over and out

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 9:27 AM EDT in St. Louis Cardinals News

in the cardinals' biggest series of the year, miguel cairo was the hitting star. and there you have it, folks ---- the 2007 season, condensed into a sentence.

the games were close enough to leave some regrets. the cardinals got exactly what they needed, 4 well-pitched games --- or 3 well-pitched ones, anyway, plus a scrambling par; you couldn't have asked for more out of this staff. under other circumstances, they might well have led the team to a 4-game sweep --- and by "other circumstances," i mean having guys like rolen and encarnacion and duncan in the lineup. then again, maybe those players wouldn't have made a difference. as well as the cardinals pitched, the cubs pitched just a little bit better, and they probably would have done so against any collection of st louis hitters --- they do rank 3d in the league in pitching, after all (the cardinals are 11th). chicago won the season series 11-5, accounting for nearly all of their 7-game margin over the st louis; hats off to them. they still have much work to do (the brewers won yesterday to remain tied for first in the loss column), but whatever the cubs win will have been earned. i wish them well.

in both yesterday's game and saturday's early game, the cardinals yielded the decisive runs with 2 outs, reprising a trend i noted last month re their terrible 2-out RISP splits. you may recall from that old post that both the pitchers and the hitters had abysmal stats in this category --- the cardinal hitters were next-to-last in the league in batting average and last in ops, while the cardinals pitchers were dead last in opponent average. out of curiosity i decided to see if those trends have continued. here are the data, updated --- all figures below represent performance with 2 outs and runners in scoring position:

	pa	avg	obp	slg
batters thru 8/5	410	.217	.323	.332
batters since 8/5	155	.226	.326	.394
pitchers thru 8/5	451	.283	.377	.436
pitchers since 8/5	141	.192	.269	.305

well, the pitchers certainly have turned it around. this shouldn't surprise us, as the original post appeared right before the team's unbroken 10-game run of quality starts; since then, the cards have pitched better in all situations. but they have especially improved their results in 2-out RISP confrontations; they've been stranding runners with more regularity. or had been, until a couple of swings by murton and soriano over the weekend.

the hitters, by contrast, have continued to struggle. they've hit with a little more power (thank you, rick ankiel) but still haven't hit for average. the sabermetric value-adds (walks and extra bases) diminish in importance with 2 outs and RISP; a plain old base knock produces a run and keeps the inning alive. and the hell of it is, plain old base knocks are one of the few things this cardinal offense can reliably produce; they just haven't produced them when it matters the most. here's how the team fares vs. league average, taking the season as a whole:

HITTERS

	pa	avg	obp	slg
stl, 2 out RISP	565	.220	.324	.349
nl avg, 2 out RISP	11,453	.244	.355	.400
stl, all other	4,415	.277	.337	.415
nl avg, all other	71,720	.268	.330	.425

if we exclude 2-out RISP situations, the cardinals outperform the league in batting average by 9 points (.277 to .268); in 2-out RISP situations they lag it by 24 points. some of you will argue that this differential means nothing, that's it's simply attributable to random variation; perhaps that is true. but it takes an awful lot of bad luck to explain away a 57-point dropoff. maybe luck accounts for part of this split, but i think a couple of other factors have contributed as well. one is the fact that the cardinal lineup only has one truly dangerous hitter and is disproportionately reliant on him; this makes it easier than usual for opponents to set up favorable confrontations and slip out of jams. as a second factor, i cite the sheer weight of the baggage the cardinals have had to drag around this year --- substance abuse cases, steroid allegations, injuries, even a death. it's quite possible that the poor clutch hitting reflects the psychological stresses of the cardinals' season. as i put it in the original post: "i think the cardinals, for whatever reason, have gotten anxious in big situations this season --- haven't made good pitches, haven't taken good at-bats. confidence is not a mirage; states of mind can and do impact performance, on and off the baseball field. . . . [and] the cards' state of mind took a beating" this year.

here's a look at the pitchers, compared to league average:

PITCHERS

	pa	avg	obp	slg
stl, 2 out RISP	702	.262	.360	.405
nl avg, 2 out RISP	11,453	.244	.355	.400
stl, all other	4,451	.272	.332	.435
nl avg, all other	71,720	.268	.330	.425

here, random chance appears to be the driving factor. the cards' opponent obp and slugging are nearly league average in 2-out RISP situations, but their batting average is 18 points worse, which means they're giving up a ton more singles than the average staff --- ie more dinks and doinks and rollers through the hole. so you might be justified in saying they've been especially unlucky. but then, you might also be justified in saying that the cards' defense has been more porous than usual this year; or you might be justified in arguing that dinks and doinks and rollers through the hole are the inevitable residue of pitch-to-contactism.

a final table --- the cards vs their opponents:

	pa	avg	obp	slg
stl, all other	4,415	.277	.337	.415
opponents, all other	4,451	.272	.332	.435
stl, 2 out RISP	565	.220	.324	.349
opponents, 2 out RISP	702	.262	.360	.405

excluding 2-out RISP situations, the cards have outhit their opponents by 5 points and played them roughly to a draw overall. but in the key situations, opponents have outhit the cardinals by 42 points and out-ops'd them by nearly 100 points (.767 to .673).

the cards won't participate in the 2007 postseason, but they still have a chance to leave their fingerprints on it; 7 of their last 14 games come against playoff contenders, beginning tonight when they host philadelphia.

Tweet Comment 177 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bullpen responsibilities

Your post is interesting in terms of the team as a whole. But I wanted to note that it is the bullpen that has given us the biggest blows recently, both in Chicago and on the road trip.

If Franklin and Izzy hadn't blown the leads they had be given, we would have won three out of four of the Chicago games. The bullpen was also responsible for some Arizona losses.

So I think the time in certain ways should be praised for how hard they fought. They were in a position to win enough games to stay in contention. Unfortunately, bullpen (our some in the bullpen) who collapsed.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:27 AM EDT reply actions

I meant the team as whole

should be praised for fighting and putting us in a position to win--last paragraph. Not enough coffee to type...

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions

And the last sentence

I'm not even going to try to fix. I'm clearly not awake... Basically, boo bullpen.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Izzy

Izzy didn't blow a lead on Friday we were in the hole, yes he gave up the deciding runs but he was pitching in a "non save" situation and for some reason he stinks in those more times then not. I was at that game and after the IBB I felt the next walk coming and once Ward was announced the conclusion I came too was grand slam so i was a bit surprised it stayed in the park but still that hit hurt a lot.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Friday and Saturday we were ahead

of Chicago before the bullpen took over. We were 2-1 going into the 9th in one and 2-1 going into the 8th in the other. Didn't Franklin allow those late runs in one game and Izzy in the other?

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Correction

We were up 2-1 on saturday and Franklin blew it, we were down 1-2 on friday for Izzy (Izzy gave up 3 runs making it 5-1, two homers from Lud and Edmonds make it 5-3 Miles stranded basesloaded)

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I saw that after your first note

sorry I didn't correct the numbers myself. I messed up that post totally. Multiple my bads.....

My point was that the team was fighting. They are weak and could obviously be much better. But I still admire that they have been fighting hard with everything that has gone against them.

What was so heartbreaking in this losing streak is that the bullpen has done so well this year and they were the ones who were involved in losing us so many games. The games themselves were painful because the blow often came so late in the game.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions

TLR

On Sunday morning during Tony's weekly Busch beer chat he said it would have been much easier to swallow the losing streak if the team had been playing uninspired but they were leaving nothing on the field and just not getting any results and it hurt a lot more to watch that. I think while the losing streak was hard the effort given has refueled Tony's tank a bit more. Still completely unsure about what he is actually thinking for next year though.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I've gotten that same impression from TLR

on several occasions. Of course, he hates losing. But it does seem that the team's perseverence in spite of losses will be one of the measures determining whether he will stay.

I've been upset with TLR for a number of reasons. But one thing I like about him is that he seems to care about whether a team has 'heart' and 'character', especially in the face of adversity--it's not just all about winning and payrolls and glitz. That probably sounds naive to people interested in numbers. But for me it's central to supporting my team as they accumulate so many losses.

And TLR's perspective is reflected in interviews with players--I just heard Wainwright say that what he cared about most was that the team had not given up and that the club as a whole had shown that they have 'tremendous heart'. Brendan Ryan and Joel Piniero said similar things in the last few days. And we've heard Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, and Molina give remarks like these repeatedly.

