Growing Pains
by azruavatar on Jan 11, 2008 2:51 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
PrintWe're all adults right? I want to echo the sentiment from Bernie Miklasz's article back in December. The Cardinals have had an absolutely incredible run of winning. In the last 10 years, the Cardinals have had two sub .500 seasons, which included the incredible 2004-2005 back to back 100 win seasons. It's been a great run but let's be honest about what it's come to at this point. The team had a 71-91 Pythagorean record last season.
I like watching a winning ballclub. I'd rather watch a club that wins big than one that barely contends though. Remember that even in the midst of last year's less than exemplary season, the Cardinals were competitive. That's the nature of the NL Central right now; it's a division that encourages Ed Wade to go all out and build a team that probably tops out around 85 wins. Namely, because 85 wins could take the division title and get you into the postseason in the NL Central. The Cardinals farm system isn't as bad as the Astros was and we do have the best player in the NL and the former best pitcher in the NL on our team -- there's considerably more "win now" talent available.
Still, the consensus hereabouts seems to be for the Cardinals to find a happy medium of winning now without sacrificing the future. For the most part, John Mozeliak has done that. What the Cardinals haven't done, bringing this back to the introduction, is be honest with their fans about the reality of the team being fielded in 2008. Bernie wrote in his column:
I don't get it. Let's just be straight with each other, Cardinal management. I'll still come to the games and buy your overpriced beer and you'll field a team in transition -- deal? Do the Cardinals think that if they said, "We're going to see what our young players have to offer. It may be difficult in the short term but we'd rather be competitive for the long haul." that their fans would all suddenly abandon them? Did I miss something the last few years where they struggled to sell out the stadium? Do they think that if they double talk the situation that Cardinal fans won't figure it out?
I just don't understand the need for misdirection and shady duplicity. The Oakland Athletics struggle to sell tickets and are trying to get a new stadium in Southern California. They are in a market that features a plethora of sporting options and are entering a true rebuilding phase. This is what Billy Beane had to say recently:
Candor is refreshing. Billy Beane puts faith in his fans and a realistic, rational assessment. The Cardinals may not need to go into the full-bore rebuilding model that the A's are entering but the St. Louis front office would be well served by being candid and explicit with fans that have stayed committed to the team. If July rolls around and the Cardinals are managing to stay in contention, wouldn't everyone be happier if the team had under-promised and over-delivered? Instead, the fan base is primed for another year where contending seems possible but a realistic assessment of the team shows that it's unlikely.
*******************
There's hints that the Cardinals are discussing a long term deal with Yadier Molina as he enters his first year of arbitration. You would expect the contract would cover the remaining years of arbitration and the first year of free agency possibly with a 5th year option. Of course, the implications for Bryan Anderson in a discussion like this are what first come to many people's minds. I doubt I need to remind anyone my sentiments on Yadier's (overrated) defense and total value.
What might surprise you is that I think a multi-year deal would be to the Cardinal's advantage in every aspect of the situation. The obvious caveat there is that if the front office can sign Molina to a deal that saves the team money in terms of dollars per win. That, of course, requires an evaluation of what he's really worth -- but let's not debate that subject today. Instead, let's assume that the Cardinals do sign him to a deal worth 80% of his projected value over the next 4 years (meaning they save 20% compared to going year by year). A few scenarios seems plausible:
- Bryan Anderson fizzles - This is the best argument for signing Yadi to a multi-year deal. I think it's safe to say that some within the front office/coaching staff prefer Molina to Anderson. After his 2007 season in Springfield, I was a little disappointed but Anderson remains a well-regarded prospect. When talking prospects there's always a risk involved -- if the risk seems too high, than the Cardinals would want to keep their major league proven catcher under control for as long as he's effective.
- Bryan Anderson develops normally - I'd like to see Anderson spend another season in AA. I don't think there's a good reason to push him and he was one of the youngest players in the Texas league last season. Even if they promote him to AAA, it still appears like the earliest Anderson would be ready is 2009. Catching is a taxing position to play and the idea of Molina and Anderson splitting time behind the St. Louis plate is somewhat intriguing. If Molina is signed to a reasonable contract, there shouldn't be an issue finding a taker for one of the catchers once this situation arises.
- Yadier Molina fizzles - Molina has had some trouble staying completely healthy and he's never been an offensive powerhouse. I think that those who attribute his mediocre offense to batting stances or health or age are deluding themselves. He's had nearly 1300 major league at bats and while there's still some room on the aging curve, it's limited at this point for a slow, plodding catcher. If Molina looks more like 2005/2006 rather than the 2007 version moving foward, a multi-year contract could be unpleasant. In terms of probability, I think this is the least likely scenario.
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So tempting........
nice post, Azru.
At some point in the conversation, I said, "Well, you have to rebuild a team sometime.". I thought his response was very telling.
"That's all well and good, but that's not what they said.".
I realised then that this is a huge part of the matter. The Cardinals have moved into a different phase, but they've done it in a ridiculously half assed way, and the organisation refuses to include the fans. They're setting up expectations that are going to be more damaging to the trust of the fans when they fail to deliver than if the team simply trusted the fan base to shift their focus along with the organisation. Retaining LaRussa and retaining marginal players are done in the name of competitiveness, all the while damaging the team long term as well as eroding the fan base's trust further. I can't imagine there's possibly a worse way to handle all of this than what we're currently seeing.
Funny...
rebuilding
It seems to me that Mo is trying to fill his major league roster with as much talent as he can afford on the short term. Sure that means some reclamation programs and some players that remind us of the glory days from the early 90's. However, he has not stuck us with any albatross contracts on aging players. He has not traded the talent-laden prospects from the system. He has done everything (except the Miles signing)fairly well, by my estimation. He is stuck with Kennedy at second, Rolen at 3rd, and a bunch of injured pitchers. That is a mess Jocketty made.
