.

The Cards would have no business using Duncan as a 4th OF. If that is the case he should be dealt to the AL for a starting pitcher. We have enough OF depth with the development of Ludwick, Ankiel and The Cobbler that Duncan is expendable and valuable enough (with some prospects) to fetch a decent starter in return.

by Hungry Jack on Oct 1, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you make a good case

for trading him as a DH. I think that would fit his capabilities better and he would give us value in that area. So that's a better idea than mine.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reconciling Bernie

Perhaps we can raise payroll and fill holes without dipping into the weak yet expensive FA market and also protect our draft positioning. It would be a sin to lose our highest pick in a long while.

I don't have any idea how viable this would be, but something along the lines of trading Duncan for Pat the Bat and two or three prospects. Pat's owed $14M next year, then his contract runs out and he'll be a Type-A free agent right when our new crop of outfielders is expected to hit the scene. We'd essentially be trading several years of Duncan and $13,000,000 for one year of a right-handed version of Duncan and four or five prospects.

Duncan wouldn't be a defensive liability in Phillie, where he could practically touch the outfield fence while holding hands with Wes Helms.

Just a thought.

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pat the Bat is a very streaky hitter, and

he's not good at all defensively. But when he gets hot he blisters the ball and is darn near impossible to get out. I don't know-that's a pretty big contract, and I think management is kind of attatched to him-he is one of their homegrown guys. The idea is intriguing......

by jillsinmo on Oct 1, 2007 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't realize...

Pat had such a huge second half. The Phillies have been trying to dump his salary for a while now and they don't have anyone at AAA ready to step in and fill his shoes.

Even if this isn't the right trade specifically, I like the idea of trading from a surplus to pick up a pricey, one-year rental veteran and restock the farm a bit.

by liam on Oct 1, 2007 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip

isn't a guy to walk very often so his OBP is driven solely by his BA. this is troublesome for a guy w/ little speed and even less power. When his grounders aren't finding holes then he's going to be unable to find 1st base.

by chuckb on Oct 1, 2007 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip vs. Rollins as leadoff hitters

Skip: 177 AB, 59 H, 8 BB, .333 avg., .358 OBP, .458 SLG

Rollins: 716 AB, 212 H, 49 BB, .296 avg, .344 OBP, .531 SLG

Skip compares favorably with Jimmy Rollins in certain categories. Rollins is an aggressive hitter, making his hit and walk ratios similar to Skips. In his limited experience in the big leagues, Skip has a better batting average and on base percentage than Rollins does (and this is probably even more accentuated if we look at the last half of the season when Skip seemed finally to adjust to being in the big leagues).

Power is an undeniable plus for Rollins, but we can get power further down the line. Our recent leadoff men have not had power. They've gotten on base consistently. And of course Skip is nowhere near as speedy as Rollins. But he's faster than Eckstein and is probably as fast or faster than most people on our team (except for Ryan). And besides Ryan, who on our team steals? So there's not much of a loss there.

I'm not saying Skip is close to Rollins in terms of talent. But he has a lot to offer.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip = 4th/5th OF

Skip fits this roster because he offers a good glove and perhaps a league-average LH bat to complement Ryan Ludwick in LF, who is also a decent defender and had a .909 OPS against RHP. This is the two-headed monster that could provide good defense and decent punch from LF in 2008--if Duncan can fetch us a decent starter.

Sorry, but putting Skip Schumaker and Jimmy Rollins in the same paragraph is like comparing Winston Churchill and George Bush.

by Hungry Jack on Oct 1, 2007 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand the sentiment in your last sentence

but perhaps you didn't read my last sentence. I was only looking at certain categories and applying those to our team and what we have available to us.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait a minute

from your numbers, Skip's BB rate is 4.5% while Rollins' is 6.8%. That's a pretty big jump -- Rollins' walk rate is more than 50% higher than Skip's. Saying that they're "about similar" isn't remotely true.