This team's "culture" has come under a lot of scrutiny this year. But I don't think enough attention has been paid to how Wainwright and Pujols and Edmonds, etc., would characterize their own clubhouse and the kind of 'character' they feel their players have exhibited in the face of adversities.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, I see...

if Izzy had held the score, we would have won. He still is the reason we didn't win. I know it isn't scored this way, but he should shoulder responsibility for what he failed to win.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Yep

It is unfair to pin that L on Wainwright but I understand how the rulebook is written but when your starter goes 7IP 2ER and your closer gives up 3 ER in the top of the 9th before your team rallies for 2ER in the bottom, is it really your starters fault?

Then again I hate the W and L stats for that reason, if you give up 7ER and your team wins do you deserve the W, think some of Wellemeyer's first starts, if you give up 1ER over 6+ IP and your team puts up a 0 do you deserve to lose, think Reyes first half? I think as a stat they are flawed, QS is flawed for other reasons but I think that is a much more fair way to judge a starter then simple W's.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Agree completely

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions

I think

Izzy and Franklin melting down in the one cubs series is a non-discussion for the "if only's" of this season. There are about a million "if only's" long before it even got to this point.

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions

Too true

A couple of meltdowns by an over-worked pen does not make them bad. For most of the season, the bullpen has kept this team afloat.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions

No, it doesn't make them bad

and part of the sting is that they have been for the most part reliable this year.

But I also must say that the starting rotation has taken so many hits this season that when the bullpen faulters, I think they should take their fair share of responsibility. The bullpen had a similar meltdown in the terrible Pirates/Nats roadtrip.

I don't think the bullpen gets criticized by the press in the same way as the starting pitchers do. I know our starters have failed repeatedly. But they also have been burdened with a lot this year. This site has generally been more respectful of the starting pitchers, noting their lack of run support, etc., which has put tremendous pressure on them.

One last point. Franklin and Izzy were not necessarily overworked. Izzy was definitely rested when he pitched this weekend; Franklin had pitched the day before but looked rested when he left the game.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions

The bullpen

I am amazed at our bullpen's performance this year. I can't believe they have held it together so well.

The Brewers pen started this year quite well. The skid they hit was due to game after game after game of starters going 5 innings. Overworked on a regular basis, the pen started springing leaks.

As bad as our staff has been, the pen has carried them all year without many hiccups.

They are this year's MVP IMO. I won't say a single bad thing about them, deserved or not.

by RedbirdRay on Sep 17, 2007 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

We can be amazed at their performance

but they shouldn't be shielded from criticisms. They have made costly mistakes in numerous games. I'm sure they would take full responsibility for those errors and wouldn't want people shielding them. They seem like a bunch of stand-up guys. The pen has had it rough because of the starters but the starters have also had it rough at times because of the pen.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Speaking of IBBs...

Doesn't it seem that the IBB has KILLED the Cards this year? I swear, I can't remember a single time this season when that has worked. I mean, I wouldn't expect it to work out every time but I really can't remember it working once this season.

by sweet number 5 on Sep 17, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Well,

per Baseball Prospectus and the run expectancy matrix it almost always adds more expected runs then it yields.

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions

agree

I do agree it seems they have killed us a lot this season but I do remember a few times that it worked but not any particulars just the type of situations where we had a runner at 2nd and we walked a guy to first then got a DP from the next guy, but it really hasn't worked that well this season.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Daryl Ward = Cards killer

apparently

by sdrone on Sep 17, 2007 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Oh well...

... it was an interesting season, at least. Let's hope the offseason will be better than last year's.

I also wish the Cubs well too, Larry. I don't have the hatred for them that a lot of Cards fans have. I don't begrudge those Cards fans for it, I just don't feel the same way.

by birdjam on Sep 17, 2007 9:29 AM EDT reply actions

Cubs

I have been fighting that feeling all season as well. I like to laugh at Cubs jokes, I like to wish them to lose every once in awhile but it really wouldn't upset me if they win it all this year, except that it would be really cool if they did make that 100 year mark, not for them but for more jokes. In the end though if they make it to the World Series it will depend on who they are facing whether I root for them or not, I always seem to prefer the NL team but I do have a few AL teams I like watching and only one of those is even still in contention (Detroit). Anyway I will probably be rooting for SD and/or Arizona this post season for the most part.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

If they do win it all...

...this year or ever, I just hope they handle it better than Red Sox fans, whom I hate with the fury of a thousand suns even though the Cards never play them.

by birdjam on Sep 17, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions

nah, still hate the cubs more.

as a Yankee fan I should hate the Sox too, however, if the BoSox make the WS I'll be screaming my head off for them if they face the cubs. GO AL, Brews, Mets, Snakes!!!!!!!!!

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions

Can't make myself

root for the Cubbies under ANY circumstances. I live in a Cubs stronghold and they are insufferable enough when they lose, I can't imagine how awful they would be if they actually won something. OTOH, they were pretty deflated after '03, so maybe failing again would be a good thing... Anyway, GO BREWERS!

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions

The closer

they get, the more soul-destroying it will be when they collapse. Just a thought to brighten your day ;-)

by rockin redbird on Sep 17, 2007 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions

And brighten my day it did.

Thanks, rockin redbird.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

i just can't

root for any team that spends that much money.
bosox, cubbies, yankees, mets...
i will always root for the small market teams before the big market guys. (of course ONLY if the red birds are not in the playoffs)

"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"- Leroy Satchel Paige

http://www.rankmytattoos.com/Illinois/Canton/15002.html

by Supergus on Sep 17, 2007 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

+1

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions

the cardinals are spendthrifts too

their payroll has been among the top 10 in the league for the last four years in a row.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions

we don't compare to the teams

mentioned above in terms of their budgets or their attitudes about acquisitions.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

actually, the cards and cubs are very comparable

the cards outspent the cubs in 2005 and were only a few million behind them in 2006. this year the cubs' payroll is about 10 percent higher.

but set that aside. if money-oriented teams are unappealing because they spend more money than the cards, then aren't the cardinals unappealing relative to the 18 or 19 teams who spend less than st louis?

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

The three dominant teams

where I now live--the Yankees, the Mets, and the Red Sox--are in a different order than the Cards. I'm not sure why I have read stories and heard commentary on the enormous expenditures the Cubs have made this year if there wasn't a legitimate comparison to be made between the Cards and the Cubs. But I'll set that aside. Maybe those reporters and commentators are mistaken.

Like a lot of people, I don't like monopolies and I don't like teams that are largely 'bought' rather than 'developed' through a good organization. The MLB changes in revenue sharing and drafting of new players is gradually helping to even out those disparities.

The Cards have a long way to go in terms of their farm system but they are making progress and I like the new talent I'm seeing this year. They also have a core group of players who are passing along a certain "tradition" to the young players who are coming into our system. I don't see that in the Cubs at all. The Yankees would argue that they are doing this as well, but they still have the resources to operate as a monopoly to a certain extent.

What I really don't like is when the glitz of expenditures overshadow the need to develop talent carefully in your own system--and that development should have as much to do with character as physical capabilities. Maybe it's because I live in New York and am subjected to Yankee and Mets radio too much, but the most expensive teams get on my nerves with their arrogant sense of entitlement because they are able to spend more than anyone else and choose whatever players they want.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Who do you want to

root for? A guy like Steinbrenner that will do anything to win even if it costs him out of pocket or some other team that will do anything to up their bottom line even if it means not making any push to win?

Personally I'll root for the "rich guy" that wants to win vs the business that wants to make money.

However, I'll root for the smartest front office first, such as Billy Beane's slightly post moneyball A's. I'm a fan of people that are innovative and say F#$@ conventional wisdom. I HATE people that are stubborn/arrogant to keep doing things when they obviously don't work (i.e. small ball when down by 5 runs, stealing bases in very bad spots, or horrible IBBs)

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Totally agree

Which is why I want to shake up our club a bit

by DriverZn on Sep 17, 2007 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Is that our only choice? Yuk

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions

The Cubs have beaten us

on the field, and decisively. Having Carp/Rolen/Enc/Duncan for some of these games would have helped -- just as having Prior and Wood would have helped the Cubs challenge for the playoffs all those years they missed with injuries.

But I think it's important to note that the Cubs have also won the battle against the Cards off the field as well. Their front office won over the winter, when they outbid us for Soriano and improved their pitching staff with Lilly (who, for some reason, wasn't even on Walt's radar screen) and Marquis while we converted relievers into starters and dug through the scrap heap. Arguably, they also won the battle with superior coaching, getting more out of Marquis than LaDuncan had for several years.