How would you have done it differently? The only valuable chip we have to trade for an impact player is Pujols. He would be lynched if he traded him, no matter who he got in return. Rolen is basically worthless. Duncan has health questions. Ankiel has sample-size issues. Carp is hurt for most of the year. Mulder hasn't pitched in 2 years, basically. Izzy has a no-trade clause.
I know we are all upset about Ryan not getting the chance we think he deserves, but even if he did play and perform well, he is no savior.
I will say that I completely agree with Azru on that extension for Molina. I am not on board there, unless it is a good deal without a no-trade clause. Then, if Anderson develops, we can flip Molina to fill a hole somewhere else.
1 more thing.
Hasn't he showed up late for a game or 2? Hasn't he ignored signs from the dugout?
I am no big league manager, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I learned a few things about coaching/managing.
Managers HATE to see a player not give maximum effort, especially Don Tony. Ryan is a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants guy. They are just not gonna mesh untill Ryan proves that he takes this job/game seriously.
ryan
Your points are duly noted
See Meat's post above this.
If Dewitt and co. were to tell the fan base that they need to retool the team in order to make a stronger run in the future, I don't think people would be so frustrated. There would be an understanding of why the organisation is avoiding a certain type of contract, and not trading away certain players. As it is, the organisation is telling people that they plan on being competitive, and then doing essentially nothing to actually make the team any better right now.
What would be understandable to a fan base following a team in transition ends up simply looking like cheapskate, indifferent behaviour to a fan base following what they think is going to be a competitor. The expectations are creating a lot of the discontent we're seeing, in my ever so humble opinion.
That's what I think couldn't be handled any worse than what it is.
by the red baron on Jan 11, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
truthiness
yeah
yeah, what he said.
(Seriously, I had no idea what pablum meant, and when google told me it was a children's cereal, I was even more confused. Dictionary.com to the rescue.)
fly in the soup
As Eck breezingly put it, in his analysis above..."He is stuck with Kennedy at second..."
Whether it is Mo, or Walt, or Fredbird in charge, where are the cajones to admit that Adam Kennedy is a disaster?
Yes, I bite my nails this winter over several aspects of the up-coming '08 squad, but I seem to be in a very small minority, one that suffers the biggest anxiety pain in the stomach over the vision of Kennedy being the starting 2b next year.
Yes, almost all of VEB'ers (when they DO bother to mention the 2b/Kennedy situation) do some form of sighing or "not really thrilled with it" sanitized criticism. But, compared to the extreme vitriol over the (far less crucial or important) re-signing of Aaron Miles, for instance, it leaves me miffed that few pull the trigger on AK.
The sentiment of this post...
We're not idiots, while we may not always deserve the designation of "the smartest fans in baseball," we certainly aren't fools. For the most part, we know our team inside and out, and for the Cardinals management to presume that they can make these pit-pat little tweaks to the team and actually perpetuate through the press that they're attempting to field a competitive team is absurd.
It doesn't kill me to come to the realization we have to rebuild, I expected it was coming soon when I look out upon our outfield of Jim Edmonds, Larry Walker, and Reggie Sanders. Who didn't see rebuilding in the near future at that point in time? It's the organizations unwillingness to admit that we have entered this phase and to put blinders on as to the true status of the team that bothers me.
Thanks for giving me something to read. I've got a long day ahead of me.
"we know our team inside and out"
Folks, we don't need to build the 1927 Yankees to be competitive in this division; we need to build a team that breaks .500. In my opinion it is entirely within reason to enter a general rebuilding phase while still leaving open the possibility of achieving that not-very-lofty goal via luck and lightning in a bottle. That's what cheap, low-probability-high-return deals can do, and that's what Mo has been doing.
Look at it this way. Suppose you need to get Mulder back and effective, and additionally augment last year's team by two lightning-in-a-bottle surprises for this team to be competitive next year, and without those surprises, you're toast. What are the odds of getting at least two such surprises from the moves thus far? Here are some guesses at how likely any of several players are to produce such surprises:
- Clement: maybe one chance in 5
- Barton: one chance in 4 (this may be a bit pessimistic, IMO)
- Pineiro: one chance in 10
- Kennedy (non-move): one chance in 20
- Rasmus: one chance in 10 (this is definitely pessimistic in raw talent, but reflects the unlikelihood that the team rushes him to the majors)
- Hoffpauir: one chance in 20 (his odds of improving on the other 2B possibilities are much greater than this, but the odds of a significant improvement aren't good)
- Everyone else put together: one chance in 10 (definitely pessimistic, Reyes by himself has a greater chance than this, but I somehow doubt that he'll be around...)
To be sure, those aren't great odds. However, they're good enough that I think it is way too early to give up on this season, particularly if some of these spare parts -- plus Reyes and/or an outfielder, an area where we have some depth -- can be parlayed into a trade that produces a greater probability of helping. Will that trade happen? I don't know. But I do think it's right to keep the faith, and seen in this light, I'm not unhappy about the front-office messages at all.
by StanTheManFan on Jan 11, 2008 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
I think maybe
I'm not saying I'm correct or that is a justifiable reason to lie. Just an early morning thought. I'm a season ticket holder here and have attended games in oakland, so I'm not completely full of it.
Oakland is smarter at marketing, too.
If they were smart enough to educate their own fan base (setting expectations), then they're also probably smart enough to know how to set expectations with what they're doing now.
"Billy Beane puts faith in his fans"
by Rob H on Jan 11, 2008 8:11 AM EST reply actions
True, they don't have the attendance
Your contention that the Cardinals are somehow trying to double talk this whole situation because they have good attendnce actually proves the opposite point. Shouldn't Beane be much more afraid of losing the 25,000 people who actually attend A's games, given that each ticket, due to the much smaller pie, is much more important to the franchise? Arguing that a team with a stronger, and far more devoted, fan base should be less honest with their fans doesn't make any sense.
