What does 83 really mean?

A number of folks here and elsewhere have stated or implied that 83 wins is representative of how good the Cardinals were last year, and often how good they'll be this year since they haven't made any big moves. But how many people really think that 83 wins is indicative of how much talent is on this team? A number of important players were injured or underachieved last year - Edmonds, Mulder, and Izzy had extended injury-related performance issues. Eckstein missed a bunch of games. Marquis was terrible. Ponson was a failed experiment. Molina can't possibly be as bad a hitter as his numbers last year suggest (and his BABIP bears this out; I don't remember what it was but it was atrocious). Rolen was solid but wore down. Pujols missed a few weeks and had about 60 fewer AB than in past years.

Now Edmonds and Izzy appear to be healed (or close to it for Edmonds), Pujols feels great, Rolen is another year removed from surgery and that much stronger. Marquis and Ponson are gone and replaced by pitchers who will almost surely be improvements even if they're not great. Molina's hitting will have to be better (OK, not World Series good, but not .595 OPS either...). We've got Duncan for a whole season, and Reyes and Wainwright have another year's experience. We'll see what happens with Mulder, but until July his replacement can't possibly be as bad as he was last year unless I get the call.

Don't forget, last year's team was on pace for 100 wins through the middle of June (42-26 on June 18, right before they lost 20-6 at Chicago and things turned ugly). I don't think they're a 100 win team, but I don't think they're an 83 win team either. Low 90s seems completely achievable. (And that seems to be the general consensus here too based on michajo's 2007 win prediction diary, so I think I just answered my own question. Well, I spent all this time typing, so I guess I'll post anyway....)