Walt's had at least two, and maybe three, bad off-seasons. We need players to get healthy and perform up to their potential, but we won't win if we get out-GM'd again this winter.

by tdawg on Sep 17, 2007 9:39 AM EDT reply actions

Did they really win the off-season battle?

Perhaps for this season but lets look at the next few years:

2008
Zambrano (27) $15 M Soriano (32) $13 M D Lee (32) $13 M Ramirez (30) $14 M Lilly (32) $ 7 M Marquis (29) $ 6.4 M Jones (33) $ 5 M Derosa (33) $ 4.8 M Blanco (36) $ 2.8 M Total $ 81 M
That gives the Cubs 3 starting pitchers 2/3 rds of the outfield and 3/4ths of the infield.

2009
Zambrano (28) $17.8 M Soriano (33) $16 M D Lee (33) $13 M Ramirez (31) $15.7 M Lilly (33) $12 M Marquis (30) $10 M Derosa (34) $ 5.5 M Total $90 M
That gives the Cubs 3 starting pitchers, 1/3rd of the outfield and 3/4ths of the infield.

2010
Zambrano (29) $17.8 M Soriano (34) $18 M D Lee (34) $13 M Ramirez (32) $15.7 M Lilly (34) $12 M Total $76.5 M
That gives them 2 starting pitchers, 1 OF and 2 IF.

2011
Zambrano (30) $17.8 M Soriano (35) $18 M Ramirez (33) $14.6 M Total $50.4 M

A pitcher, an outfield, a infielder.

Starting next year, this barely over .500 Cubs team will begin to pay the price for the contracts they've given out. Not much wiggle room payroll wise in 2008/2009 and a huge chunk devoted to only a few players in 2010.

We could have signed Barry Zito and Carlos Lee, and we would have been a better team THIS year. But we would have paid the cost for it in the future.

Know what the Cardinals have for their payroll in 2009?
Pujols (29) $ 16 M Rolen (34) $ 12 M Carpenter (34) $ 14.5 M Kennedy (33) $ 4 M Spiezio (36) $ 2.5 M Franklin (36) $ 2.5 M Total $ 51.5 M

While the Cubs are stuck paying $90 M to a bunch of backend peak players, the Cardinals will be operating at almost $40 M less (excluding contract upgrades to Molina, Duncan, Ryan, Ankiel, Wainwright) to go out and sign players of the 2009 Free Agent class, like Johan Santana, Rich Harden, AJ Burnett, Brad Penny, Jake Peavy, CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets should any or all of those hit the FA market.
Position players like Vlad, Carl Crawford, Edgar Renteria also hit the market as well.

The Cubs made a calculated risk on improving the team now, seeing that they didn't have much in the minor league system. It has paid off to an average team playing in their peak years.

Good for them for this year. It'll be interesting to see how messy it gets from here on out.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions

HL

Spiezio is an option, if you include him why not include other options like Mulder? If you subtract him since he is easily replaceable (if all he is is a utility infielder) and the buyout is .1M. Also Mulder has a 1.5M buyout you have to consider.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm almost positive Mulder will be bought out

and the $2 M from those 2 buyouts will have no effect on the teams ability to spend money that off-season.

Even if you factor those two in, they still have ~$32 M to spend that off-season if they don't want to increase payroll. That's a lot of cash to be spending, especially with guys like Rasmus, Anderson and Walters on their way up.

Could be a fun off-season. Hell, they could spend THAT money NOW with ARod for next season if they wanted to.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Mulder

I agree. I just have not seen anything positive about Mulder at this point.

The Cardinals can not afford to have sub par pitching next season. The starting pitching has been the main culprit for the seasons struggles.

I think Looper has prooven himself to be someone we can rely on next season. I think Wainwright and Looper are guys I am confident in next year.

The Cards really need to address the fact they need three starters. I don't want them to rely on Pinero, Mulder, Reyes, or Wells.

by ICbirdfan on Sep 17, 2007 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Hardcore makes a good point

The Cubs' offseason moves were of the "win-now" variety. That's great if you do indeed win now, but it handcuffs a team in the future if you don't win immediately with those types of deals. Those are some heavy contracts to be carrying, not just in terms of dollars, but also in length of years.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

ofcourse they finally

made a move to "win now". Their parent company being for sale (and a 99 year WS-less streak) brought that on.

Who says they can't/won't unload the people they have now down the road? The only way to get FA's now-a-days is to promise them 50 years. Are there any no trade clauses in the Cubs Payroll right now? (actual question)

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

No-Trade Clause

Alfonso Soriano
Carlos Zambrano
Derrek Lee
Aramis Ramirez (until 2011)
Ted Lilly (no-trade protection)

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

ARam

Won't ARam be a 5-10 player by then anyway? (it looks like his no trade clause is up after 2010 but that is when he becomes a 5-10 from what I can see.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for pulling that together

that's very interesting. I was thinking about this yesterday when the announcers kept saying how old each player was.

I lived in Florida when the Marlins first won the world series. And I thought yesterday, these Cubs are just another quickly "bought" team that won't last long. I didn't like the Marlins for that reason and I don't like the Cubs (for that and a lot of other reasons).

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

The key for the Cardinals is 2009

spending. They will have ALOT more financial wiggle room than most teams. They also have some help coming from the minors in Rasmus, Anderson, Walters, Perez, etc.

The key that off-season will be to make long term commitments to GREAT players (Santana, Sabathia, Crawford, Cabrera) and keep your flexibility with the young guys.

Also, 2009 would be a good off-season to extend Pujols' contract 3 extra years.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

I hadn't thought about the 2009 budget

that's going to an exciting time if they don't bungle it.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

that's actually

not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. The good news is that they likely won't be bidding on A-Rod. the bad news is that they have some payroll flexibility still, more than I thought they'd have (remember they aren't capped at 100M like we are).

"and we're grasping at rainbows, holding on till the end..."

by SleepyCA on Sep 17, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions

They'll still be paying

Soriano and Dumbrano

$36 M (w/Ramirez $16 M club option)
$37.25

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait a second

What is your assumption about the Cubs' payroll budget? The Cubs are a larger market, so I assume that they have deeper pockets than the Cardinals. Did you take this into account?

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 17, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Sold

They are also being Sold so that could severely affect the budget and is probably the reason for those "Win now" contracts.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Take it into account?

They are operating a $100 M payroll as it is now. They can increase their payroll to whatever they want to.

Do I think the Cubs can outspend the Cardinals? Maybe. The Cardinals don't spend near as much in proportion to what they make.

The Cardinals have the 4th highest attendence in all of baseball. The teams ahead of them?
Yankees: $189 M Dodgers: $108 M Mets : $115 M Cardinals: $ 91 M Angels: $109 M Cubs: $100 M

The Cubs could get a new owner and start spending at $150 M clip. There is no real way to judge payroll multiple years down the line in baseball unless you set a parameter that a team won't increase payroll by $40 M in the off-season, especially a team like the Cubs that does not own their own TV station and really has no room to expand as far as attendance.

In reality, all this little demo goes to show is that the Cubs are going to be burdened with some contracts that are less than desirable. They paid Alfonso Soriano like he was Carlos Beltran (which he is not) and Aramis Ramirez like he is Vladimir Guerrero (he is not). Those things eventually catch up to you.

Maybe it won't. Maybe the 2009 Chicago Cubs will have Alex Rodriguez in his 2nd year at SS in Wrigley and an operating budget of $150 M.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Attendance != teams income

Most teams make far more off media deals than the cardinals. Its our attendance that allows us to compete.

by DriverZn on Sep 17, 2007 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, one more thing to look at

In 2010, who would you rather pay $18 M and $16 M to?

33 year old Alfonso Soriano
and
31 year old Aramis Ramirez

27 year old Carl Crawford
and
26 year old Miguel Cabrera?