The fan bases of the two franchises are apples and oranges. Ownership's treatment of them is not.
by the red baron on Jan 11, 2008 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
perspective....?
In the cheap seats the major talk was about not winning, the A's never winning, never winning it all...period.
Always losing to the east or the Angels. Basically about Oakland being non-competive and attendance being based on who was coming to town as much as the A's.
In the reserved seats for the next game Haren was offered back with the offer to keep Mulder and Calero too for the chance of winning a WS or beating anybody in the AL that was competitive. There was plenty of talk about the embarrassment re: the field itself. Wearing a Cards jersey with a new stadium 1k miles away and a recent WS win got me no empathy when I said "well, its not so bad".
There were a lot of SFG and AA hats in the stands. No Dodger blue.
No mention of Beane from anyone, anywhere.
There was lots of talk about the good old days of TLR and etc.
Some talk of trading Cust and/or Swisher for Garland or Buerhle who both lost a few weeks later back to back to Blanton and Dinardo.
I guess honesty from ownership and its impact on a fanbase has a lot to do with who you're talking too.
by cardschinmusic on Jan 12, 2008 7:09 AM EST up reply actions
Nice Post
I agree about the mud pit, but....
John Davidson begs to differ.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2008 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
What Dave Checketts, JD and the Blues have done...
The Rams are an on-and-off-the-field disaster, on the other hand... and ticket prices for NFL games are even more outrageous than MLB seats!
The Cardinals PR falls somewhere in the middle... the KTRS-for-KMOX swap remains unpalatable for many fans, and Lake DeWitt doesn't help.
But remember, the Cardinals are a regional franchise, regularly drawing fans from Arkansas, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oklahoma as well as from Missouri and Illinois. Those "outlier" fans (like me!) want to have a good time at the ballpark the few times they get to St. Lou...
by The Ol Goaler on Jan 11, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
Hockey...
I've never understood that sentiment
Go to a game or two, you'll like it; it's not like there's any baseball going on right now anyway...
They took a year off
I'm exactly the same way.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 11, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Good point.
anyone know a good Blues or Rams blog?
Hockeybuzz.com
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Jan 11, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
regarding catchers...
absolutely right
Waiting to hear from...
Whether the team should have regrouped before pursuing the new stadium is all guess-work, but when the regrouping takes place right after the construction ends (not to mention how the old one was sold off piece by piece), it certainly can be viewed as "questionable" when held to the comments made.
Wait a minute...
However, without your top starter, you just got swept out of the World Series by a team that was hot as a supernova coming in, which left a bad taste in the fanbase's mouth. You're promise to be more competitive in exchange for the new ballpark leads you to trade a young, talented pitcher coming off a fabulous postseason in the bullpen and you're top minor league stick for a potential #1 starter coming off of a season in which he struggled (Mulder), hoping that this would put the team over the top.
In summary, Mulder doesn't produce and Haren turns into a star. Rolen gets his shoulder dinged and hasn't been the same since. The team didn't sign Renteria, which was a good move considering the money, and made a good signing for Eckstein. Edmonds went from a +1.000 OPS bat and superb CF defensively to a mediocre and injury prone CF with a OPS topping out at around .750. There have been a few pleasant surprises (Duncan, Wainwright in '06, World Series champs) but this is not the team that DeWitt thought he would be fielding in 2007 when he made that promise.
The organization could do one of two things:
- They could make some splash FA signings and sell out the entire farm system to get one guy like Houston did in an attempt to win right now. The downside is that the team will have nothing to show for it in 2011-2012 which will lead to the Cardinals going into a prolonged rebuilding stretch similar to what happened from 1991-1995.
- They could relax this year and let some of the kids (Ankiel, Duncan, Ryan, possibly Rasmus) play to see what their ceiling is going to be, wait for the free agent class of next year when the talent will be better and more plentiful, and give Luhnow another draft to improve the farm system. This also gives Rolen another audition to prove he can still be the player we traded for orginally.
Hey, it's January...
Billy Beane has the ownership backing to hit the "reset" button; let's see what happens to A's attendance this coming year. It'll probably drop, with ownership planning/budgeting for that (and hoping for better days when they move into their new ballpark.)
Jeff Loria uses the Marlins as his personal ATM machine... as The Man Who Ruined the Expos, his ownership habits are well-established. He obviously doesn't give a tinker's damn what the W-L record is, as long as he makes his money; selling stars for prospects is good for his bottomline... not so good for the club's. (And where do you think Hanley Ramierez will wind up once he reaches arb-eligibility?)
For Cardinals' management, it's not a case of "fish or cut bait"... at least, not yet. If they can be competitive with the current roster, all well and good (from the ticket-selling standpoint.) If the wheels fall off in April, then DeWitt can honestly say, "We gotta get younger, folks... but we'll try to get back in contention as soon as we can." (Lake DeWitt is a completely different problem; one not amenable to statistical analysis.)
Those in the VEB community who are calling for a total re-build may very well be right! But that decision doesn't have to be made right now... and I argue that it shouldn't, until we have a better handle on how competitive the Cardinals can be from the "small sample size" of real regular-season games!
Despite Detroit's flashy moves this off-season, the Tigers are no lock to win the AL Central, or the Wild Card for that matter... Cleveland and Chicago should provide formidable opposition even beyond the overhyped Athens-vs.-Sparta matchup of Evil Empires in the AL East.
by The Ol Goaler on Jan 11, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
if your
by cm1000 on Jan 11, 2008 9:20 AM EST reply actions
Three problems then:
- You don't have a replacement for Rolen at the minor league level, so if you move him you have to get a 3rd baseman in return who is ready to play or you might as well keep him and hope for the best.
- It's not in the team's best interests to trade away a player for nothing just to move him off the team because he and the manager don't get along. That is a ludicrous argument on any front.