And the fact that Rollins has power and speed and Skip doesn't is very relevant. Since Skip has neither, and doesn't walk (he would walk about 28 times given a full season of AB's), his OBP is almost completely driven by his BA. It was pointed out above that Skip's line drive % is about league average. Therefore, why should we think that Skip can get on base enough to justify hitting in the leadoff spot.

If we absolutely had to use Skip every day, he should bat in the 9 hole, not the 1 hole but the truth of the matter is that he doesn't offer enough offense to justify an every day position, particularly in the OF.

by chuckb on Oct 1, 2007 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

I was way off on the walk ratio. Sorry about that--I was rushing off to class and did something crazy with my calculator.

One thing I'd like to know is, given our players, who would you put in the leadoff position? And why do you think they would perform better, looking at their major league stats compared to Skip's major league stats?

I guess a basic difference in our presuppositions in analyzing Skip's potential is that I think players can develop signficant skills in the major leagues, just as they develop in the minors. Because of that, I take advances in their major league stats as indicating serious possibilities (talents that will not necessarily fade). They might be transitory, but they also might point to lasting skills.

Let me go back to Jimmy Rollins again as an example. He looks like a different hitter in his earlier years in the majors compared to his post 2004 years.

Rollins' 2002 numbers are .245 avg/.306 obp/.380 slg
Rollins' 2003 numbers are .263/.320/.387
Rollins' 2004 numbers are .289/.348/.455
Rollins' 2005 numbers are .290/338/.431
Rollins' 2006 numbers are .277/.334/.478
Rollins' 2007 numbers are .296/.344/.531

Rollin's has clearly developed over a number of years in the major leagues as a hitter. In fact his early stats fall short of Skip's this year (.333/.358/.458).

Again, I'm not putting Skip into the same skill level as Rollins (not at all). But I also don't want to write off Skip as being just lucky this year and miss trying out a decent leadoff batter. As to speed, I'm not sure who is faster on our team besides Ryan. Ankiel will not be put into the number 1 spot (TLR has said this recently).

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yet more reason

to look at BABIP, which shows that Skippy "hit em' where they ain't" quite a bit.

A high walk rate projects out, NYCard...High BABIP doesn't.

by silent_bob on Oct 1, 2007 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not going to argue...

whether Skip makes a good leadoff guy, walks enough, or hits for power, but one thing he definitely has is speed. He hasn't translated that into stolen bases so much, but he is one of the two or three fastest guys on the team.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 1, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

>but [Skip] is one of the two or three fastest guys on the team.

You do realize that with this old and slow team, that statement means almost nothing, right? <grin>

Based upon nothing but my keen observational skills (cough), I would, at best, peg Skip's speed as somewhere roughly between a 6 and a 7 on a 10 point speed scale (e.g., slightly above average). But on this team, even being average makes someone seem like a speedster...

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Oct 1, 2007 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

stuff

Skip is just like Aaron Miles. I think both are best suited as back up players. Don't get me wrong they are good players. It is nice to have guys who can come off the bench and hit. I just don't see our line up being good if those two are playing 120+ games a year.

6th highest payroll & 3rd highest ticket price should equal at least 7th highest payroll. I am for spending money the right way. It takes a balance of spending on the right free agent and the right draft pick. There is a balance, you can't spend all your money on draft picks and you can't spend it all on FA.

TLR will play young players. The thing is he is not going to continue to play young players who do not produce! end of story, we are not the Florida Marlins organization. If you want to see 5 to 6 young guys playing go watch a Marlins game.

As posted earlier look at all the young guys TLR has played that stepped up and performed well.

Reyes has has plenty of chances. He just stunk it up. Ryan played 67 games which he showed some things. I personally view Ryan being a Ryan Theriot type player. Which means he will not be a difference maker offensively but he will be solid.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 1, 2007 12:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Skip is much better defensively

than Miles. And, so far, his offensive numbers in the big leagues are very impressive (especially in the last half of the season).

Given the fact that we don't have a natural leadoff man if/when Eckstein leaves, I wouldn't mind having Skip fill that position. He has been consistently getting on base with his .330 average, is fast, and could learn to steal (I'm assuming Ryan will not be an everyday player right now).