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

It's pretty

easy to win the off-season sweepstakes when your team can spend 300 million (closer to 400 with the later Z signing). That kind of free-spending isn't--and probably never will be--an option for the Birds. And really, this has been the first season in a long while that going cheap but smart hasn't worked out. This season has been frustrating--and a disappointment, to be sure. But I still wouldn't have wanted the Soriano OR Lilly OR Marquis OR Z contracts. It all looks great right now, but if the Cubs don't win it all this or maybe next year, look for them to be right back where they've always been. The only signing that may work out for them in the long run is Zambrano, and that's only IF he grows up, gets his head out of his ass, and avoids the injury bug. Point is--they are in Win Now mode and are willing to sacrifice the future for it. We've already sacrificed, Won Now, and are looking for a new path. The old ways didn't work this year, but I'm confident Walt will try a different tack next year whether TLR stays or not. But if you expect the kind of offseason the Cubs had this year, you're going to be disapponted.

by rockin redbird on Sep 17, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions

not looking for them to go on a spending spree

and I do understand that the Cubs are probably more capable than the Cards of picking up long-term contracts that aren't worth it in the later years.

But the question is how well they are going to be able to evaluate talent, and whether they are going to spend what money they do have wisely. Soriano's contract is debateable (although, in hindsight, no more so than that we gave Rolen a few years ago), but I think that (i) the Cubs did a beter job in evaluating talent than the Cards with the Lilly and Marquis signings and (ii) given the realities of the market, they spent money wisely on those two players (and on Z, for that matter).

Put another way: the Cards didn't obligate themselves too much with the Wells contract. But does anyone think that the front office did a good job in picking him up, or in touting him as our #2 starter?

by tdawg on Sep 17, 2007 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions

In the front office's defense

I think a lot of people here were fairly excited about the signing.

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2006/11/28/15619/869/74#74

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2006/11/28/15619/869/105#105

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2006/11/28/15619/869/151#151

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2007/2/20/85532/2772

etc.

by willievinceterry on Sep 17, 2007 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions

That last link

Our community projection got badly beaten by a damned monkey.

I was certainly guilty of over-optimism in making my projection. I guessed he'd give up far fewer home runs and walks and thought the defense behind him would be more efficient, but pretty much nailed his strikeout rate.

That counts for something, right?

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Pessimism

On the other hand, I think we all would be quite surprised at the disparity between our Molina estimates and his wonderful (comparitively) offensive performance this year.

by RedbirdRay on Sep 17, 2007 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions

when are we going to have to give molina a big

contract?

i have to think that he is going to get PAID.

by ortic jones on Sep 17, 2007 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions

pyschological makeups...

I think you've hit the nail on the head Larry. This team has been through a huge amount of issues/drama, both on and off the field, and I think it does weigh on the mind, especially in high pressure situations. Plenty of times all season when we needed to make that one good pitch, or get that one good hit, and just haven't followed through with either. (I think yesterday we left 11 or 12 men on base, where one base hit would gain at least a run or two?) We just haven't executed well in those instances, which leaves us with the record we have. But I still admire them - they've been through alot, and yet persevered to come within 1 game of first place. Sure, you can say it's the NL Central and write it off like that, but they've managed to hold their own, to a degree.

And in other news... it looks like Shelley Duncan has himself a sense of humor.

by SmashedAtoms on Sep 17, 2007 9:42 AM EDT reply actions

Reactions

if you read the comments on that thread I think too many people are making a huge deal out of this. It is a simple thing and something that hopefully the kid and his parents will look back at and laugh at (especially if the Sox beat the Yanks in both the division and the ALCS this year) I don't understand why it is such a big issue, but as some people called it childish and I am younger then Shelley or Chris then maybe that can account for it. I think sometimes people on the east coast are too thin skinned and the Duncans are from Arizona so they are most likely more laid back and he thought it was a cute joke the kid would like.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

It probably wasn't

a good idea to do that to a 10 year old kid. It was a little immature on Shelley's part But, yeah, people are making too big of a deal about it. Those thin-skinned Easterners...how do they survive the cold winters?

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions

True

a 10 year old might be a bit young to taunt but if it was a 16+ guy then yeah it was totally awesome. To me it is also to be expected in that rivalry and as close as that race is.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions

Agree with that

It would have been funny if it was an adult that Shelley had signed for.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 17, 2007 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Hillarious!

But probably not appropriate for a kid.

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 17, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions

an adult who abuses the feelings of a child

is a dick.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Do you really think Shelly

"abused the feelings" of that kid? Come on now he was at a Red Sox Yankees game. I am sure he has heard or read much worse things about the Sox.

Undoubtedly it was bad judgement. But look on the bright side. That kid has an autograph that is worth far more than an ordinary one. Heck, that peice of paper is destined to be a collector's item.

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 17, 2007 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah, i do think he abused them

i'm around kids who are 10 years old all the time; i volunteer at the elementary school where my kids go. it's an inner-city school; these are not coddled, naive, goody-two-shoes wimps. these are barrio kids. their siblings and cousins and neighbors are gang-bangers.

these kids are streetwise at an early age, but it's mostly just bluster to cover up their vulnerabilities. kids that age are easily humiliated and live in dread of it. when a figure they look up to (such as a baseball player) makes sport of them, that's humiliating.

it aggravates me to see people piling on the kid and his parents. they've got a right to their grievance, and if duncan were a man he'd apologize. as i said above, if any adult treated my own kid that way, he or she would have to answer for it.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Question.

What did the kid say about all of this? Seriously. If the kid thought it was hilarious should we take his word for it or should Duncan apologize for doing nothing improper?

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

i'm just curious

do you have kids, or ever spend any time around them?

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes and No.

No, I don't have kids. I guess you believe that means I can't speak on the matter, right?

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Oops.

Yes, I spend time with kids each week. I babysit my sister's kids who are 9 and 11 on a regular basis - meaning 3 or 4 times per week.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

of course you can speak on the matter

i'm providing you with a forum to speak on it.

but i ask whether you have kids, and how much time you spend around them, because i am trying to understand where you're coming from and how you've arrived at your particular perspective.

you're entitled to feel however you want. i'm sure i'll never persuade you to reflect upon your position. and you haven't articulated any argument that makes me question my own.

so we might as well drop it.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep.

i'm sure i'll never persuade you to reflect upon your position.

I've reflected on my position. I have yet to see a valid or rational reason to change my opinion. Therein lies the impasse.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Overreatcion.

Would you also be willing to chastise the parents of that kid who took him to a Yankees/Red Sox game where 30,000+ adults are yelling WAY worse things than "Red Sox Sucks" at the players?

Personally, I feel both you and this kid's parents are overreacting to a nothing story that was taken out of context. Who is to say the kid wasn't laughing hysterically when Duncan signed his book? I don't see the issue here. If it makes you feel somehow superior for talking down to those of us who took that autograph as a joke, as it was intended, then more power to you.

Cheers.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

if the kid was laughing hysterically

i don't think this would be in the papers.

the parents are protecting their child, as they should. duncan's excuses are lame. you just don't treat a kid that way.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Nope.

if the kid was laughing hysterically

i don't think this would be in the papers.

I disagree. This is all about the mother.

Good day, sir.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions

They

need to lighten up. Even if Jason Marquis wrote that to a cards fan I'd laugh.

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions

No big deal

He'll send the kid an autographed bat or a baseball and all will be well.

Shelley's rapidly earning a reputation for a real spark in the Yankee's clubhouse. Saw he brought back the old forearm bash a few weeks ago.

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I haven't found New Yorkers to be thin skinned

that's probably part of the reason he wrote that--he plays in New York and is used to New York fans. Now New Englanders... that might be a different story.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Tell the whiney kid's mom

to shove it.

by sdrone on Sep 17, 2007 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions

No doubt

Even a ten-year-old should be able to handle that. What do you expect when you get a signature from the hated rival? But, hey, complaining gets you in the paper..........

C70 at the Bat

by Cardinal70 on Sep 17, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Only makes him a better BoSox fan

He'll grow up to hate the Yankees.

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions

if any adult treated one of my kids that way

i wouldn't be laughing. and neither would the guy who pulled the prank.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I'd certainly smile.

I don't like the word "suck" but the kid is in 5th grade. He's heard it for years.

I'm sure he or his parents have boo'd the Yankees at some point.

by sdrone on Sep 17, 2007 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions

The key here

I think the key here is that although it is funny to me, I know that it isn't appropriate and I wouldn't want for any player to do that for a young fan of any team. (Now, if that was my autograph jersey with 25+ signatures on it, I wouldn't care how big he is ...)

It's like telling a dirty joke to a bunch of 4th graders. It doesn't stop the quip from being funny to you & me, but there are just things that you shouldn't do.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Sep 17, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions

i agree

if a player would do that to my kid, i would probably end up getting kicked out of the park.