- While there can be a case made of why Tony should not have been brought back, who do you suggest that the Cardinals bring in to manage this ballclub? Keep in mind that this organization is not going to pay $3 million a year for a Joe Torre or Lou Piniella type manager. I can think if a few, but all of them have been unsuccesful in past stops (Buck Showalter would be my top pick because of his ability to build winning ballclubs that usually end up winning world championships for the guy that replaces him)
one
by cm1000 on Jan 11, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
dude
in not dude
by cm1000 on Jan 11, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
in a free country
act like a grownup or get lost.
nice your site sucks any
by cm1000 on Jan 11, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
agree
i just hope that if my posts are ever as incoherent as this persons have been, please, PLEASE someone tell me to shut the fuck up, or quit posting altogether
if there is one thing this site does not need is a bitchfest at each other; when there are arguments here, they are more of a debate, and not the name calling kindergarten bullshit that is found in a lot of forums like this
by bigcardsfan5 on Jan 11, 2008 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
clear up
by bigcardsfan5 on Jan 11, 2008 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
Very kind of you
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 12, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
Just as well...
The occasional idiot like this just makes me appreciate VEB all the more.
by PujolsFor President on Jan 12, 2008 2:35 AM EST up reply actions
there is no place for this on this site...
Periods, Spaces, Sentences
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Apostrophes
I'm with you on the your and you're thing too.
singing my heart
My pick for manager
Former card, good with youngsters, and a Peoria, IL native. Seemed like a perfect match before we resigned TRL.
by That's a Winner on Jan 12, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
rolen will play
Totally Agree
Rolen will play b/c TLR knows he's the best option there, and if he's healthy he's one of the best "options" in all of baseball.
Rolen will bust his butt and play hard b/c he's got a ton of pride. Hell, he might even play better to stick it to LaRussa!
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Today!
good post, but one tiny quibble
by RosevilleRedbird on Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM EST reply actions
I think you mean...
If Molina's Defense Helps a Staff So Much...
If Molina is so beneficial to pitching, then we had one of the worst starting staffs ever, and it needs thoroughly replaced, along with the manager and coach who handled it (and the GM who assembled it. Oh, yeah, we did that one already).
Yes
My Point
Or it could mean we are over valuing Molina and Duncan.
Molina is so terrible offensively that it is hard to believe he could ever add enough defensively to be much more than a break even proposition overall at catcher.
Molina
His defense is about as good as it gets at the position, despite what azru or you may think. One facet you failed to mention is that Yadi was out for long stretches of '07, which not only cost him the GG, but could have minimized his impact on the pitching staff. That, and the fact that the staff WAS about as bad as can be (I'm not sure Maroth could have been saved by anyone).
Look at the averages for catcher?
Average offensive value? According to BP, Molina has been over the course of his career 2 runs worse than a replacement level offensive catcher. So he has hit worse than AAA roster filler would have.
And if you are arguing for Molina's value as a catcher, I find it odd you would note "Yadi was out for long stretches of '07," as being injured normally is not a sign of positive value. However, it is quite possible less playing time helped him hit a little better than usual, as he was less tired.
Molina VORP
Behind the plate, though, he's a master. Beyond stats, I do know that the greatest thrill in Cardinals games for me is seeing Yadi gun behind a runner at first and watching El Hombre apply the tag. Simple joys.
Yadi
Also in 2006, I did not like the way he was jumping inside and outside giving targets way off the plate. I thought that did effect the pitching staff, but he didn't do that so much last year and I thought he handled the staff well. the pitching was just bad.
some stats to back that up
FIP with both Yadi and Stinnett was 4.67 (interesting that they tied!) vs 4.98 with Bennett, using 3.2 as the scalar league factor for FIP. FIP for (Bennett + Stinnett) was 4.87.
K/9 was 6.52 w/yadi vs 6.0 w/bennett and 6.97 with Stinnett, 6.36 with (Bennett+stinnett), and HR/9 was 1.11 for Yadi vs 1.29 for Bennett and 1.06 for Stinnett.
OPS FIP K/9 HR/9
Molina .759 4.67 6.52 1.11
Bennett .786 4.98 6.03 1.29
Stinnett .771 4.67 6.97 1.06
B+S-nett n/a 4.87 6.36 1.20
All are probably within the margins for error, but it's an interesting result set, at least. It appears that Bennett hurt the rotation more than Yadi helped it, and Stinnett was actually a bit better than Yadi in some categories (but his bat was so awful that it mitigated any advantages that he gave defensively).
Looking at individual pitchers though, (and just looking at OPS-against because I'm tired of this subject, lol) Reyes did much better under Bennett than under Yadi or Stinnett, while Thompson pitched slightly better to Stinnett and got rocked while pitching to Bennett. Looper pitched much better to Yadi. AW and Kip Wells were about even across the board.
Skeptical
by southsidepat on Jan 11, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
good points
FWIW Yadi got most of Kip's starts (18 of 26). Bennett and Stinnett each got 4, while Stinnett caught him most of the times he was used as a reliever, where he performed much better. Yadi was also hurt much worse by Maroth (1.2 OPS against in 6 games!), though Bennett was also hurt with a ~1.000 OPS-against in 6 games and it probably evened out since Bennett had less playing time. Bennett's numbers were actually helped by catching Reyes, while Yadi's were hurt.
Anyway, there's lots of noise and I'd be very hesitant to read too much into any of these numbers, and certainly would not use them for anything except maybe as a justification for letting Bennett go (as if we needed another one of those!) but I still find it interesting to see that the overall numbers support the OP's statement.
Possible Explanation
Crappy pitchers like Wells will suck animal genitalia no matter who is catching, while on the flip side good pitchers like Waino will do just fine with whoever is catching.
Of course, it could just be random-ass variance. But who knows?
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Catcher's defensive value
There is little proven correlation between a cathers "ability to call a game" and the ERA of the pitchers involved. It can be argued though that a good catcher helps study and prepare for how the staff will attack a batter, whether he ends up being the one behind the plate or not. So my position on that part of the game is that it matters, but not as much as conventional wisdom thinks.