With this scenario, we would have to add an impact bat in the infield to make up for the loss of power in the outfield. Of course, this won't happen since there seems to be an unwritten law that power has to come from the outfield and leadoff men with high batting averages from the infield.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Skip is much better defensively

and can play 3 positions -- RF, CF, and LF. Miles is limited to 2B and he doesn't do that well at all. B/c they play different positions, there's no real competition between the two but Skip is much more useful than Miles is.

by chuckb on Oct 1, 2007 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your points that player development

should not be sacrificed for short term rental talent. But we do have holes that need to be filled. We can be fairly sure that Bernie has zero influence on front office decisions, so what he says doesn't concern me much--it's just his opinion.

TLR has talked about adding one impact bat and one or perhaps two pitchers (I doubt they have the resources now for two). That does not sound radical. I'm not sure why we couldn't make those changes to keep the team competitive, while we wait for players in AA and AAA to mature.

Our high draft (#13) pick next year will hopefully help our pitching situation, especially since there are a couple of promising local pitchers who will be high draft picks and could be cultivated given their MO connections. The Braves have been able to get numerous outstanding players by cultivating athletes from Georgia. This might be a good avenue to pursue.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i have zilch optimism

that this team is going to bounce back. the players in the fa are old, broken down, or just plain crap. there isn't much in the farm system in way of providing assistance next year, save rasmus and perez, and that doesn't help the situation with pitching. and the team either won't invest in the draft to turn it around quickly a la the Tigers, or they just lack the proper evaluation skills. some of the guys in the system are nifty and all, but where is the upside? because of this, you can't get help via trade, free agency, or the farm. there is nowhere to go but to start to rebuild, imo. welcome to hell fellas, i have a feeling we'll be starting envy the team across the state pretty soon.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Oct 1, 2007 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't quite agree with you

I don't think 08's going to be much prettier than 07, but there's a decent FA crop coming up next year. We do need to improve our drafting, but I think it's trending up. I do agree with you that Kansas City's going to become a very good team within the next few years.

by stl tyler on Oct 1, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree that it

is trending up, but it had nowhere else to go. i follow the system closely obviously and while there are some decent prospects, most of it is comprised with bottom of the rotation and 4th outfielder types. i wish i could paint a prettier picture.

mostly, i was talking about 2008. 2009 could be better, at least i hope so.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Oct 1, 2007 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just for a point of ref

and i'll have this at FR later and a lot of it could be subject to change, here is a quick spreadsheet i have of they system

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pso2_n7qLlVpw5AJotXLmEw

like i said, there are some decent prospects there, but in terms of impact a lot of them are aways away and have some question marks.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Oct 1, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and martinez

i should have at 7...maybe 7.5. it's not updating, for some reason.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Oct 1, 2007 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel

I don't like the tag of PEDs on Ankiel but I know that is your spreadsheet, and I think it is a press issue at least. That issue though is not for debate here anyway. I like that kind of run down of the talent, Furnish's agent might disagree though ;). Anyway keep up the good work Erik I look forward to your updates this winter and while we disagree on how to feel about next season I think that is more about me being an eternal optimist.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm not a stone

thrower when it comes to the ankiel situation, but it did seem to affect his performance once the situation came out, so that was me being a pessimist, thinking he may not recover from the public scrutiny, as he didn't really as a pitcher. but that's a whole other topic of discussion.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Oct 1, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Kansas City's new management team KNOWS how to evaluate talent...they have had excellent drafts, and they have taken some risks. They have a solid foundation, and if they keep current management in place I definitely see them turning it around.

by jillsinmo on Oct 1, 2007 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at the team more long term

I was thinking about the pitching staff the other day and more to the point, Adam Wainwright being thrust into the role of the team's #1.

Only 5 NL starters(Derek Lowe, Ian Snell, Matt Cain, Chris Young) to post a sub 4.00 ERA and have a below .550 winning percentage.