"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"- Leroy Satchel Paige

<href="http://www.rankmytattoos.com/Illinois/Canton/15002.html">

by Supergus on Sep 17, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

if my kid were

5 or 6, yeah i'd be mad. if my kid was 10, i'd probably just laugh, and would teach my kid to laugh at it too. i think shelley's just trying to have some fun with the kid, stirring up the rivalry. but that's how i'd treat it w/ my kid, not anyone else's. heck, the kid got his picture in the paper and a story to tell his friends.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 17, 2007 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

i guess

you are right, my kid is 7 right now and he would be pretty bummed, but I guess it would be ok if he was older and knew it was all in "good fun"

btw erik, how do you get your link to work in your sig?

"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"- Leroy Satchel Paige

<href="http://www.rankmytattoos.com/Illinois/Canton/15002.html">

by Supergus on Sep 17, 2007 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

figured it out...

RankMyTattoo

by Supergus on Sep 17, 2007 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Plus

It's not like he defaced some possession with a profanity or off-color remark or signed someone else's name, as we've heard players do in the past.

He added a message to his signature on a piece of paper. It's a message that the kid has heard (with perhaps more colorful variation) from the people in the stands with him numerous times.

He doesn't know about the Yanks/Sox rivalry, that the Yankees don't care for the Sox and vice versa? I'd be pretty surprised at that.

All in all, "Red Sox suck!" is pretty tame even for me, and I'm not one for rough language.

C70 at the Bat

by Cardinal70 on Sep 17, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions

after giving it some thought

you're probably right, lb. i kinda feel like a jerk for poking fun at it.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 17, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

glad to hear it erik

i never thought you were the type of guy who would find anything funny about an adult being mean to a kid

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Duncan's response

"I thought I was back in middle school or high school, where you try to make a joke or say something funny, and you end up saying something that gets you in trouble," Duncan said before the Yankees' 4-3 victory last night. "I try to be interactive with people, be funny, have a good time and have a laugh.

"It's not always Yankees fans that have us sign stuff. I try to rile 'em up and be fun. I don't expect anybody to make a big deal about it. Nobody ever has before."

That's the way I saw it. It wasn't a mean thing at all, just a good-natured ribbing between two big rivals. Like I said before, it's not like he put anything profane on it, or said "The Red Sox blow goats, I have proof."

I think the kid was old enough to appreciate the joke, or should be. The parents definitely should be. To me, it smacks of "let's get publicity by being offended."

C70 at the Bat

by Cardinal70 on Sep 17, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

you're expecting a lot of emotional maturity

from a 10-year-old kid.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

i remember...

being in 4th grade, going to a cards/cubs game and yelling "cubs suck" out the car window a couple of times. i got in trouble for the language, but i dont think people should immediately think that a 10 year old would have his feelings hurt by this.

if duncan gave that autograph to a 10 year-old with a smile on his face, doing it in a good natured fashion, i think it might have been a mistake, but only because of the way it was received. i dont think it makes him a dick.

by bdub78 on Sep 17, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Who's really offended here?

I don't condone what Shelley did, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the kid's parents are the ones that are riled up about the whole thing. I doubt the kid went running up to his Mom & Dad, crying his eyes out, saying "Look at what that awful Yankees player put in my notebook." He probably showed it to them, surprised that he would write that (not abhorred, not emotionally scarred, just suprised) and wanted to display it to someone he knew. They reacted to the autograph in a (properly) defensive manner, but apparently lacked any sense of humor (good natured rivalry) and exhibited a bit too much of a sense of entitlement. Too often nowadays common sense has been overtaken by political correctness.

Two more things: One, to lighten the mood a little more, he should have written, "Red Sox Suck, Go Yankees!" It would have made it a little more clear that it was more banter than bluster. Two, at 10 years old, it was perfectly kosher for me to swear in my household, so the language wouldn't have had any affect. The only way that situation could have been damaging for me was if it was an autograph from the player that I rooted for or something more valuable than a sheet of notebook paper.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Sep 17, 2007 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

yea, your version is much better

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Perspective & Context

First of all, I think that Shelley was in the wrong here. While I personally find the comment funny (I'm mature enough to shrug off an insult or get a joke when I see it), it is not the sort of thing that should be written as an autograph. It was an off-hand remark by him, but it meant something to the kid. Plus, as it is with posts here on the internet, the subtle contexts of statements such as this (playful banter vs vindictive intention) are not readily apparent to a not fully involved observer (the parents) and can be easily miscontrued. Someone in Shelley's position cannot endanger his position on the team & in the community with a casual disregard for decorum. Keep it simple, sign the dang notebook, & move on.

Who knows what the exchange was between the two? There are any number of possibilities of what happened, ranging from a friendly conversation with humorous undertones, to Duncan performing his best W.C. Fields impersonation. Regardless, his parents reaction would have been justified if they had conferred to their child that people are mean sometimes (assuming that was Shelley's intent), then taken the high road and walked away. What I have a problem with is them taking it to the press. I feel that there is no reason to play the victim card. Teach your son to be the better person, turn the other cheek, and learn from this.

That said, is there any other way for Duncan to realize that he is doing something wrong? I would think not. He needs to learn better judgement and treat every interaction with young fans with respect. (Although I am sure he has spent plenty of time around baseball crowds to gain a certain sense of cynicism, justified or not.)

I think Shelley really needs to clean up his act. I think the kid will be fine. I think the parents to display a little bit more responsibility.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Sep 18, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

I didn't think you were endorsing

his behavior. It's just that your phrasing would have gotten across the "rivalry joke" Shelley probably intended much better.

This whole thing seems like it's been blown way out of proportion. I think he should have written something different. But I also don't think kids are that fragile.

I would bet the kid is far more mortified that his mother made a big deal about this in the press than reading Shelley's message on a baseball. I mean talk about possibilities for ridicule at school--I'd hate it if my mom did that to me in public and made me look like I was an emotionally vulnerable little kid.

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I made my own point

Your one line comment could be taken two major ways:

Heavy on the snark - Yea, GREAT comment. Way to stir the pot, dipstick. Why don't you step aside & let the intelligent people speak?
Completely honest - Yes, that actually would have been an improvement.

Apparently, your reply was in keeping with option #2. But I couldn't be sure, so I further clarified my position. (Plus, I had more thoughts on the matter regardless, so I piled them into my reply.)

There is no way for Shelley to know whether that fan was intellectually mature enough to discern the true meaning of the autograph or emotionally mature enough to handle the vindictive possibility. That is why Duncan should have shown better judgement. And not necessarily because it was a ten year old kid; there are plenty of immature people out there, irrespective of physical age. Nevermind the alcohol-fueled fanatics that tend to frequent such sporting events. You can't assume that the person you are dealing with can understand your perspective, so don't open yourself to opportunities to be misunderstood.

And I also was thinking about the kid's feelings about what would happen to him at school. Shame on those adults that don't treat children with respect, but kids can be just as cruel to each other as any letch we would rail against on this blog. I'm sure he'll hear worse than Duncan's misguided attempt at humor on the playground this week.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Sep 18, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

the kid will probably be seen as a hero

he got his picture in the paper; he made one of the hated yankees look bad.

although many of the people on this board judge the family's response as weak and manipulative, 10-year-olds aren't going to go through the same set of calculations.

by lboros on Sep 18, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Now I'm confused

I thought you've been arguing with other posters that the child was vulnerable and could have likely had his feelings hurt and it was right to protect him like his mother did.

Now you sound like you're saying it was likely no big deal for the kid--he will probably be seen as a hero at school and got some publicity to boot.

Have you changed your mind or did I misread your back and forth comments with others on this post? If I misread you, then I think a lot of other people did too, judging from their reactions.

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions

you're conflating two ideas

i've argued that the kid was emotionally vulnerable in the interaction between himself and the ballplayer. i stand by that characterization.

you and others have argued that he'll be emotionally vulnerable in the interaction with his classmates --- ie, they'll ridicule him because his parents stuck up for him. i am not so worried about his vulnerability in that regard; on the contrary, i think the fact his parents stuck up for him might win the kid some support.

does that clear up the confusion?

by lboros on Sep 18, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

My reply was definitely #2, not #1

I agree that people should consider the child's feelings. But I also think, knowing a lot of kids that age, that the mother may have done more to humiliate him by looking overly protective than Shelley did by writing that message.

In my expience, kids that age hate looking like they are being protected and coddled by their moms, almost more than anything else.