Molina has an out of this world ability to gun down runners. In an almost tragic sense though, this amazing tool kinda works against him to the point it becomes a wash. The reason behind that is that attempting steals can be an negative expected value unless you have somewhere around a 75%-80% chance to succeed. A catcher with a 35% throwout rate might get run on regularly. At the end of the year they might have 65 steals and 35 CS. The running team has cost themselves runs. Whereas with Molina, it's gotten to the point that other teams don't even try to make an attempt at it. He's so effective at this part of the game they don't attempt what would have been a net negative result even if he was perfectly mediocre. It's nice that other teams running games are almost completely shut down, don't get me wrong. But it's almost like a net wash, because now they aren't running into mistakes either.
I think Molina does a great job blocking balls. Both on pitches and wild throws from the infield and outfield. It's, to my way of thinking, the critical part of the position defensively. Molina excels at it, and saves several runs this way.
I say all that not to say Molina is no good. Clearly he is good. But I'd also say he might be a little overvalued, but that's only because catcher defense as a whole is overvalued. I'd put SS and CF defense way above catcher defense on the priority list.
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 11, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
A catcher can control the pace of the game.
You're missing a couple of points here...
Second, Yadi can only control the pitch selection and the glove set-up for the pitcher, the pitcher controls the pitch and location, and that's where guys like Wells, Maroth, and Reyes struggled. When Wells was hitting spots and throwing quality pitches he pitched well...when he was behind in counts and missing spots he got shelled. That's going to happen to any pitcher who doesn't have overpowering stuff. Dave Duncan is by far the best gameplan creator out there, only most of the staff last year was incapable of following the gameplan, thus they had a shitty staff. If you factor an average or slightly above average year in for Carpenter last year, the resulting effect on the rest of the staff would be enormous (i.e. no Maroth trade, Wellemeyer and Thompson stay in the bullpen, etc.)
Lastly, Yadi is also fantastic at picking people off. Cutting down leads at first and second base is one of the most overlooked aspects of the game. We talk about Rolen and Pujols being smart baserunners, but the reason for that is the great secondary leads they get after the pitcher goes to the plate. This allows them to go from first to third on a soft single and score from second on a base hit. Yadi cuts down anyone more than 20 feet off of the bag, and keeps oppenents from getting good secondary leads -- consequently, teams don't go from 1st to 3rd much on the Cards, if at all. I remember someone talking about this one time during a broadcast early in Benito Santiago's career as well.
Some good points
It sounds like we might agree on the calling the game part. The approach to hitters are often decided beforehand and a quality catcher like Molina can have a hand in that. But it's primarily on the pitcher to execute it. There are many cases where catchers with poor defensive reps have similar or, even in many cases, better ERA's from the staff than a catcher with a good rep for calling a game. I'd concede a lot of the benefit might come from better pregames preperation though - and Molina can impact that even if he isn't the guy behind the plate that night. I'm not discounting it altogether, even though most statistical analysis suggest catchers have little to no impact on staff ERA.
Good point on cutting down the leads and the extra bases taken. Not something I have ever given a great deal of thought to. At least as far as quantifying how much difference one catcher can make there. It would be interesting to see if there is any analysis on where Molina stacks vs. other catchers in that area. I don't know of anything. But I'd agree Molina has to help there, though to what degree I don't know. With Molina, nobody is going to stray too far off 1B until contact is made, that's for sure.
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 11, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
Pick-offs
Again, it's not so much the number of pick-offs as it is the threat of being picked off, which is probably the most embarassing that can happen to you on the basepaths.
Remember those 1991 Atlanta Braves with all the lefthanded pitchers? Leibrandt, Glavine, Avery? They led the MLB in pickoffs in the transition era from run-run-run to station to station baseball, and it was a focal point of their pitchers to keep runners close. They all had great moves to first base and were lefthanded, and Mazzone was the first to develop the change in rhythm to the plate that throws baserunner's timing off. It had been done by previous pitching coaches, but none taught it as a necessary skill and part of the pitching program. That changed with Greg Maddux (truly the only fault in his skill set). Had Maddux pitched the majority of his career in the late 70's and early 80's I think he would have stuggled a bit more with the amount of base stealing done in that era. He'd still be a HOF pitcher with a lot of wins, but holding runners isn't as en vogue as it once was.
I just meant that by shuting down the
Regarding last year's staff...
"Lipstick on a pig"
One question...
by duke on Jan 11, 2008 11:23 AM EST reply actions
The Plan is...
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
Fremont is definitely
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 11, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
I figured as much.
When I was in New York City a few months back my friend who lives up there was talking about how Newark isn't really considered the New York City area by many people he knew...But, then again, my buddy is not the smartest dude!
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
dishonesty vs silence
Rebuilding?
However
I should also point out that the entire OF is younger than 30, unless you include Phelps, who isn't an OFer unless a 7, 8, or 9 is written by his name at some point.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jan 11, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
True
And seriously, if you were selling a product, which the Cardinals are, would you come right out and tell your consumers "Hey, this year's model is really just not so good. We're doing this so that it's better down the road. In the meantime, we ask that you still invest your cash and emotions in our product." Would you do that?
Can you imagine the reaction then? "They expect me to pay top dollar for season tickets and they're flat out admitting they have no intention of doing more than biding time until their prosepcts show up!??!!!!" Oh wait, I've already read tons of posts like that on this and other boards.
I realize those with that mindset are only part of the fanbase, but for every Bernie and azruvatar who want some sort of "admission" from the Cardinals, there is another fan pissed off that he's investing his money into seeing a team that no longer has the star-power he's gotten used to in the past 7-8 years. Any sort of "explanation" from the Cardinals, beyond winning 90 games, would fall on deaf ears.