When you look back at who Wainwright was locked up with the list goes: Gorzelanny(x2), Zambrano(x2), Webb, Penny, Oswalt. 7 of his 32 starts went against the other teams ace. His record in those games was 1-5 with 1 ND.

This doesn't even include the games he went against Lowe, Lilly, etc.

The point of this is, those are games that Carpenter would have more than likely started. The games against the likes of Lilly and Lowe are what Wainwright SHOULD have been facing all season. As the teams #2 starter, he more than likely would have faired better in the win/loss column.

Now, who is to say that Carpenter doesn't have an awful season anyways and goes 0-7 in all those games. But I can't help but wonder what Wainwright's record could have been if not locked up against other team's aces? Would those games have made a difference in the standings? Would they have taken a burden off the rest of the pitching staff (Looper shifted down to #3, Wells to #4, Reyes/Thompson #5) and then given the team more of a chance to dump Reyes/Wells?

We can't really expect anything out of Carpenter/Mulder until August of next year if ever again. However, with further health problems aside, having Carpenter and Wainwright at the top of the roation will make a HUGE difference, in my mind, as to what this team can do in 2009 and forward. Having 2 'Aces' at the top makes the whole rotation look better. 5 game losing streaks don't happen.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Carpenter's injury hurt in a lot of ways. Every pitcher beyond him essentially had to move up a slot, which can be pretty damaging to a w/l record. Wainwright could have easily had an 18 win year if he'd actually been slotted in the #2 slot.

by stl tyler on Oct 1, 2007 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to WPA

Using Fangraph's daily WPA values, I came up with an alternate form of W-L record. (I've done this over the past two years.) If the starting pitcher's value was +.100 or better, he was credited with a win; -.100 or worse nets a loss; in between gets a no decision. While not perfect, I think it does a better job of assigning credit & blame. Starters spotted a 7-run lead before the ascend the hill have it much easier and don't "deserve" the win. Conversely, yielding 1 run over 7 innings while your opponent spins a shutout should still go down as a "W" in the ledger.

Anywho, here are the marks for the Redbird hurlers (starts only):

Wainwright: 18-10 w/4 no decisions
Looper: 15-11, 4 ND
Wellemeyer: 4-4, 3 ND
Piniero: 3-3, 4 ND
Percival: 0-0, 1 ND
Thompson: 5-6, 6 ND
Wells: 5-15, 6 ND
Reyes: 3-12, 5 ND
Maroth: 1-6, 0 ND
Keisler: 0-2, 1 ND
Carpenter: 0-1, 0 ND
Mulder: 0-3, 0 ND

Just for comparison sake, Jake Peavy's WPA record was 23 wins, 3 losses, and 7 no decisions.

So your estimate of 18 wins does sem to jive with his performances according to WPA. As for next year, I could see an additional 3 wins pulled from his losses this year (21-7 by WPA, 17-9 actual).

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Oct 1, 2007 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And this goes along with the idea

that if you had Carpenter taking the hill in those games instead of Wainwright, Wainwright's superior talent than all but 10 pitchers in the NL this year would have been used against team's #2 and #3 starters.

It's the old argument, do you use your ace against their's or do you throw him against someone else for the more likely win.

Even if Carpenter was a .500 pitcher, I have to believe it would have improved this team by 4 wins or so.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure Carpenter would have had a better

outcome against those aces if he had played them because of our offensive problems. Wainwright had a very good record in the matches you listed (except his first time against Big Z). But we had no offense to back him up.

Against Oswalt: Waino allowed 1 ER

Against Penny: Waino allowed 2 ER in complete game (0 ER until 9th inning)

Against Webb: Waino allowed 2 ER

Against Zambrano (last game): Waino allowed 2 ER

Against Gorzelanny: Waino allowed 2 ER in one, 3 ER in the other

Also, in most of those pitching matchups, Wainwright outlasted the Ace from the other side.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

This is why I think the mental part of this game can never be explained, would the offense have clicked more often (remember those nice 5th inning and sunday blowouts?) if we had more consistent pitching to raise their spirits? If Carp had never gone down would Wells have crapped out like he did? Would he have helped Reyes deal with no run support and keep pitching the same as he was at the start? So many mental things that just can't be explained.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its not the pitchers fault that our hitters failed

When your offense has hugh holes in it like.