I think she should have handled it differently as well--she basically subjected her child to public scrutiny and discussion. Fine to object to the message. But it would have been better to do it privately, in discussion with someone at the Yankees.

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree, Larry

While it's easy to see it was just in jest, it is still expecting the 10 year old to have the emotional maturity of an adult.

Had it been me in that boy's parents' shoes, I'd be fairly upset as well. Would I go to the news media about it? Probably not. I would like to think that a thoughtful letter explaining the issues I took with such a message to my 10 year old son, and a copy of the autograph to the front office might have been the way to go, and would have been the route I would have pursued. But, to each their own.

All in all, I don't think Shelley is a bad guy, nor that he intended to be malicious. Just a moment of not thinking about potential consequenses, and I've had many of those myself.

by SmashedAtoms on Sep 17, 2007 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Would you cover your kids ears

during one of the 20 "Yankees SUCK!" chants that I heard on the broadcast last night?

What about covering his eyes at Curt Schilling wandered around the mound on 4 occasions screaming F@(K as loud as he could over and over again after making bad pitches?

On the scale of things a 10 year old could see, "Red Sox Suck" seems pretty far down their to me.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

no,

I would not. However I'd like to clarify. What you are describing is what I consider the "baseball environment." What Duncan did (while with completely innocent intentions, I have no doubt, honestly) was more on a personal level with that boy.

I don't disagree that the kid has probably seen and heard worse at school, on the television, and in video games. Heck, he might have even done worse himself.

However, the issue I take with Duncan is that a little boy asks for his autograph and he takes the opportunity to bash the boy's team. Do I believe it was malicious? No, not even close. And had it been an adult, it wouldn't have even made the news. But as Larry said above, it's expecting alot of emotional maturity from a little kid.

If the parents have further issues with the situations you described, then by all means, don't bring the kid to the ballpark. But like I said, that's just the baseball environment. Shelley's actions, however unintended, were more personal.

by SmashedAtoms on Sep 17, 2007 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

if my 10 year old

can't handle this just watching sports, no way I'd let his fragile self actually play sports...video games...board games....anything competitive.

by rocKStark5 on Sep 17, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions

agree w/ smashed atoms

this isn't about the word "suck." it's about the personal interaction between an adult and a kid.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Question.

Ever consider that you, and the parents, are taking this out of context?

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Obviously you don't have kids

(that's come to be the standard reply for your question)

by baw on Sep 17, 2007 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions

...so?

What would say to parents who would have LAUGHED OUT LOUD when they saw what Duncan wrote? Are they bad parents, lesser human beings, incapable of raising children, etc? I ask that because the majority of people here seem to feel people like you and Larry are blowing this out of proportion.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Heh.

I didn't mean you, baw. I meant that for someone else. Oh well.

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions

No worries

I mean, I readily admit that I am totally incapable of raising children... but it's not because I'm a cold, uncaring invertebrate

by baw on Sep 17, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

i am curious

about this too.

as the parent of a 10-year-old, i have to say i thought this was pretty funny. the word "suck" isn't my favorite, and we don't use it or allow it (though i wouldn't be shocked if my son has used it at school). i also realize others use it interchangeably with "stink." would that change how people on here feel about it, if duncan had written "red sox stink" instead of "red sox suck"?

i did stop to think about how i'd feel if a cubs player had done this to my son, sporting full cardinals gear. i'd be surprised, but not angry. in fact, at 10, my son is sometimes too intense in his cubs-bashing (not profanity though), and i tell him to dial it back a notch. i seriously doubt he'd be upset--certainly not scarred. we are used to taking our share of good- and not-so-good-natured pokes from living in cubs country and wearing our cards gear at every opportunity.

then again, i can't see my kid asking for a cubs player's autograph anyway. yuck.

by acham8206 on Sep 17, 2007 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

i'm not questioning any parent's decision

a parent should handle this any way he or she saw fit. i know how i would have handled it, and while i wouldn't have handled it exactly as these parents did i understand and sympathize with the way they handled it.

the people who are second-guessing parental decisions are the people on the other side of this debate. some of those guys have called out the parents as media whores, manipulative jerks, self-pitying wimps, and worse. i think those are mighty presumptuous assertions.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Larry, I agree that it was poor judgement

by Shelly. Heck, I'll even say it was wrong. But I don't think it's a big deal. If this qualifies as a traumatic experience for that kid, he has had an incredibly fortunate childhood. I hate to personalize but growing up in St Louis (in the '70s and '80s) I experienced much worse from adults both singularly and collectively. I am not saying that justifies Shelly's behavior, but it does provide perspective, at least for me.

Lastly, (I mean this with all respect and I hope I am not crossing any lines.) another perspective might come by comparing this lapse of judgment to those displayed by different Cardinals this season. If Shelly is a jerk for abusing the feelings of a child, what adjectives would be appropriate for their behavior.

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 17, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Except he wasn't being mean to him.

Cardinal fan from Washington

by JI on Sep 17, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

ohmygawd

So what does that make the rest of us? Child abusers?

I don't see how this kid could be so hurt; he obviously isn't too invested in the home team if he's flagging down Yankees for autographs.

Larry, you've said that if this had happened to your kid, no one would be laughing. What exactly would you do to Shelley (6'5", 215)? And why are the rest of us insensitive, childless jerks for shrugging it off?

by baw on Sep 17, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

easy there, baw

no need to puff out the 6'5" and 215 lbs. that don't mean anything to me one way or the other.

i didn't call anybody a child abuser or an insensitive, childless jerk or any other name. i do disagree with your reaction to this, and the majority of the reactions. i don't mind being in the minority. a lot of you think i'm overreacting; that's your privilege. i'm comfortable w/ my position.

it does strike me that you cite shelley's height and weight --- do you think i would challenge him to a fight? is that how you would handle a conflict like this? i would certainly tell duncan to his face what i thought of his joke and what i thought of him as a man, for disrespecting my kid that way; he'd get an earful. maybe he'd still be laughing and maybe he wouldn't. maybe he'd threaten me with his 6'5", 215 lbs. whatever.

if you've read this site for any length of time, you know i take a dim view of trash talk. i do my best to keep it off this site; i don't think it's very funny or very clever or very original. this instance of it particularly irritates me, given the disparity in age and power/status/privilege between duncan and his target. people were celebrating that incident on my board, and i exercisd my right to let people know where i stand.

by lboros on Sep 17, 2007 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

It was just

your tone earlier. "He wouldn't be laughing after I got through with him" (this is paraphrased) -- a friend and I chuckled at the scenario. That's it. I know you wouldn't actually wrestle Duncan to the dirt, but it's funny to imagine that happening over something as trivial as this. I didn't mean to puff out his chest against yours, although that is a chest-puffing contest I would like to see!

My sense is: even if you were around for the whole Shelley episode and watched him glibly "disrespect" your kid with an autograph... he's not going to stand there and listen to you lecture him on power/status/privilege disparities, no matter how strongly you word things. I also don't see how this isolated incident gives you any right to judge Shelley "as a man," as if he's clearly a cowardly d-bag now.

Now, you could say the same thing to those of us who judge this kid's parents for talking to the paper, and you may be right. But I'm not dying to give those people a piece of my mind or let them know what I think of them as human beings -- I'd rather just ignore em.

As far as trash talk goes, I think it can be very funny and clever and original. In another thread, I think, cited (and I believe someone else did, too) Ken Griffey, Jr., tossing his autographed jock strap to a heckler; the heckler found new respect for Junior and has a great story to tell for the rest of his baseball-loving life.

This kid could've had the same, but now he's branded as the boo-hoo boy. "Sucks" for him.

by baw on Sep 18, 2007 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

the griffey thing involved an adult

not a 10-year-old kid. and the heckler had it coming; he initiated the trash talking. the 10-year-old kid was seeking an autograph.

if you're entitled to judge the kid as "the boo-hoo boy," then i guess i'm entitled to judge duncan's character too. you and i simply see this one differently, baw. i hear what you're saying, but i don't agree with it.

by lboros on Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree

that the Junior thing is different, but I meant it as an example of interesting, entertaining, "back and forth" trash talk. Nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. I understand you're all against it; I think that's boring.

And when I called the kid the boo-hoo boy, I meant that he'd be judged that way by lots of people, not just myself. He's got a rep now, at least for a while, whether you agree with it or not.