Understand that I am not against those frustrated by this situation. I totally get why it upsets people. I'm merely attempting to see both sides of the coin.
Also, for those lauding A's management, please realize that most fanbases would prefer ownership who is willing to shell out over $100M in payroll than ownership who is stingy with the paychecks but "straight" with their fans. And seriously, how great can an ownership ground be when it up and leaves its town? I realize they're staying in the Bay Area (barely) but come on. If we're going to compare owners, it might be best to talk about those that aren't running to the nearest town willing to build them a stadium.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
Good points, but two things.
The Blues knew perfectly well that the team was, and is, a work in progress. When Checkett's group took over ownership, the team had come off possibly the worst season in it's history, and anyone who looked at the franchise could tell it was going to take some time before they could field a competitive team again. The Blues took the exact perfect tone with their pitch. They went to the fan base and got them excited about getting in on the ground floor. They talked about the future. They acknowledged that it was going to be a process, and they invited people to come and be a part of it. You can get people to invest in the future if you can get them excited about it, even if the present is a little rough. Admittedly, the improvements that the on ice product has shown has been a big boon for attendance, but even before that, Blues ownership had people investing in the team. People were paying attention, and investing in the product, because they felt like they were part of the process, and they were engaged with the potential success. John Davidson and Dave Checketts deserve all the credit in the world for figuring out the correct way to get fans to come back and be a part of not just the team's success, but the road to get there. Mr. Dewitt and co. need to pay some attention.
Two, I see your point about the A's moving to the suburbs, but if I remember correctly, there was quite a bit of sabre rattling going on in the Cards ownership group about moving the team over to the east side of the river if they didn't get their new ballpark. Luckily, we didn't have to find out how serious they were, since the funding got done, but don't accuse another franchise of screwing their fans by moving when our own showed every intention of being willing to do the exact same.
by the red baron on Jan 11, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Good example, but.....
In contrast, the Cardinals won the whole deal in 2006, and last year remained competitive until September, ultimately finishing third. Selling people on some sort of "process" just isn't that easy when most still view the team as a few players away from winning the division again. The wisdom of that view is debatable, but not the subject of this post.
In sum, the "rebuilding" message is easier to sell when your team has bottomed out. Most Cardinal fans don't view the team as being on that level yet. NOTE - this post isn't meant to imply that the Cardinals don't need to rebuild, just that I think the Cardinals face a much tougher time of selling a "rebuilding" message than the Blues did/do.
by flynn on Jan 11, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
silence is golden
The difference with the Blues is they're struggling to sell tickets, so they have to advertise the youth and excitement. The Cardinals are going to sell tickets regardless at this point, because fan support is still high from all the recent success. If the Cardinals come out and ask fans to bear with them through a mediocre season for the sake of the future, it will make a handful of people happy who currently believe they're being deceived, but all of a sudden a huge group of fans will think the team is giving up on '08, and will lose interest, hence hurting ticket sales and tv ratings.
I disagree.
by the red baron on Jan 11, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
vocal minority
Contending teams don't always make big, splashy moves. The Yankees sure seem like they do, but what have they done this off-season? Re-signing A-Rod was a big deal, but not all that splashy (wtf am I saying? I'm not even sure what splashy means in this context). They've been trying to get Santana, but so far, no dice. Contending teams make the moves that help their team the most, whether it's re-signing their bench guys, or making a low-profile, but key acquisition to fill a hole.
Rebuilding
by bsbalbrian6 on Jan 11, 2008 12:03 PM EST reply actions
Why degrade your product in front of your fans.
- Painting baseball fans in general, even in St. Louis, with the broad brush of being able to take a long, educated view of a rebuilding process, is wrongheaded, IMO. What percentage of fans know their VORP from a EqA? Or more importantly, about the success cycle that BP and others in the sabremetric community have posited? Sure, you'd have a honeymoon for a couple of years, but what happens if Pujols ages suddenly, Rasmus turns up snake eyes, Carp and Mulder never come back, and Wainwright proves to be a flash in the pan or a torn labrum? It is easy enough to plan well and still have bad baseball; why should you go out and trumpet that you are planning to have bad baseball in the short term for long term gain? Haven't Pirates and Royals fans been hearing that for over a decade?
- Are the Cardinals really all that far from contending in the Central? Or heck, from that matter in any division in the NL? Baseball is unpredictable, and any team that features the best hitter in baseball and a solid bullpen isn't that many strokes of good luck away from contending in any division. We all remember 2004 as being a great season, but we got 15 win seasons from three pitchers that had never done it before (Suppan, Marquis, Carpenter), a 307/349/385 season out of Tony Womack(!), 240 ABs of 122 OPS+ hitting out of John Mabry, and stole Larry Walker from the Rockies for the stretch drive. You could have won a lot of money in Vegas before the season started betting on those things. I'm not saying that will happen in 2008; in fact, I would bet it against it. But it's no more unlikely that Clement will win 15 games now than it was that Carp would in spring '04. Cesar Izturis as the new Tony Womack? Stranger things have happened. Lots of candidates on this roster to put up John Mabry's '04 numbers. Joel Piniero as Jeff Suppan? Anthony Reyes as Jason Marquis? Again, not all of these things will happen, in fact, none of them may. But 2004 proved to be a 105 win team. Not much has to break right to make this team an 85 win team, which would be in contention until the last month.
- Enough with the Billy Beane worship. There is no excuse for any baseball team these days to cry poor. They are all awash in money, thanks to the internet and national TV and radio contract revenues, which are split pretty evenly. One of these days, Beane has to stop acting like a talent broker and actually build a team that can win something.
by South Side Cards Fan on Jan 11, 2008 12:17 PM EST reply actions
I have to take issue
And your contention that he needs to build a team that wins something is a little erroneous. True, they haven't won a title, but until the October surprise of 2006, you could say the same thing about the Cardinals. Would any of us have said that Jocketty needed to build a team that could win in 2005? No, we were all happy as hell with the team we had, because they were always in contention. Beane's Oakland teams have consistently been in contention pretty much this entire decade, just as the Cardinals have. They had the great Tejada/Giambi teams early in the decade, the Big 3 up through 2004, and as recently as 2006, were in the ALCS. Last season, much like our own hometown heroes, the Athletics were decimated by injuries, and weren't a strong enough club to overcome it.