Kennedy's .572 ops
Miles .674 ops (414 ABs, 3rd most on team)
Rolen's .729
Edmonds .728

When you have a manager giving Miles that many at bats and 2 of your 4 big guns failing to fire. You are not going to score runs.

I said last offseason pitching wasn't our biggest need. Ok so the pitching failed, but the offsense failed also.

by DriverZn on Oct 1, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say the offense wasn't to fault

I wasn't saying that the offense carries no blame what I was saying is that the mental aspect can't be judged, how could a healthy rotation have affected the mental makeup of the offense, we will never know. If you know that you have Carp and Wainwright going 2/5 games it makes you more confident which can help you hit better, or it could have no effect what so ever. Miles was given too many ABs that is for sure but it wasn't the managers fault this year. Eckstein and Kennedy were both injured which left a need for him to fill that gap, yes Ryan should have played more but I don't think in the end it would have helped all that much.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, I did not realize

Miles was THIRD in ABs. That stat alone is enough reason to fire TLR (or at least trade Miles out of his reach).

by MdRedbirdFreak on Oct 1, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hardball Times Article

I know we're all pretty sick about this subject, BUT there's an article on Hardball Times about LaRussa being right to bat his pitcher eighth. That's hardly news to any of us, but they then make the argument that it would have been even more effective to bat the pitcher seventh.

by stl tyler on Oct 1, 2007 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pitching triple crown

As I understand it the pitching triple crown is Wins, Strikeouts and ERA. With those 3 stats we have a NL triple crown winner this year in Jake Peavy, if that man doesn't win the Cy Young I don't know who deserves it the most and if the Pads win today then he could get to 20 wins as well. I know it isn't official but with the next qualified ERA leader .7 points behind him I seriously doubt it will change.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 3:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My only concern with Peavy

is that I heard that he rarely goes deep into games (past 6 innings) and that's unusual for a Cy Young winner.

by nycardfan on Oct 1, 2007 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

IP/G

He has a 6.576 IP/G average (not using standard .1, .2, .3 notation obviously)
that is from 217IP in 33G this season.

If you look over his game log though (http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_player_gamebygamelog.jsp?c_id=mlb&playerID=408241&statTy pe=2)
it appears he has gone 7 innings in most starts but he has had his share of not so great games in 4.0, 5.0 and 5.1 IP games. I think a lot of this may have to do with the fact that the Padres have zilch offense so when you have a chance to pull the starter for a pinch hitter and you have Hoffman to back up your starter then you really have to go with that pinch hitter.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They also have a very good bullpen--they may have

pulled Peavy early some games because they COULD.

by jillsinmo on Oct 1, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To SparksofDementia

Though I haven't seen you on the board here lately, and with good reason, what with the Rockies going win-crazy this last month, I'd like to say how impressed and happy I am for you and your favorite team.

I've read your blog on occasion and the emotional ups-and-downs your Rockies have caused for you even exceed what most of us have dealt with watching the Cardinals this year.

I'll be watching the Play-in game tonight and hopefully see a still-surging Rockies team continue to do in October what they did in September. Good luck to you and yours.

I once shot a man just to see him die...then I got distracted and missed it.

by TheDuke32 on Oct 1, 2007 3:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you very much

as that's my blog, I still like the Cards and try to check in here on occasion, but am justifiably ecstatic, and scared to death, for the game tonight. Go Rockies! (and hope I don't have a heart attack...)