Sorry to keep responding with a last word.

by baw on Sep 18, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

but this is where i disagree with your position

i think you, and others who pass judgment on the 10-year-old, are expecting the kid to respond like an adult, while excusing the adult for acting like a kid. it ought to be the other way around, in my opinion.

by lboros on Sep 18, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm astounded

reading all the give and take about this that there are so many here who think this is funny. What's funny about it? That Duncan took advantage of a 10 year old in order to try to get a laugh? It's poor judgment but, frankly, I'm more upset that post after post seems to be defending it. Is the mom or dad exploiting this for attention? Maybe, yeah. But that doesn't excuse Duncan nor absolve him of his actions. If this person were an adult, that's one thing. The kid's 10 years old and all he wanted was Shelley Duncan's autograph. Instead, Duncan spit on him, figuretively. He mocked the kid for a laugh -- so that he could go tell his friends how serious this "rivalry" is to him. Hey Shelley -- it's a fucking game! Get over yourself and grow the fuck up!

by chuckb on Sep 17, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Proof?

He mocked the kid for a laugh -- so that he could go tell his friends how serious this "rivalry" is to him.

Source?

by champion on Sep 17, 2007 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Also

The kid's 10 years old and all he wanted was Shelley Duncan's autograph.

Which is sorta fucked up, considering the kid's such a diehard Red Sox fan, hence the devastation caused by Shelley's horrific message.

Hey Shelley -- it's a fucking game! Get over yourself and grow the fuck up!

Where in this whole ordeal do you get the sense that Shelley needs to "get over" himself? He was a joy to watch earlier this season; I really got the sense that he has a true love for the game when I saw him slamming forearms in the dugout after his initial HR tear. And he signs autographs for kids.

Grow the fuck up? That's good advice... for this kid's parents.

by baw on Sep 17, 2007 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

geez.

duncan (figuratively) spit on him? "grow the f--- up"?

even if you think duncan messed up, that's way harsh.

and i doubt duncan did it so he could brag to his friends. he seems to be an emotions-on-his-sleeve type guy who just did something ill-advised in fun.

by acham8206 on Sep 17, 2007 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Huh???

"Instead, Duncan spit on him, figuretively. He mocked the kid for a laugh -- so that he could go tell his friends how serious this "rivalry" is to him. Hey Shelley -- it's a fucking game! Get over yourself and grow the fuck up!"

I'm sorry but this is huge a load of crap. I seriously doubt that this was his intent, or if there was any malicious intent. Players sign so rarely, and when they do sign, it's generally impersonal-- so here we have Zombie Shelley, actually interacting with fans and trying to have a good time with them, and he gets shit on for it. Good Lord. Lighten up, get a sense of humor.

Cardinal fan from Washington

by JI on Sep 17, 2007 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Not directed at the OP per se

There are many heated responses about this, and all are entitled to their opinions, of course. I thought I might offer a more balanced view of the situation. I think that on the face value, Shelley's actions were inappropriate and crass.

Kid was 10 years old. 10-yr-olds are widely varied in their levels of maturity, and some of them don't yet understand this type of sarcasm among adults. Also, Shelley and the Kid aren't friends or acquaintances; this is their first meeting. The level of interaction between them was shallow and brief; imagine if adults who were strangers poked fun at each other like this? There would be fists flying everywhere.
10-yr-old kid waited for Shelley-freaking-Duncan's autograph. Duncan should be honored that he's big enough for a Red Sox fan to want his autograph; it means that Duncan's playing the kind of ball this boy admires. Duncan's prank, in this case, in this manner, is in poor taste.

That said, there are unknowns.

Did Shelley and the boy have an interaction? Did they banter about the rivalry? If there was banter about the rivalry, then I say the autograph isn't out of line, at least in terms of right and wrong. If the boy was telling Shelley that he could hit harder than him one-handed, well, fair game for a little jab I'd say.
Or was Shelley just all, "How old are you? Have fun," and hand him the autograph? If the boy was star-struck and speechless, it changes things.

Basically, this is a matter of taste. If there was no banter, I can see how the kid might be hurt by this. I can also see how the boy may be reluctant to ask players for autographs in the future, a daunting task already. I know I loved baseball as a kid, but I was very shy. If I'd worked up the nerve to ask a player on the visiting team for an autograph and he'd written something like that, I would've been crushed.

Kids know that baseball is a game, but they also know it's a business and that the players are very, very busy. Asking for an autograph is an imposition, and most kids understand that players are doing them a favor. (This goes both ways, of course, as autographs are an easy way to encourage people to spend, spend, spend by becoming diehard fans.)

Asking a pro athlete for an autograph is an exciting, nerve-wracking thing for a kid. Whatever position you take on this, one thing is certain: alienating fans (accidentally, intentionally, whatever) on a personal level - especially kids - isn't good for baseball. Period.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 18, 2007 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions

One other thing

This would NEVER happen with a star. Usually, they're far too media-savvy and polished to let something like this happen. While they may be gruff or rude, they wouldn't write an autograph like this. So, perhaps the moral of the story is to only let your kids get stars' autographs. This is sound advice on several levels.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 18, 2007 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Griffey Jr.

tossed an autographed jock strap to a fan. Polished? No. Funny? Hell yes.

by baw on Sep 18, 2007 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions

NOT

a kid, though. Come on, dude. Totally different. Griffey would NEVER sign an autograph like that for a kid.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 18, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Right

because that would just be too scarring.

by baw on Sep 18, 2007 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

It's

not that it would be too scarring; it's that a kid probably wouldn't find it funny. They wouldn't get it. You know, the jock is all up on his nuts the way a heckler is... Kids don't think in metaphors. They think literally. And while kids do have a sense of humor, they widely differ. This is why people behave differently in public than they do at home; not all behavior is socially acceptable, especially for children.

Can you imagine Griffey - or any athlete - handing a little kid his jock strap? It would be crass and kind of creepy.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. But there's no need to be sarcastic and rude. I'm pretty on the fence when it comes to this issue, and the posts I made were in earnest and attempted to see both sides of the issue.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 18, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think YOU get the jock thing

...as in, "he couldn't carry Griffey's jock."

I didn't say anyone should be handing kids their underwear. Creepy, I agree.

So we've had all this outrage over Shelley Duncan not because his autograph was scarring, but because the kid "wouldn't find it funny"?? I'm sorry, but this is the most overblown story ever. EVER! Did it make the front of the NYDN?

by baw on Sep 19, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

See?

There are two perfectly reasonable interpretations in one jockstrap.

I'm not the one worked up over this. Just so YOU know. In fact, I haven't reacted at all. I've engaged in level-headed discussion. I don't know what the hell you're doing.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 19, 2007 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm

engaging in wild, crooked-headed blabbering. Duh.

by baw on Sep 19, 2007 3:01 AM EDT up reply actions

So

we agree then.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 19, 2007 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions

As far as the outrage

over Shelley Duncan, I don't have any. I just said that the jockstrap thing wouldn't be funny to a kid. I said that in response to your comment about Junior's jock.

I haven't said anything in absolutes, other than that a star player would never sign an autograph like that, especially to a child.

I never said the incident would be scarring. Just that it might be seen as tasteless and that some kids might be hurt by the incident. I don't think they would need therapy over it. You've gotta relax, dude.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 19, 2007 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions

and I would totally

throw my jock at you right now... if I were wearing one. ;)

by baw on Sep 19, 2007 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions

UNCLE

I give.

Spantalones

by spants on Sep 19, 2007 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions

I really want 2008 spring training to start

I don't want to wait...

by tnek5 on Sep 17, 2007 11:36 AM EDT reply actions

Howard the Duck

is currently on Encore. I sat here on my sofa and watched nearly the whole thing, despite the fact that it may be the worst movie ever made. Why? Because the six year old version of me loved Lea Thompson, and, thus, the twenty seven year old version of me still does, at least a little.

This particular Cardinal team has put me in a similarly unpleasant situation. As painful as they have been to watch, I haven't missed more than three or four games this whole season, (thank you Tivo) because there are a few players I actually care what they do, and, regardless of their ineptness, I can't help but love this team. I can accept that sometimes you're the bug; this team has been the windshield more often than not this decade. I'm also torn between hoping the front office will get their shit together this offseason, so we don't have to see more of these years, and hoping we don't see a horrible overreaction, trading away the young talent the franchise is finally beginning to stockpile in order to resume feeding the win now at all costs monster. It's just too confusing.

Oh well. I just hope next year is more Back to the Future and less Howard.