Questioning the payroll and things like that is one thing, but Beane has done an outstanding job of fielding a team that's constantly competitive. He's as good as there is at what he does, and the results are there on the field for anyone to see.
by the red baron on Jan 11, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure why you equate a more realistic
Framing the discussion is still important. I'd rather they say something like, "We've been really successful with our business model over the last decade. We had back to back 100 win seasons, won numerous pennants and brought home a 10th World Series trophy to the city of St. Louis. Baseball is a highly adaptive business and we're not sure the our old model can sustain continued success as it has in the past. As a team, we constantly have to assess what the proverbial big picture of the team is. What we do have this season, however, is some exciting young players that can help us win ballgames. We're looking forward to see what they can contribute to the team. The NL Central is becoming a much stronger division but we think that as these young players represent the future and it's important that they integrate themselves into the winning culture we've created here in St. Louis. Not every team can make the playoffs each year but we're committed to making them as often as we can without sacrificing the long term viability of St. Louis baseball."
Discussion like that would help explain to fans (who don't need to know anything about VORP or wOBA to understand the idea of retooling the team) that the near term bumpy ride is part of the teams long term success.
what for?
Don't get me wrong, it's a very well worded and even accurate statement, but does it make the average fan want to go spend money to see that team? Sure, it will make some guys all excited to see some young players have their chance, but that's not the bread and butter of the fanbase from the perspective of the front office.
More likely that's something they'll say after '08 as an apology if things go south. However, if (as I believe they will) they continue to contend relative to their division, people will again believe we're close, and there's no need to admit they've adapted their business model.
The best argument for the Cardinals to
And that statement isn't spin?
Neither have I heard them say, as most here seem to want, "We're rebuilding" (which, thanks to the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, et al, has a very negative connotation).
I think that the truth is that the Cards are trying to remain competitive in 08 and 09 while attempting to build the next championship team. And I think they are saying that pretty clearly with the their actions (signing Izturis to a 1 year deal, Clement's low-risk deal, trading Edmonds, holding onto to Rasmus, etc.) and with their words. After all, Moz said we have a "legitimate" starting rotation not a "stupendous" one, and not even a "promising" one.
by South Side Cards Fan on Jan 11, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you
by StanTheManFan on Jan 11, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
It's all about expectations
nice post az
are they doing a total tear down & rebuild? no. we get it, they are going to be a mid pack team for a couple years. thats fine. we aren't the sox & yanks. we cant buy our way out of rebuilding years like they can.
so please for the love of Stan & Gibby, stop the damn lies & spin Dewitt & CO! tell the f'ing truth MO! Busch will still sell out. fans will still watch on tv. out of state fans will still buy EI & XM. you run THE St. Louis Cardinals, not the freaking O's. your fans will not cut & run on you just because you tell us the truth about a couple average seasons.
we the fans pay your bills. you owe us the truth Bill & MO. not lies & spin.
(p.s, i'm all for signing YADDA long term. dude's ace's in my book.)
Do you really think that
digg
didn't see this posted
only time will tell..how long b4 walt gets the GM job?
It's been a good discussion
Obviously I agree with Az that a long term contract at a bargain would be a good move. For one thing, should Anderson develop to the point that he can't be denied, Molina's contract would probably not be so high as to prohibit a trade. The other consideration is that the Cards have precious few veteran pieces to build on and you don't want to lose the solid ones. It really comes down to Albert and Yadi and they're young enough to provide stability for several years. That in itself adds to Yadi's value. By the way, somebody's, I think it may have been Brian Gunn's, description of Yadi's smile looking like "Charlie Brown after sex" after hitting the homer against the Mets may be my favorite passage in baseball literature. It really did look just like that.
Yadi, Rebuilding, Etc.
I know that Tony
one more thing about Yadi
"Good defensive catcher..."
Last year, we have the Red Sox and Jason Varitek. (Also the same in 04.). Varitek is an adequate defender, but probably not much more than that. He's known much more for his bat, particularly power wise. In 06, it was us, with our very own Yadier Molina, who is absolutely a defensive specialist. However, I have a caveat to that. I don't think it's insignificant that Yadi's bat ended up playing as big a role as his glove during the postseason run.
In 05, the Other Sox had A.J. Pierzynski. He's definitely not a defensive whiz. Hell, he's only a decent hitter, but I think he did hit unusually well that season. I'm way too lazy to check this time of the morning, though.
The other defensive superstar in this group is Ivan Rodriguez with the Marlins in 03. Again, though, I want to point out that Pudge's ridiculous offensive output had just as much, if not more, impact on his team's fortunes.
The 02 Angels had Yadi's brother Bengie. Again, known much more for his bat than his glove.
I don't recall who the DBacks catcher was in 01, and once again, looking it up is a lot of work. (Also, to be completely honest, I'm beginning to think this may be my FP post on Wednesday.)
The Yankee dynasty, of course, had Jorge Posada, another decent defensive catcher with a much more noteworthy bat.
Its not an authoritative list by any means, but I think it's really interesting that, at least recently, championship teams have received much more noteworthy offensive contributions from the catching position than defensively.
by the red baron on Jan 12, 2008 8:55 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know
Was I not clear enough?
There. How was that?
You can disagree with my position, but don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
by the red baron on Jan 12, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I didn't
here.
The word imperative doesn't mean kinda important; something is only imperative if it's an absolute necessity.