Anyone but the Cubs.

by Scarlet the Cardinal on Oct 1, 2007 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cardinal milestones

Next season the following Cardinal milestones are very acheivable:

Pujols: 300 2Bs and 300 HRs (needs 2 and 18 respectively)
Rolen: 400 2Bs and 1000 Rs (needs 20 and 46)
Edmonds: 400 2Bs and 1200 Rs (needs 5 and 46)
Spiezio: 1000 H (needs 4)
Kennedy: 200 2Bs (needs 5)
Encarnacion: 50 3Bs (needs 4)
Isringhausen: 300 SVs (needs 19 would tie Sutter who is currently 21st overall, with a great year from the club he could pass Percival's current total of 324)

That is some fairly impressive feats it would be cool to see APs 300th HR and he could enter the top 100 list for HRs as well next season. I have enough reason right there to be excited for next season, now it is Walts turn to give me even more reasons.

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

All first round games are on TBS

THANK YOU MLB for the FREAKING LACK of high definition games in my area. Sigh.

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What system do you have?

Time Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, etc all added TBS-HD today.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I'll check when I get home. Comcast told me via online chat support this afternoon that they wouldn't add it.

by sdrone on Oct 1, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

all's not well how wells ends

i find this interesting. wells seems to too then does acknowledge he hadn't really deserved to pitch. but still...

"PITTSBURGH -- With three shutout innings in relief Sunday, Kip Wells got the victory but fell seven outs shy of triggering a $500,000 bonus. The one-year, $4 million contract the righthander signed with the Cardinals last November featured several incentives, including a half-million-dollar bonus for throwing 165 innings. Wells threw three innings Sunday, striking out four Pirates.

Wells was lifted for Braden Looper to start the fifth inning. Looper was lifted after allowing the tying run to reach base. Wells finished with 162 2?3 innings, a rising ERA for the fourth consecutive full season (stopping at 5.70) and a 7-17 record.

General manager Walt Jocketty fiercely rejected any inference that the Cardinals were counting innings.

"You saw what you saw," said Wells, a pending free agent, after the game. He declined to say anything else, acknowledging the irony in getting the win in the season finale.

"I think it's more than coincidental that I'm not throwing all that much in the last 12 days," Wells said. "But it's one of those you-make-your-bed, you-have-to-lie-in-it situations. You haven't pitched well, so you don't really deserve to throw." "

by thatsawinner on Oct 1, 2007 3:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Boo hoo

When you have a 7-17 record, you don't deserve a 500,000 bonus. If I suck at my job nobody's going to be throwing money at me just because I show up. I'm sure Jocketty and TLR were aware of the innings count, but if there had been a situation where Wells was the best option available it wouldn't have mattered and TLR would have thrown him. The point of the matter is at no point in the season was Kip Wells EVER the best option.

by stl tyler on Oct 1, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

source

oops. that's from derrick goold's cards notebook on post-dispatch:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/68CAF1D31C52D2138625736700188246 ?OpenDocument

by thatsawinner on Oct 1, 2007 4:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

About that pesky 100th run scored...

Was anyone else hoping that, rather than continue his phenomenal hitting day yesterday, Skip Schumaker would have actually hit into an out to end an inning once or twice?

Far be it for me to criticize one of the best hitters out there, because, let's face it, if I take that stance in an argument -- I lose. But despite Albert's 100+ RBIs, he really wasn't raking 'em in when given the opportunity. In former years there was dissent because there wasn't a consistent OBP in front of Albert. This year, while it wasn't great, you could count on production when the right folk played (like Skippy, yesterday).

Listening to all those comments from Al and Dan, everytime Pujols was up yesterday, about needing one more run, one more walk, etc, I realized Albert has, seemingly, under-performed with runners on this year. And a couple of times I caught myself hoping Skip would actually get out, so Albert could lead off the next inning without a soul on base, so he COULD get that 100th run. Anyone else doing the same? But whether Albert was pushing too hard or was too hindered by his injuries, he just wasn't getting it done.

My other comment about the runs is that, if you take into account all the times he ran himself into outs on the basepath when safe running would have been the best strategy, it shouldn't have come down to the last day to try and get that 100th run scored. I guess what I'm doing is scolding one of the greatest players out there -- past or present. Again, not smart.