If you don't ask me to dinner, I don't eat.

by the red baron on Sep 17, 2007 11:41 AM EDT reply actions

So what happened

to the other player(s) on the Cards supposedly to have taken HGH? I thought we were supposed to hear something about that?

by saladdays on Sep 17, 2007 11:47 AM EDT reply actions

Albert's 2 HRs

and 6 RBIs ended up foul balls yesterday.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Calling up Rasmus

Please tell me why the Cardinals should give Colby these final 2 weeks as a 'cup of coffee' with the team.

This has nothing to do with getting him up here sooner than 2009 or anything like that but with each time a players comes up to the big leagues, he feels more comfortable in that role. Unless we go get Hunter or Jones this off-season, Colby will be in that starting OF of 2009.

Why not try to get him accumated to guys like Albert, Jim, etc? Let him sit on the bench with Rolen, Bennett and Mulder and talk about the game.

I know there is difficulties with adding him to the 40 man roster, but I'd be more than willing to take out a loan to pay for whatever it costs to DFA Cairo or hell, they could just DL Duncan and put him on the 60 day.

I'd love to see in these final 2 weeks, a guy like Walters get 2 starts or Rasmus play a game or two.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 11:59 AM EDT reply actions

Bring up youth

I agree. I don't see a reason not to bring up some youngsters to get a few AB's and pitch a few innings. It would be good to get them with the big club durning the real MLB seaons. All the guys you mentioned will be with the big club in spring training but I think some end of the season MLB action would be good for them. They will have a chance to face some potential playoff teams as well.

I like the idea.

by ICbirdfan on Sep 17, 2007 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

One reason

In a worst case scenario, suppose Rasmus struggles to adjust to the MLB level. It's a possibility since he won't likely get thrown into an everday starting role at first and he won't have a ton of at-bats to adapt.

By bringing him up for these last two weeks as some kind of gesture, we'd be starting his options clock in 2007. I'd rather have the wiggle room, just in case of disaster, during the 2009 offseason.

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with that risk

plus we already have a lot of young guys up here. I wish TLR would give them more time to play. Put Skip and Barden in there more and give Edmonds, Speezio, and Eckstein rest. Start getting the older guys ready for next year.

by nycardfan on Sep 17, 2007 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait, what?

If he struggles these next two weeks, so what? It's MLB experience that he can take with him to the Arizona Fall League and Memphis next season.

As far as his options, I guess that maybe that would make THESE final 2 weeks part of his 'options' year? That, in turn, would only allow him to be called up and down this year, 2008 and 2009, having to stick on the big league roster in 2010.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I mean

In a worst case scenario in which he struggles at the MLB level throughout 2008 and 2009.

It's a small risk, but serious enough to keep him away from MLB pitching until next year. Who knows, maybe a cup of coffee too soon would wreck his confidence and make that worst case scenario more likely.

He'll have plenty of fun in the AFL.

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Interesting 30-second video

(at least the last five seconds)...

from a Mets-Braves game...

by salvomania on Sep 17, 2007 1:03 PM EDT reply actions

Whoops!

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXIGeGhEhAs

by salvomania on Sep 17, 2007 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Great Caesar's Ghost!

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Team USA

Posted this on Futureredbirds already but:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/sports-bird-land/2007/09/rasmus-perez-bound-for-team-usa/

Fresh from leading the Cardinals' Double-A affiliate into the Texas League Championship Series, center fielder Colby Rasmus has been selected to this offseason's U.S. National Baseball team and will compete in an international tournament that is the prelude to the Olympic Games.

Rasmus and Triple-A closer Chris Perez have been selected to play on Team USA in the IBAF World Cup, an official confirmed Monday morning.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 1:36 PM EDT reply actions

Great Opportunity

That's got to be even more exciting for them than going to Arizona.

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

And as far as Rasmus goes this could be an Olympic audition Perez will most likely be on the 25 man roster and thus ineligible by that time but Rasmus might not be and thus could get some very nice time in Bejing.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Joe Strauss down on Anderson



Joe Strauss: Anderson is not considered a "can't miss" despite his lofty rankings by Baseball America and our own selves. There are questions about his arm strength and size for catching. There are also questions about his ability to hit for power if moved to the outfield.

Wonder what we can get for Anderson.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 17, 2007 4:49 PM EDT reply actions

agree

I agree with strauss, I have been thinking that all season, his batting stats aren't that much better then Molina's this year, and while he is 20 at AA I think an "offensive" touted player should have better peripherals then what he has shown. He also has an "average" defense but to me average behind the plate just won't cut it, I have been spoiled by Matheny and Molina so watching even Bennett kills me sometimes and I don't think I could take that every day.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

catcher defense is a

ridiculously over-rated quality. They don't field balls in play and the pitcher chooses the pitches as much as the catchers do. I don't understand STL's obsession with the concept of a great defensive catcher.

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 17, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Bad catcher defense

Turns can turn singles into doubles (via stolen base), those doubles into triples (via passed balls), and those triples into runs with bad positioning on plays at the plate.

It'd be nice to have a good hitting catcher as the backup, though. Put some extra offense in for your fifth starter, who might need the runs, and you don't waste a spot on the bench.

For the third year in a row, I'll say it: NRI Todd Greene!

by liam on Sep 17, 2007 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, where's OUR Brian McCann or

Russell Martin or Joe Mauer or Jorge Posada? They are not thought of as great defenders, but they are all good defenders, better than adequate, and bring a new dimension with their bats. Now, I wouldn't go so far as saying Michael Barrett is acceptable, but there are good catchers that can actually hit......I want me one.

by jillsinmo on Sep 17, 2007 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, but from listening to

Strauss, Anderson doesn't even seem 'barely adequate' defensively.

It'd be nice, for once, if the Cardinals could get 'ahead' of a prospect flaming out and getting something for him.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 18, 2007 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions

or change his position

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions

but how often?

Those things happen but at what rate does a bad catcher allow them compared to a good catcher? Stolen bases are as much a function of the pitcher as they are of the catcher (slow windup or bad at holding runners). How many passed balls are there in a season for a catcher? 5? 10? Is that really worth the disparity between a good offensive catcher and a bad offensive catcher. I remain unconvinced that catcher defense is of significant import to the game.

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 18, 2007 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions

and this isn't directed at you Liam

but for anyone's who is interested -- Keith Woolner did a series of excellent studies on a catcher's effect on a pitcher. His conclusion:

For now, at least, the hypothesis most consistent with the available facts appears to be that catchers do not have a significant effect on pitcher performance.

Obviously the word "significant" is. . . well, significant. The impact of catchers on a pitchers performance simply remains below the statistical level of noise and therefore largely undetectable but also of little impact.

Part 1 - Field General or Backstop?
Part 2 - Catching Up With The General: A Postscript
Part 3 - Aim For The Head

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 18, 2007 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions

Because Molina is the top or one of the top

catchers defensively, it may be hard to compare him to run of the mill catchers. When you have an over 50% caught stealing rate and when you have so few people even willing to steal on Molina, that has to allow the pitcher to relax and concentrate more on their own pitching when runners are on base.

by nycardfan on Sep 18, 2007 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions

wrong

Molina being one of the top defensive catchers should make it easier for Woolner to capture something statistically. Your saying that Molina is soooo awesome defensively that he makes all these different things happen. Said another way, he should have a higher "signal to noise" ratio and therefore be spot-able amidst all the garbage.

He's got a great arm but you can't just throw out there that he "allows the pitcher to relax and concentrate more" because that's exactly what Woolner's studies disprove (or at least the added concentration doesn't make them any better).

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 18, 2007 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Wild Pitch, etc.

I would like to see how many wild pitches catchers allow as well, passed balls are not the only thing a good defensive catcher will prevent. Last night in a close game a ball went through the catchers legs, if he had sat down that wouldn't have happened but he let it go by and a run scored, I really think Catchers have more to do with the game then they might be getting credit for not less.

by StLHugo on Sep 18, 2007 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Do we have a Pineiro option for 08?

Can someone help me out here- MLBtraderumors has Pineiro listed as a free agent for next year (no options) but Cot's contract page has Pineiro listed as having an option for 08. What is it?

If there is a club option, I think we should take it.

by enoscountry on Sep 17, 2007 5:06 PM EDT reply actions

mutual

from what I can gather it is a mutual option, traderumors also will list anyone with an option that hasn't been picked up as a FA until it is exercised.

by StLHugo on Sep 17, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Network Bar

Viva El Birdos -

over and out

Do you like this story?

Comments