Maybe I was a bit too touchy here; if so, my bad. But I think it's a bad idea to ascribe motives to someone when you're debating someone. I happen to believe something; in this case, that catcher defense is wildly overrated. Telling someone that they are obviously just disagreeing because they feel like it dismissive and insulting. That's why your comment irritated me so much.
But you're absolutely right. This is not the sort of thing worth getting upset over. This medium is always prone to causing overreactions; it's a clumsy way to communicate. No harm, no foul.
by the red baron on Jan 12, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
At the very least...
by Merry CRasmus on Jan 12, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions
Don't know where else to put this...
The pitching staff had to work without it's ace quite unexpectedly. Out of our opening day lineup last year, I want to say that 23 of them got hurt and went on the DL or played hurt at some point.
Let's start with the battery. Yadier Molina played MUCH better last year and just might be hitting his stride, so to speak, at the plate. The backup catcher really doesn't matter so much as long as he can receive the ball well.
The starting pitching last year was atrocious...however, it gave Adam Wainwright the chance to be an ace to see what it was like. Now, he knows that and has a little more experience. He always has had the potential and he started to realize his potential last year. Clement looks to be our Wells experiment of a year ago, except he has put seasons together before that were quite good...especially compared to Wells. Looper has a year under his belt in which he was a starter and should be able to go a little longer into the season before getting a bit tired this year. I am assuming that Pineiro will be the #3/4 guy in the pen (depending on how well Clement pitches) and even if his production falls off slightly from the end of last year, he will be doing quite alright. The 5th spot could be completely a cluster** or it could be an awesome competition come spring time. The bullpen was awesome last year and it looks as though we have the horses to do it again this year. The left side is not nearly as strong as the right side...if even one of the righties can attack lefties well out of the pen, then we will be okay there, I think.
Now, onto the rest of the regulars. On the infield, we have Scott Rolen one year older, but one year further removed from surgeries. I bet he can get back to a little bit of 2004/2006 form...but not quite all the way. If he gets on base at a .360 clip and slugs .480-.500...he will be worth it with the way he plays defense. The competition for the two middle infield spots sure will be fierce, I think...and it may produce something reasonable. Obviously, the man-child over at first could very well be the best player in the last couple decades at least...so we're okay there. If nothing else, we have ridiculous amounts of depth in the infield that can be traded off for some low minor league type guys that might help somewhere down the line.
The outfield was very well outlined in a diary earlier today, so I don't feel I need to completely go into it, but the competition here is probably better than anywhere else (if only because they are slightly better than the middle infield spots). I am really excited to see what is going to happen this year...but I think we are in the same boat as last year...nearly.
Last year, I kept telling people before the year that we could win 90 games and we could lose 90 games. We ended up somewhere in between. I would say that this year the ceiling is not quite as high, but the floor is no lower. I bet this team is somewhere between an 85 win and 85 loss team. It will, once again, come down to injuries. Last year 92% of the opening day 25 got hurt...if it is 20-40% or something much less ridiculous this year, then the Cards could have a shot to contend in the "comedy" Central.
stlfan
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with you that we are nearly in the same boat as last year but that our rotation I think will be more stable.....
Yadi
I think everyone would agree that quantifying the defensive contribution of a catcher is very difficult. Either the statistical measures we have are unsatisfactory or they indicate that the value is negligible. No one has advanced any argument that puts a hard number, or at least not a significant one, on the number of wins his defensive prowess contributes.
I love having a great defensive catcher, but I think the value is pretty much limited to preventing the movement of runners by blocking balls in the dirt and inhibiting the running game/throwing out/picking off runners. I do not buy into the "he calls a good game" argument at all.
How each hitter is attacked in each situation is painstakingly laid out by Dunc and the catcher and pitcher have the job of executing Dunc's plan. Any reasonably competent major league catcher can do a passable job of execution on that. I think you only hear the "he calls a good game" comment from pitchers after a particularly effective outing. To me this is just a way for a pitcher to show the media he is a team guy and is passing credit to a teammate.
A successful outing has a lot more to do with the pitcher's ability to execute the pitches in a manner that was pre-planned, not dreamt up in real time. Do pitchers have bad outings because Yadi or the other catchers call bad games? Just because a pitcher and a catcher are not in sync on a particular day doesn't necessarily make it the catcher's fault. If Dunc's plan is a bad one does that make it the catcher's fault?
While you can certainly get a significant advantage by having a good defensive catcher, offense can easily overshadow that edge. In 2007 there were 29 MLB catchers with at least 100 games played. Of those, Yadi ranked 16th (85) in OPS+ in what most of us would say was his best offensive season in the big leagues. Similar number were put up by Carlos Ruiz, Benjie Molina, Ramon Hernandez, and A.J. Pierzynski. I don't think any of those guys would be candidates for being "locked up". His career OPS+ is 69 and his 2006 number was 53. So, can anyone say with confidence that the middle of the pack 85 was a trend up that will continue? Or is Yadi a candidate for regression to the mean?
B-R lists him at 5-11 and 225lbs. He is coming off knee surgery. He played in 111 games last year and his career high is 129. His BA/RISP has declined for three consecutive years. Like I said before, I love Yadier Molina. I just think he needs another year to show us what kind of player he is before a long-term deal can be put together. I don't think his statistical profile would arb well for him.
If you are in favor of a long-term deal before the 2008 season please let me know what kind of years and $$ you have in mind, 'cause I think it is a pretty substantial risk.
Its not so much of a
If you consider the fact that he is still young and his hitting is progressing as it should be (that fluke wrist injury last year really sucked) he should be an average offensive catcher for the next four years or so. Combine that -- if it does, hopefully, happen -- and his ++ defense and it makes him a valuable piece. Locking him up through his arb years so you don't have to go through the whole rigmarole every offseason (and making him sexier to trade) sounds like a good idea.
Don't disagree
Off the top of my head...
That is a good question for the masses, though: If you were extending Molina today, what would you (realistically) offer?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