I once shot a man just to see him die...then I got distracted and missed it.

by TheDuke32 on Oct 1, 2007 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

it's really amazing

how incredible Albert has been in the past; we've reached the pont where we expect him to be superhuman with men on base, just because he is Albert. When he performs like a normal MVP-caliber player, he seems to be underperforming.

Anyway, with men on base this year albert's BA/OBP/SLG line was:
Men on: .312 .418 .510 (.928 OPS) RISP: .331 .480 .556 (1.036 OPS) 2-out RISP: .265 .537 .529 (1.066 OPS) Close/late: .403 .565 .790 (1.355 OPS)

Hell of an off-year ;)

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 out RISP

Is that .265 right? Did he really walk 27% of the time with 2 outs and RISP? That's unbelievable.

"...but If I can do some damage and help my team win, I'm going to stay in there" -Albert

by BigMOman on Oct 1, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup, that's right

54 PA, 34 AB, 19 walks and one HBP (scroll down). I get 37% though (counting the HBP as a BB).

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

math skills notwithstanding..

That .265 is why it appears he is not producing this year. Last year that number (2-outs RISP) was almost 100 points higher, if I remember correctly.

"...but If I can do some damage and help my team win, I'm going to stay in there" -Albert

by BigMOman on Oct 1, 2007 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

*was not producing

subconscious denial that the season is over sniff sniff

"...but If I can do some damage and help my team win, I'm going to stay in there" -Albert

by BigMOman on Oct 1, 2007 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

last year

.435/.581/.826 1.407OPS

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to sound like a broken record here

but I had the same thought about the outs Pujols ran into. A number of times he "drew the throw" so that the run would score, and then he got thrown out. (This doesn't even address the baserunning errors where he wasn't trying to get caught.)

I realize there's a "fundamentalist" camp that says it's never right to give away an out. I understand the reasoning behind sacrifice bunts, especially with the pitcher batting, but I don't understand sacrificing yourself on the basepaths to score a run unless it is the tying run or the run that breaks the tie, and if that's the case, it better be the 8th or 9th inning. Otherwise, you're giving away an out that could be used later to score another run (sac fly, for example).

Prince Albert did that sacrificing himself act during a Sunday game in July or August, don't remember which. I was watching it with my dad, who basically scolded me for scolding Albert, since it did the intended job of scoring the run. I just hate to see him give away outs like that. Doesn't who's batting next deserve a chance to bat with Albert on second?

My $0.02,
TSF

by TedSimmonsFan on Oct 1, 2007 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Albert thinks he is Lou Brock

he has said as much in the past. Ok, so maybe he 'thinks like he is Lou Brock' but he said he prides himself on scoring 100 runs every year because of the work he has put in as a baserunner with Lou every spring training since his career started.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 1, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I admit it -- I am a horse's ass

My apologies for those glaring assumptions I made. In all honesty, thanks for calling me on it. I was starting to sound like one of those Yankees fans, who watch complacently as A-Rod goes 4-for-for, but are ready to nail him to a wall when he doesn't get a fifth-hit bases loaded double to clear the bases and overcome a two-run deficit.

Though it is nice to know that even when I think he's doing poorly he's still doing significantly better than most.

I am glad to see my other point -- about the baserunning -- appears to have merit. Albert, it's alright most of the time to stay at first on a throw home from the outfield. The run will probably score anyway and you getting hung up between first and second isn't going to change that a great deal either way. Let the boys behind you play some sacrifice-sacrifice if nothing else.

I once shot a man just to see him die...then I got distracted and missed it.

by TheDuke32 on Oct 1, 2007 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rookie of the year

Goold has a RoY vote and would like you to weigh in on his decision: Tulowitzki or Braun
http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/sports-bird-land/2007/10/quite-a-rook-brauny-or-tulo/

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 4:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Another post from me today

So I am posting too much today, bah!

Anyway, ESPN has their 2007 in review, for the most part I could give a rats ass about it but I loved some of their picks.

NL LVP: Michael Barrett
NL Cy Yuk: Kip Wells (honorable mention to Adam Eaton and Anthony Reyes)
Special interleague Cy Yuk: Mike Maroth
Mystery Pitcher Division: Aaron Miles
Mathematical impossibility division: Kiko Calero 2/3 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 0 K, 1 pitch (they explain it)

Find it all hear with fun commentary: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3041066

by StLHugo on Oct 1, 2007 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Based on VORP...

a guy on a site I frequent queued up the bizarro-Cy and MVPs in the NL. Our boys won both!

NL anti-MVP: Adam Kennedy, SLN, -13.2 VORP, 306 PAs, .219/.282/.290

NL anti-Cy Young: Mike Maroth, SLN, -31.0 VORP, 38 IPs, 10.66 ERA, 2.32 WHIP (!!!)

Hell of a year.

Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 1, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand what's wrong with BM's column

So instead of spending more money on the team, Dewitt should roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck?
The Cardinals are raking in money, but not spending it. That was simply the gist of the column. I know BernieM is hated here, but he spoke the truth, IMHO.

There are two ways to get talented players. Either develop them or sign them as free agents. Both cost money. Dewitt doesn't want to seem to do either, passing up guys who would cost a lot to draft (Porcello) or wasting picks drafting them, and not signing them (Russell). That whole slot system blame game is a cop out, the Cardinals are just cheap.

by DiscoJer on Oct 1, 2007 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

which free-agents should the cards have spent

their money on last off-season? which ones do you want them to spend the $$$$ on this off-season?

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fairness to Bernie

He did mention adding to the payroll through trades, not just free agency.

by bailorg on Oct 1, 2007 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nobody's against adding payroll

but the point is that "adding payroll" shouldn't be the goal. adding talent is the goal --- and adding payroll does not necessarily translate into adding talent. it often means the opposite.

if they have a chance to add a high-priced talent, then payroll should not be an obstacle --- we all agree on that. but there are differing views about whether focusing on high-priced players is the best way to bring talent into the organization.

by lboros on Oct 1, 2007 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't buy for a minute...

that Dewitt & Co are "raking it in". It is true that in 2006 the franchise drew 3.4M while having the 3rd highest average ticket price (lets assume similar numbers for 2007), but unlike the Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox, the Cardinals do not derive a large portion of revenue from the sale of broadcasting rights. St. Louis is the #21 TV market in the US (in terms of TV households).

In addition, the cash cost of servicing the debt used to finance the new stadium is significant. According to Forbes, the team has roughly $245M in debt (this is consistent with published reports about how the stadium was financed). A generous estimate of 6% interest yields roughly $15M in annual interest expense. Factor in principal payments on the debt and the DeWitt & Co are probably paying $25M in annual debt service. This is a conservative estimate, as money is no longer cheap like it was during the post-9/11 period.

by Hungry Jack on Oct 1, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Albert

Glad to see some comment about Albert's year and the fact that it was so disappointing that he failed to get the 100th run. If anyone saw the game, the poor dude was dizzy in the 1st inning after swinging at one pitch. Obviously he stayed in to try to give it a shot. The man is human.

I'm happy that his numbers were posted above. If you go to Baseball Prospectus, you will also see that he was 5th in the league in VORP.

However, what is most striking about Albert's season is how truly awful the Cardinal lineup above and behind him was. The team finished dead last in OPS for 4th and 5th place hitters. See Stl.Today-I forget--one of Goold, Strauss or Miklasz I think.

The fact that Albert, admittedly only 65% or 70% healthy much of the year could do what he did on one of the worst Cardinals' teams in 100 years is amazing. In that regard, this could have been his best year ever notwithstanding that statistically it was his worst or almost worst.

Thanks for affording the opportunity to defend the guy against criticism for running into outs. Just who was going to drive him in. If Albert had gone to the plate like Bonds this year, he would have walked 300 hundred times. That is why his start was so bad; I watched most of his at bats and he consistently swung at balls out of the strike zone. To think that had nothing to do with the collection of DFA's and broken down veterans that LaRussa insists upon having and using is simply burying your head in the sand.

Long live Albert. Long live the king.

by MortLA on Oct 1, 2007 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs