Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

Pitch counts and stranded runners

There’s been some discussion, and for the life of me I can’t find it, about Wainwright’s workload so far this year. I know that on at least 1 occasion, I’ve expressed some concern about the number of pitches that Tony’s having the kid throw. He’s thrown 5 starts and has thrown more than 100 pitches in the 3 of the 5 – not , in and of itself, horrendous. However, against Milwaukee 10 days ago he threw 115 pitches and yesterday against the Astros he threw 126. Just for reference, those 126 pitches were more than any other pitcher in the majors has thrown in a game so far this year. It’s also Wainwright’s career high in pitches.

 In my view, we’re starting to see a pattern w/ LaRussa. Wainwright has emerged as the de facto ace of the staff and Tony’s going to ride his horse as much as possible. Because Wellemeyer, Looper, Pineiro and Lohse are basically 6 inning pitchers max, he’s concerned (rightfully so) about the load he’s placing on the bullpen. AZ and I had a pretty good back and forth on McClellan’s and Izzy’s workload just a couple of days ago. Therefore, Wainwright becomes the ace that Tony’s going to get as many innings as possible from. The fact is that he trusts Wainer probably more than any other pitcher on the staff, Izzy included, at this point and, regardless of Wainer’s pitch count, Tony wants him in the game.

Yesterday, Tony left the wagonmaker in to pitch the 9th inning of a tie game despite the fact that he had already thrown 102 pitches entering the inning. AW was due to hit 2nd in the bottom half of the ninth. It’s reasonable to have Wainer start that inning. 102 pitches is not an outrageous number. However, as the inning drew on, it became pretty obvious that Wainer was just going on guts and fumes as he tried to get the Astros’ middle of the order out. That point is important – AW wasn’t facing Loretta, Ausmus, and the pitcher’s spot. It was Matsui, Tejada, and Berkman, the last of whom had already hit 2 bombs off Wainer.

He got the first 2 out and faced Berkman having thrown 110 pitches. It was clear that he didn’t have his best stuff and this was definitely a tough PA for Adam. He pitched carefully to Berkman and faced Carlos Lee w/ Berkman on first, having thrown 115 pitches. Franklin was just now getting warm in the pen. I would argue that at this point Franklin, Izzy or McClellan should’ve been in the game. I understand trying to get your starter through the inning when he’s due up in the next half inning if it’s the 6th. In the 9th, it makes no sense whatsoever. You’re not likely to need a lot of innings out of your relievers at this point in the game – it’s not like you need Franklin to pitch 2-3 innings – he’s going 1 inning max. Have him get the 3rd out and pinch-hit or, if you just have to now keep him in the game, double-switch Miles into the game. Kennedy was the final out in the bottom of the 8th.

Wainwright is our best pitcher, but is he better on his 116th pitch (or his 120th which began the Pence PA) than Franklin is on his first? The difference is probably negligible at best but even if Wainer is slightly better, I DON’T CARE!!! What’s most important is the health of our 26 year old ace. Franklin should have been in the game to pitch to Lee or, at least, Hunter Pence w/ 2 on and 2 out. AW gutted out that PA by throwing slider after slider – 7 in a row – and finally getting him to chase a third one out of the zone for the K.

Here’s what we know, definitively, about pitching injuries: there’s no correlation between pitching often and the likelihood of injury but there is a correlation between pitching when tired and the likelihood of injury. Wainer was tired in the 9th. This is indisputable. Does that mean that he’s definitely headed for arm surgery? Of course not and, as many will point out, Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens threw a lot of pitches and never had major arm surgery. These patterns are not guarantees but the correlation is nevertheless significant and one that is worth paying attention to. We know now that Ryan and Clemens were freaks who could throw it 120 to 130 times or more in the mid-90’s and not get hurt. Maybe we’ll look back in 10 years and say that Wainer was a freak as well but we don’t know that today. One 126 pitch start isn’t going to kill the kid (probably) but there is a trend developing. Two of his 5 starts this year would go down as 2 of the 3 longest of his career and as long as this trend continues, Tony’s playing with fire.

Baseball Prospectus calculates a stat called pitcher abuse points as a way of measuring which pitchers are throwing when tired. Any start less than 100 pitches receives 0 points but the "abuse" a pitcher suffers from increases exponentially with every pitch thrown above 100 in a start. It’s not a big deal to throw 105 pitches. 115 is getting up there but AW was at 126 yesterday. As I said earlier, it is the most pitches thrown by any pitcher in baseball so far this year. He received 17,576 pitcher abuse points yesterday bringing his season total to 21294 – the most in baseball so far this year. Only 3 pitchers in baseball – Cliff Lee, Jake Peavy, and (gasp!) Yovani Gallardo – are averaging more pitches per start than Wainwright so far this year. Message to Tony: the marginal cost of having Wainwright, as opposed to Franklin, pitch to Lee and Pence is MUCH GREATER than the marginal benefit that was gained. If there was any benefit whatsoever, it was negligible, but Wainer will have to be THE MAN for the next 6 years – not just for those 2 PA’s.

I also wanted to piggy-back on Red Baron’s thread from yesterday about the number of runners the Cards are leaving on base. When it first came up a few days ago, I didn’t think much about it but, again, a trend seems to be emerging. It’s still a little early but I was curious about why it’s occurring and wanted to see if we could see if it was as bad as it seems and if it is likely to continue. The Cards stranded another 8 baserunners in yesterday’s game.

First of all, you’d think that team LOB stats would be pretty easy to find, but they’re not. I think I was able to figure out a way to calculate it but I really thought I’d just be able to pull up a site and it would be there. Alas, it was not to be. First of all, would you believe that, prior to yesterday’s game, the Cards were 2nd to Boston in number of times on base so far this season yet we’re only 11th in runs scored. Still, I’ll bet that most of us didn’t know we were in the top half in baseball in runs scored.

In our 24 games, prior to yesterday, we had had 240 (10 per game) runners reach base who failed to score – by far the most in the big leagues. Only 10 others have had more than 200 baserunners fail to score this year. The good news, of course, is that we’re getting a lot of runners on base. Our OBP is surprisingly the highest in the NL. One would think that if we continue getting runners on base we’ll eventually be able to push them across, right? Maybe, maybe not.

At first I thought the problem was poor performance w/ runners on base. Nope. Our BA w/ runners in scoring position is .257 – not tremendous but it’s above the league average. Our OBP w/ RISP is a whopping .376. That’s pretty damned good! Our slash stats are .284/.390/.403 w/ runners on base. W/ 2 outs and RISP, they’re .252/.383/.374. The BA and OBP numbers are ok but I think we’re starting to get to the crux of the problem.

The Cards are 22nd in baseball in homers and haven’t hit one in their last 8 games. The Cards last homered more than a week ago, on Friday, April, 18 against the Giants when both Duncan and Pujols went deep. The Cards are 14th in slugging and 19th in ISO. As you can see from the numbers above (thanks to AZ for helping us easily calculate and understand the significance of ISO) the Cards ISO w/ 2 outs and RISP is .122 – not good. W/ RISP regardless of the number of outs their ISO is .114. W/ runners on base, regardless of the base/out situation, their ISO is .119. A season ISO of .119 would put the Cards among the bottom 7 or 8 teams in baseball. The problem isn’t that the Cards are having trouble getting runners on base or even that they’re performing particularly poorly w/ runners on base. The problem is that the Cards are having a hard time leaving runners on base b/c their lack of speed and power is forcing them into playing station-to-station baseball. We need 3 hits in an inning to score and it’s tough to score a lot of runs that way.

We saw this pattern emerge yesterday. The Cards were getting runners on base but having a tough time pushing them across yet the Astros were able to tie the game despite the fact that Wainwright was mowing them down most of the game. 3 swings of the bat negated all the work the Cards were doing on the offensive end. Fortunately, the Cards were able to get the 2 hits and a walk we needed in the 9th to win the game but, as long as the Cards are unable to get the ball out of the yard, we’re going to continue to leave runners on base.

Again, the good news is that it should get a little better. Ankiel’s in a slump. If we’ve learned anything about Ankiel as a hitter it’s that he’s streaky as hell. He’ll be back and pounding homers at some point. Ludwick’s cooled off. Glaus is hitting the ball OK – he leads the majors w/ 11 doubles but has no homers. Still, he’s gotta be good for 25-30, right? Duncan has plenty of power and seems to be seeing the ball well. He’ll hit 25-30 if he’s healthy for the entire season and, God knows, Pujols will hit his share.

Still, it cannot go unnoticed that 4 of the 9 spots in the order, the Cards have basically 0 power. Kennedy/Miles, Izturis/Ryan, Skip, and the pitchers spot will probably COMBINE for about 10-12 homers all year long. That puts a pretty heavy burden on the others to produce. Another spot – Yadi’s – has only a little more than the others. Yadi can hit the ball into the bleachers but he has only 23 homers FOR HIS CAREER – in more than 1500 PA’s. Don’t expect him to be the savior. The bottom line is that this LOB problem may persist.

There is one lineup change I’d like to see. It may help to alleviate the power burden somewhat. It’s a lineup that we’ve seen just once this year -- an OF of Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick. I know that lots of us have been clamoring for more of Barton and I also know that Skip has an OBP of .406, a SLG of .446 and an ISO of .133. Still, he has 4 career homers and putting Ludwick in there in Skip’s place might help bring across a few more runs. The big problem with this approach would be that Tony would then be tempted to put Ryan, Izturis, Miles or Kennedy in the leadoff spot despite the fact that they all belong in either the 7 or 9 hole.

He’d never do this, but he could try Ludwick or Duncan in the leadoff spot. Ludwick has a .419 OBP this year (though it’s just .327 for his career) and Duncan’s OBP’s are .406 and .360 respectively. Their power makes them unconventional leadoff hitters. Skippy fits the profile better, ironically, b/c he lacks power but it makes no sense to play Skip over Ludwick b/c you want someone WITHOUT POWER in the leadoff spot! Run that notion through your brain one more time. Go with the guy w/ less power and put the guy w/ more power on the bench b/c the guy with less power is a better fit to the conventional wisdom of what a leadoff hitter should look like. The bottom line is that Tony needs to get the best hitters in the lineup and Ludwick, despite Skip’s hot start, is a better hitter than Skip. Our lineup would look strange and those who insist on doing things the way they’ve always been done just b/c that’s the way they’ve always been done will ask questions, scratch their heads and criticize but so what? We’re already batting the pitcher 8th! Why not stick our best hitters in the lineup and put the best OBP guys at the top of the lineup. Hell, put Glaus in the leadoff spot if you’re afraid of too many solo homers in the top of the 1st!

Anyway, back to reality. It’s the rubber game of the series – Lohse v. Backe. I absolutely detest that guy – Backe. Houstonians love him. You know why? B/c he’s short and spunky/scrappy and from the Houston area (Galveston). He’s the David Eckstein of hometown pitchers. He blows but those Astros’ fans just love him – one more reason to hate those guys (and I do!!!!!!). The good news is that Backe’s road ERA, in more than 190 career IP is 5.54. Though he’s only yielded 2 ER in 6 IP in new Busch, he gave up 28 H and 15 ER in 14.1 IP in old Busch. Let’s hope we can break that homerless streak and send him to an early shower. Isn’t it about time we brought back 10-run Sundays?

Comment 122 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Huzzah!! for 10 run Sundays

And you wrote a tome, HC… well done

When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

by RosevilleRedbird on Apr 27, 2008 12:50 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree with the Wainer point about being tired. I have never really been a big “pitch count” guy because what’s the diff between 95 and 105 pitches? depending when the extra ten take place it really does not matter. I guess when it comes down to it you have to rely on the pitching coach/catcher to know the pitcher well enough to see when his laboring. Sometimes it is obvious in how pitchers tend to slow their pace down as they tire later in game action.

I guess it’s always a tough call, it could be good to puch Wainer to help develope him. You can’t baby guys all the time sometimes they need to be pushed a bit. At the same time all of these pitchers are such big investments it’s scary to abuse them and run them into the ground.

Funny thing about the bull pen is that they are not in the top 6 in terms of innings pitched. During the Cubs game they showed a stat which showed the top 6 bull pens in terms of usage. The Cubs were on the list. I can’t remember the other teams but STL was not on the list in terms of bull pen innings pitched this year.

I like that suggested line up, it would be interesting but I would like to see it.

by ICbirdfan on Apr 27, 2008 12:55 AM EDT reply actions  

Well yeah

But what’s the difference between 105 and 106? 106 and 107? 107 and 108? Etc. At some point you have to draw a line. But really 126 pitches isn’t that big of a deal provided you play it smart the next start and probably the one after that. If he goes more than 100 next game I’d be very concerned. Ideally you go less than 95 next start…and if we’ve got a big lead he’s gotta get the early hook…and then around 100 for the next.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 27, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

the 126 does matter

taking it easy the next start doesn’t undo the damage from a 126 pitch start. The correlation isn’t between total number of pitches thrown and the likelihood of being hurt. If it was, you could just dial him back to 90 or so the next start and everything would be OK. The correlation, a strong and statistically significant one, btw, is between pitching WHEN TIRED and the likelihood of injury. When he threw 126 pitches, he was throwing when tired. The difference between 90 and 100 next time out won’t matter b/c he won’t be tired. What matters is when the extra pitches are thrown and the fact that he threw so many in one game matters.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kerry Wood, Mark Prior?

TLR,

Please stop imitating Dusty Baker. Short term gain is not worth it. Wainer is going to be matched up with others’ staffs’ aces all season long and be involved in close games. Please stop it. Now.

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Apr 27, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm almost positive there hasn't been a study on this other than the "next start effect of sucking"

But if you throw 126 that implies you are going to be more tired than usual the next start. More tired than usual: more damage from less number of pitches. Limiting the number of pitches in the next couple limits fatigue for this season and chance of injury. I bet Prior could’ve handled 130 pitches in ‘03 once or even twice really. He couldn’t handle 131-129-110-124-131-133-133-116-119 consecutively.

I didn’t say 126 was nothing, but it is manageable if you play it smart.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 27, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I have been a cardinal fan since the days of bob gibson when he and tom seaver and mickey lolich and gaylord perry etc. used to routinely pitch 300 innings every year and never worry about pitch counts….and you know what?these guys hardly ever got hurt and spend almost no time on the DL…coincidence?..i dont think so…since we have gone to 5 man rotations and strict pitch counts half the pitchers in baseball seem to be hurt and on the disabled list….i thin it is about time that we stop worrying about pitch counts and let pitchers who make 15 million dollars a year pitch more than 6 innings….if somebody can explain to me how the guys in the 60s and 70s were able to throw 300 innings and complete 25-30 games a year without geting hurt while these guys today pitch 150-200 and spend all their time hurt then i would appreciate it….something here makes no sense

by jlbrach on Apr 27, 2008 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Simple explanation

I think there is a fairly simple explanation of why pitchers in the past used to pitch so much more than now. Teams could afford to take the risk. There were only 16 teams in the majors back then so all organizations had much more depth. If a pitcher got hurt (and they did just as often as now) then the team would just reach into their well-stocked minor league systems and replace the injured pitcher. In other words, the attrition rate for pitchers was just as high but there were more good pitchers to step in and take their place.

by indakind on Apr 27, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

plain silly

the great pitchers like gibson and seaver and marichual and perry and lolich and carlton etc. could not be replaced anymore than todays aces can be replaced..the difference is these guys routinely pitched hundreds of innings more than todays pitchers year after year …..without getting hurt…these guys pitched more and got hurt far less….

by jlbrach on Apr 27, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

for what it is worth there were dozens of pitchers who threw 300 innings routinely…and even average pitchers threw more innings than todays ace pitchers….something is wrong with a situation where people pitch 100 fewer innings with all kinds of pitch counts and get hurt far more often

by jlbrach on Apr 27, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, you've heard about the ones that COULD do it

Now how many couldn’t? I mean, you named 4 pitchers who could pitch 300/year. There are probably 4 pitchers in the league now who could do it.

30 years from now, we may talk about Carpenter’s Cy Young year but we probably won’t talk about how hosed Mulder’s arm and shoulder were.

by sdrone on Apr 27, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Since we don’t really have a lead-off man… Since we don’t really have a shortstop… We should have kept Eckstein and then had more room in the outfield. Outfield is too competitive to have Skip there.

by da mang on Apr 27, 2008 1:31 AM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, uh

no. I prefer my ShortStops to have a little errors as possible. Eck has 5 errors in as many chances as Ryan/Iz while they have 1 between them. No thanks. I’d like the younger pitchers to actually have confidence in the guys behind them for once.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 5:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

what more does skip have to do?

Why does it seem like every post on this site has a new idea on why skip shouldn’t be in the line up? I don’t understand this. At the time of writing this comment is hitting 310 with an OBP of over 400. That is better production than we ever got from Eckstein in the leadoff spot(Ecksteins highest OBP as a cardinal was 363). He is also slugging 437, which is currently higher than Duncan, Glaus, and Molina and a mere 10 points lower than Ankiel. He is leading the team with 3 steals without being caught. He plays strong defense and has a great arm, plus has the ability and flexiblity to play all three outfield spots. Of the 41 times he has been on base this year he has scored 20 times, this leads me to think he is a good baserunner. If in spring training someone told you the Cardinals leadoff hitter was hitting over 300, was second on the team in walks behind Pujols, had an OBP over 400, lead the team in steals, and scored half the time he reached base, would you complain that he shouldn’t be starting? Oh, and he had the walk off hit today. Really, aside from changing his name what else does skip have to do to get some respect around here. People are clamoring for Barton, a raw yet talented player. That’s fine, I’m big fan of his as well, but why are we so hard on a guy that has always played hard and paid his dues through the organization?

by stickman179 on Apr 27, 2008 2:11 AM EDT reply actions  

The question isn't what Skip has done in 20-odd games this season

it’s what should we expect him to do moving forward. The latter is what should determine his spot in the lineup and on the team. He’s not likely to maintain that OBP moving forward.

by azruavatar on Apr 27, 2008 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

Ludwick

is just as likely to simmer down with his stats with more PA as Skip is likely to lose some points off his OBP.

You can’t look forward on one and allow the stats of the other to stand alone.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

in addition...

You also comment on Ludwick being a better hitter than Skip “despite skip’s hot start.” He started the season 0-16. How exactly is that a hot start. Why not refer to Ludwick’s start as a hot start. Before this season he has never hit higher than .267 and never had an OBP higher than .339. So is Ludwick really the better hitter, or is he a hitter with power off to a hot start?

by stickman179 on Apr 27, 2008 2:19 AM EDT reply actions  

he's better b/c he has more power

basically the same career OBP + more power = better hitter.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

You're a Dolt!

“Ludwick, despite Skip’s hot start, is a better hitter than Skip” You’re whole post is idiotic and off base. The premise of your rant is how Ludwick is a better hitter than Skip after a game where he hit the game winning RBI. First of all, Skip’s start was not “hot” it was an ugly 1 for 20 and he is still batting .310. Skip will be a starting outfielder in the big leagues for the next 10 yrs so get used to it. Sweet idea Ludwick at leadoff with his 17 strikouts in 58 at bats.

by birdman3000 on Apr 27, 2008 2:22 AM EDT reply actions  

check the community guidelines out. Besides being just rude, it doesn’t help prove your point when you childishly call names.

by azruavatar on Apr 27, 2008 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Unnecessary Rudeness

Don’t insult someone for a post that raises and explains a point of view. Personally, I think Skip has done what he needed to do and deserves a chance to continue, but I doubt that he’ll be as effective for the rest of the season, and he’s not likely to be a 10 year man (nor is Ludwick). But that doesn’t justify personal attack to a veteran poster who expressed a reasonable position.

by madridbend on Apr 27, 2008 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wow!

just wow! You’re right. We should base all of our decisions for the next 10 years on 1 PA. Shoulda thought of that. thanks.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Of course you shouldn't...

base 10 years off 1 PA, I just thought it was an odd time to post an anti-skip rant. And I am sure you’re not a dolt, I just think it’s a funny word and deserves more usage these days., but no more name calling from this guy. However I do think you will be eating your words about Skip. He is coming into his own and will be a productive starting outfielder for years to come.

by birdman3000 on Apr 27, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

it wasn't anywhere near an anti-Skip "rant"

if the word “dolt” is underused, the word “rant” must be overused if you think it applies here.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Maybe he meant

Defender
Of
Ludwick’s
Talent

:-)

"A hot dog at the ball game beats roast beef at the Ritz."- Humphrey Bogart

by iron duke75 on Apr 27, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

LOUD NOISES!!!!

How dare you disparage Skip’s good name!

Aaanyways, I got a nice chuckle when you linked to that lineup from that Houston game, as we only managed 6 hits and 3 runs in that game.

I prefer this lineup:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN200804110.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIL/MIL200804220.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PIT/PIT200804240.shtml

Don’t ask me why it works, it just seems to. Well, other than that game against Sanchez.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 27, 2008 2:30 AM EDT reply actions  

was thinking the same thing

as far as OF goes. I’d still like to see the Ryan/Kennedy dynamic for a while and see how it could pan out.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 5:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

I liked that lineup also

or the lineup we ran out a few times with Barton leading off and Ankiel hitting second. Seemed like instant offense but Ankiel was hot at the time.

by gossard56 on Apr 27, 2008 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

and that’s the crux of the issue a #2 that represents something other than strikeouts and/or double plays.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing HL

Not only did the team manage only 6 hits and 3 runs, but the OF had 1 hit in 11 abs.

:) I see the point, though, and thus wasn’t going to say anything about it at first. I just had to piggyback, though.

by stlfan on Apr 27, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

Random notes

Had dinner at one of my favorite restaurants, “pomme” in Clayton. TLR and Barry Weinberg and a couple of friends stopped by for a drink. We shared waiters so I am sharing an anecdote. Tony ordered a shirley temple, and after a brief pause said, “but she’s all grown up now and wants a grey goose martini”. I love that guy. There’s no one on the current cardinal team sans wagonmaker who I’d rather have a conversation with.

by The Butcher on Apr 27, 2008 2:54 AM EDT reply actions  

Nice post, Houston.

And I’ll second your contention that it’s damned near impossible to find LOB numbers. I tried yesterday morning, but didn’t have the time, (more specifically, to be honest, the patience) to track them down by your indirect method. I just assumed it would be on Baseball-Reference.com or something, but apparently not.

I’m going to agree also that the lack of power from several spots in the lineup is the single biggest culprit in the Cards’ difficulties bringing home runners this year. The hitters are all being extremely patient, and that’s fantastic, but it seems as if a pitcher can just get past the #6 hitter in the lineup, he’s pretty much home free. How many times this year have we seen opposing pitchers throw ball after ball after ball to the likes of Albert and Duncan and Ankiel, and to a lesser extent Pink Eye, and then set down Molina, the pitcher, and Cesar to get out of the inning. Once the Cardinals get one or two players from the top of the lineup on, pitchers just pitch around the next couple of guys, walking one and getting one out, say, then buckle down and finish off 6-9 hitters. It seems as if most of the scoring the Cards have done this year is largely predicated on the bottom of the order leading off an inning, getting on base, and forcing pitchers to try and get out the middle of the order. We seem to put up some nice crooked numbers when Adam Kennedy leads off an inning with a base hit, but not so much when Skippy does it. It’s very strange.

I do have to disagree with you regarding Skip, though. I’m not a huge Skip supporter, and I want to see more Barton on the field, but I don’t think that Skip is the problem at all. He’s doing everything you could possibly ask of him; the problem is that there are a bunch of black holes in the lineup that make Skip’s lack of home run power look very glaring, because no one else is stepping up and knocking in runs.

I think that Tony may need to try a different lineup strategy, because this one, while having some good points, isn’t working all that well. I’m going to reiterate a point I made a few weeks ago; I think you may need to try spreading out the lineup a bit more, inserting weaker hitters purposefully in between stronger hitters. I don’t really like that strategy even as I type it, but when you have four nearly automatic outs in a row, you may need to try and split that run up a bit. Like I said, I don’t really like the idea, but I would be interested to see how it would work, at least on a trial basis. Also, I believe we really need to see an end to the practice of putting one of your most powerful bats, whether it’s Duncan or Ankiel, in the two hole. To me, that’s never the way I would set up a lineup, but especially the way this one is constituted, I think it’s really a waste.

One last thing: what you said about there being a pattern with the way Tony is using Wainwright? You were right, but wrong when you said the pattern was “developing.” The pattern is already there, and has been for quite a while. Don’t believe me? Go look at the way he used Matt Morris from 2001-2003. Luckily, Buzz Bissinger already did some of the legwork for us, in “3 Nights in August.” It’s pretty much the exact same situation you’re talking about here.

All your failures are just training grounds.

by the red baron on Apr 27, 2008 3:22 AM EDT reply actions  

Matt Morris

I was afraid to bring that comparison up.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 27, 2008 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wainwright should be out of the high risk age.

Still abuse is abuse. There was no good reason for yesterdays useage. This is one of those areas where Tony’s eyes failed him.

by DriverZn on Apr 27, 2008 4:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

The handling of Wainer

seems eerily similar to the way Alan Benes was ridden early in his career. That didn’t turn out so well…

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Apr 27, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

To say they are "automatic outs" is a bit harsh...

I’ll give you Izturis (.186/.333/.237), but at least he helps counter a horrible bat with a good glove. Eckstein currently has a line of .246/.343/.330, which isn’t much better than Cesar Salad’s, and his field range is nowhere near what The Salad has. So if you make me choose between Eck and Izturis, I’ll take Cesar. Kennedy and Molina aren’t that terrible. Kennedy is .306/.353.339 and Molina is .278/.338/.375. Kennedy’s job isn’t to produce runs, it’s to get on base, which he’s doing…much better this year than last year. If you told me in 2006 that Molina would someday be close to a .280 hitter with 10-15 home runs and 50 rbi’s, I’d take that in a heartbeat. His value to this team is on defense and handling a pitching staff, and there’s no one better in the league at doing that, IMO.

Absolutely agree on riding AW, though. Hope Tony eases off.

"Is this Heaven?"
"No, it;s Iowa."
"I could've sworn it was Heaven."

by Ted Glover on Apr 27, 2008 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

Lineup adjustment

I think it’s their complete lack of power at the bottom that’s hurting. They’re not automatic outs, but if they do get a hit, it’s only going to be a slappy single – and scoring from second isn’t guaranteed on a slappy single. I think we need to drop the Power 2 position and put a second guy on that’s likely to get on in front of Pujols and drop Ank or Dunc down to six or seven in order to break up our hitters that can do something to a ball.

by birdo rojo on Apr 27, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

The bottom

is putting up better numbers (#7) than the two mainstay guys in the fourth spot are. Two of those mainstay guys are.. Ank and Dunc.

7 overall has solid numbers
8 isn’t going to be perfect due to who’s batting there, but has really impressive RISP numbers.
9 I’ll fully agree is really looking a little scary as of late.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

people are misunderstanding my point about Skip

it’s not that he’s been a problem. In fact, he’s played quite well. My point is that since power is our biggest problem, the way to get more power in the lineup is to put Ludwick in. Skip lacks power so it seems logical to replace Skip w/ Ludwick—not b/c he’s playing poorly but b/c he simply lacks speed and power. He’s a singles hitter…period.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

but

potential power still requires making contact on the ball.

To remove one guy who represents 1/6th of your total runs coming across the plate in hopes of gaining a few runs is a risky scenario.

Right now Rick may represent power in what he can do, but he isn’t doing it at the plate. Skip’s at least getting on, which negates the lack of power argument.

Ludwick should be platooning Rick from the #2 hole at least till Rick gets his stroke back.

Side note: If Rick was hitting and effectively representing the power he’s getting represented on this topic, I’d entertain the idea of Ludwick coming in for Skip. But he’s not. And having two guys who.. historically.. represent a fair share of strikeouts and 0-4 type days doesn’t bode well in a line up who, as I’ll agree lacks some strength for run production.

Luddy needs to be in there, but not at the expense of a great showing of Skip. He needs to be in there to relieve the hole that Rick is starting to build.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

power

The power will come. I think we just need to be a little patient. Dunc, Ank, Pujols, and Glaus will probably hit 110+ this year between them. I think that Skips is filling his role nicely. No, he has little power, but Tony is using the entire outfield (except for maybe Ank) situationally, and it is working pretty well. The lack of power comes from Yadi and our MI. That will not be fixed soon.

by cdb on Apr 27, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

bad luck

our number four hitters have consisted mainly of Ank, Dunc, and Glaus, with a little Lud thrown in.

when batting fourth, the babip for each
Ank – 0.226
Glaus – 0.227
Dunc – 0.125
Lud – 0.400

Team – 0.250.

The four spot will heat up and start knocking in those 1-3 hitters. I think we need to be patient here….

by cdb on Apr 27, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

must agree on skip. viewed outside of our lineup, one would be very satisfied with his performance at #1. the problem is that we do need more power and the outfield is the only place to get it. it’s not skippy, its how underpowered we are in the MI and catcher. where’s julian javier when you need him?

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, perhaps you haven't grasped the situation!

by sportsman on Apr 27, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

and that MI

has one of the better fielding percentages in the league as of now. and generally get on base at a reasonable clip.

They may not be giving a lot of power, but considering the massive amount of groundballs we produce they’re saving runs. And considering how much they’re getting on base, they’re crossing the plate quite reasonably.

It may not be power, but considering what we have to deal with. That’s not a bad scenario to look at.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

Baron's post...

got me to thinking. I have 2 “out of the box” suggestions. They are probably nothing that would work consistently or anything, but they are “out of the box” so ha!

1st suggestion
Is this the year where you have to balance the lineup with your best hitters hitting 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 or something.

Skip – good at getting on base
Kennedy/Iz2 – bunt him over or try to get on in front of Albert
Pujols – if he’s not walked, he gets to crush it…
Ankiel – if they walk Pujols, or he can get on anyway
Kennedy/Iz2 – bunt him over or try to get on…
Glaus – drive whomever on home
Other outfielder – Barton to get on base and run like crazy or Ludwick/Duncan to drive in whomever is on
Pitcher – Tony loves him here
Yadi – try to drive people around?

At least it would space out Kennedy/Iz2/pitcher’s spot. You could almost argue that the bottom 3 should be P/Yadi/other OF when Waino is in the lineup…

Just a suggestion, tell me why I’m wrong, but if you’re looking for a couple runs a game, then maybe this would work.

2nd suggestion
If you are trying to simply get your best hitters into the lineup, I think it would be imperative to get Skip and Barton playing 2nd base.

In Day Games
Skip 2B
Ankiel CF
Pujols 1B
Glaus 3B
Duncan LF
Ludwick RF
Yadi C
P
Iz2/Ryan/Miles SS

Night games
Barton 3B
Skip 2B
Pujols 1B
Ankiel CF
Ludwick RF
Duncan LF
Yadi C
P
Iz2/Ryan/Miles SS
of course, this second option will not work because of that pesky “defense” thing, but…it would get the best hitters in the lineup…

Anyway, just my random thoughts on a Sunday morning

by stlfan on Apr 27, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

Here's what I was thinking

Vs LHP

Skip
Barton
Pujos
Ank
Troy
Yadi
Ryan
P
Kennedy

What you get
  • Reasonably one of our better defenses.
  • Two occasional pop but generally on base a lot players starting off.
  • Risk in Rick and Glaus to perform ok.
  • Players in their splits, 4-5 of which have decent eyes and should help drive up pitch counts.
  • Off the bench you have
    - a pinch runner in Iz and a solid defensive replacement
    - Miles in utility should you need to move Ryan to third for Glaus for something
    - Two strong bats in Duncan and Luddy should you get a RHP out of the bullpen late.

vs RHP
Skip
Dunc
Pujos
Ludwick
Troy
Ryan
Molina
P
Kennedy

What you get
  • a very patient offense that should drive up pitch counts
  • more power and corresponding splits
  • a very strong showing OBP and a very reasonable looking SLG
  • OBP in 1 and 9, Some speed ahead of instead of behind Yadi

On the bench you have
- Ank for power or defensive replacement.
- Barton for taking a walk or reasonable pop in PH
- Miles in utility
- A solid pinch runner

Dunc’s an automatic should Pujos need a day off, which platoons another OF in.
LaRue is an automatic should Yadi need a day off, same batting order.
If Rick gets hot and you’re giving a day off to skip, ludwick comes in.

In both I don’t see an overwhelming possibility of 1-2-3 innings, and in both we have great match ups when we drive them into the bullpen.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

As far as your lineup is concerned...

I have no interest in seeing the Cardinals lead the league in K’s.

by TheBirds on Apr 27, 2008 4:14 AM EDT reply actions  

Why do strikeouts bother people?

I don’t care how many times the batters strike out, as long as they produce runs. If I could put up a lineup of 8 Adam Dunn’s I would do it without a second thought. Sure it would set an all time record for strikeouts, but it would probably also lead the league in runs scored.

Dave Duncan should be all for it since he views it as a sign the opossing pitcher isn’t getting his job done.

by DriverZn on Apr 27, 2008 4:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

Hahahaha

+1

"I believe he’s been reincarnated, that he played before, in the twenties and thirties, and he’s back to prove something." - Former teammate Mark McGwire about Albert Pujols

by cardzfan24 on Apr 27, 2008 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

DriverZn.....yer baaaadddd........

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Apr 27, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

BABIP

Personally, I associate SO with an inability to make contact and put the ball in play. I was once a BABIP skeptic, but have come to appreciate it value. What is tells me is that if you make contact on a pitch, you have a 30% chance of getting on base. If you strike out you have a minimal chance (wild pitch on third strike). That is why I, at least, detest the strike out. You do not advance the runner, you do not get on base, you have no opportunity to score runs on strike outs.

by cdb on Apr 27, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

true

can’t argue that. GIDPs have been too frequent. Always will be.

by cdb on Apr 27, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who won that game yesterday?

Having a team that happens to hit homeruns in sacrificing runners on the bases isn’t a guarantee for wins.

Having a team that has more strikeouts to gain a few percentage points in SLG doesn’t guarantee more runs, and/or more wins.

Yes, we have a home run drought. But have you actually looked at the SP that we’ve been batting against and see if the league as a whole is having issues hitting HRs off them so far this year? Because they are. Since our last home run we’re facing pitchers who give up a homerun every 17.2 innings.

Lincecum 0 HR in 29.3 innings
Chacon 2 HR in 33 innings
Gorzel 2 HR in 22.3 innings
Sneel 1 HR in 30 innings
Para 1 HR in 18 innings
Vill 3 HR in 23 (but we nailed three 2b off him).

So we’re going to punish our guys for not hitting homeruns when no one else has done it either?

I would much rather have a double with two on base than have a home run with one or no one on base. Anyday.

I’ve been against Skip in the one hole before his numbers made me eat my words. And I’ll gladly do so. Skip is everything I’ve personally wanted right where he is. The only thing I dislike about Skip is his tendency to roll over the ball and get into double play scenarios. He’ll get better with that with more PA. If that’s his only true fault, then frankly I can handle it. Hell, over the past ten games he has more XBH than Rick does, and there’s no comparison on the OBP. Considering he’s arguably our second best defensive outfielder. There’s just no common sense approach to pulling him because he’s not belting it over the fence.

The two guys who are supposed to represent some SLG is Rick and Glaus. Glaus’ numbers look reasonable when you remove home night games, so hopefully they figure that aspect out so they’ll round over to what they’re should be.

Rick is a different case all together. His BA, SLG, and OBP have all taken a nose dive the past ten games. Considerably.

Our 7th spot isn’t exactly the “get past the top 6 and roll over the bottom” like everyone seems to make it out to be. It’s offensive numbers are generally better across the board than the 4th spot or the 6th. Our 8th, and meaning pitchers have excellent numbers when we have RISP. Our 9th is starting to be more and more of an eyesore as of late.

I’d like to see Ludwick in the line up as well, but not at the expense of Skip, but Rick. And Barton should get some more at bats to platoon with Duncan.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 7:06 AM EDT reply actions  

if we don't want power in the lineup

that’s ok w/ me but there’s going to be a lot of complaining about the number of runners we leave on base. Stringing together a bunch of singles is a tough way to score a lot of runs.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

and I fully agree

If we step back from HR, SLG and to some degree Triples we’re having a decent showing of offensive production compared to the rest of the NL.

Here’s the crux of my argument. Take it as you will.

We’re going to be playing two styles of ball all year long. Mainly because we either pound the ball or we don’t. We’ve seen both styles of play this year. Mainly the latter.

But we’re going to have to learn to rely on manufacturing runs when our hitters don’t pound the ball. There’s no trade value/opp out there this early. And I don’t know if it’s worth loading the line up with two guys who can have issues making contact at all will help.

If Rick was swinging and we needed one more bat that would push those last runs in, I would championing the same thing. But he’s not. Let’s at least get someone on base and keep the K rate low for now.

I love Rick, like a lot around here I’m assuming I’ve followed him since his draft. But right now, in this scenario he should not, at all, be platoon free.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

vaguely I recall a comment a long time ago when we still had Big Mac. Something to the tune to when he hit a HR our odds of winning the game were sound, when he didn’t, we lost a ton.

I don’t want to become that team again. We’re winning some games now because we’re playing with Pujos, not strictly dependent on him. Duncan, Skip, Ank, Luddy, Glaus has all been catalyst for a win this year.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions  

Wainer and PAP

I think the concept of PAP and abuse in general is underwhelming because you find many great, long-lived pitchers (e.g. Randy Johnson) at the top of most PAP lists. That says to me that “abuse” isn’t as bad as they say it is and that something else (e.g. mechanics) is the key force.

I do think that abuse may enhance the negative effects of poor mechanics (see Mark Prior), and that fact that Wainer has problematic mechanics and is being abused makes me nervous. Would could get Carp back and then lose Wainer.

by thepainguy on Apr 27, 2008 8:02 AM EDT reply actions  

Top of the 9th

I would argue that the best course of action was to LOOGY Berkman yesterday. His OPS is 1.027 as a lefty, .804 as a righty, that’s a pretty huge split. If you’re not going to LOOGY a guy like that then what’s the point of even having one (or two) on the roster? As for long-term injury risk, a few freaks of nature like Randy Johnson and Livan Hernandez does not change the fact that the PAP system does have some predictive value regarding arm injuries. See these articles for more info on long and short-term effects:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1480
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

by mikedallas45 on Apr 27, 2008 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Randy is a freak mechanics or not

And yes, there are several examples of other freaks in baseball history. Unfortunately identifying who isn’t a freak usually happens in an MRI. Is PAP the sole factor in injuries? Obviously not: body type, mechanics, genetic intangibles, etc but to ignore pitch counts is to ignore a loooooot of statistical evidence proving there is a strong correlation (as MD45 posted here) and it does make quite a bit of intuitive sense.

For an analogous argument to yours: you say Bert Blyleven had “serious elbow/should problems” but he threw nearly 5000 innings, that says to me “bad mechanics” isn’t as bad as they say it is and that something else is the key force. And that doesn’t make sense.

There isn’t a key force here IMO, it’s a combo of things that lead to injury as throwing 95 mph isn’t “safe” period.

PS what’s your mechanical opinion on Kelvim Escobar. Madduxy arm action, elbow below shoulder line, shows ball to third, arm fully up at footplant: toasted shoulder…

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 27, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

X

Where are you getting this stuff about strong correlation?

by greenback06 on Apr 27, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

Since we don't want to click links

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1480
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

I’ll post the conclusions, obviously these are slightly dated:

For now, however, we can confidently say that PAP^3 yields information about pitcher performance and durability not answered by pitch counts alone under current playing conditions. Long pitch count outings noticeably decrease expected short-term performance, and high stress workloads over time increase the chances for serious injury. Any strategic analysis of pitcher usage will have to consider the tradeoff between winning the current game and the long-term cost. There are clearly times when you will want to ride a workhorse hard, such as a key playoff game (though Al Leiter will attest that there are limits even in the World Series). Finding the right balance between winning now and winning tomorrow remains a interesting challenge, and today we have another tool in our arsenal to assess a team’s sustainable pitching strategy.

How significant is the effect we’ve identified? Assuming a fairly abusive usage pattern across a staff, a team’s starting rotation could suffer a season-wide decline of about 2%. Considering the effect on both the innings pitched (putting more strain on the bullpen) and extra runs allowed by the starting pitchers, this might amount to perhaps 20-25 runs over the course of a season, which would be expected to be about 2 to 2.5 games in the standings. That’s comparable to the difference in value between Tim Hudson and, say, Kevin Tapani or Todd Ritchie in 2000. That’s a trade worth making.

The implications for pitcher usage are rather straightforward; starting pitchers should, in general, be held to 121 or fewer pitches (Categories I, II, and III). There are some circumstances where this need not apply - if winning today’s game is of significantly higher strategic importance than the pitcher’s next few starts (e.g. playing a division rival during a pennant race). Also, if a manager believes a pitcher is physically superior in endurance than other pitchers, he may judiciously allow him to throw deeper into games. Naturally, the state of the bullpen and the rest of the starting staff may also figure into the decision - a 5% decline from David Wells is still a better pitcher than Roy Halladay. However, even though extenuating circumstances may call for pushing a workhorse starter to a Category IV start (up to 132 pitches), or even a low Category V start, it should be viewed as nearly inexcusable to let a starting pitcher exceed 140 pitches in any start.

Managers who allow pitchers to throw too many pitches in a start may not be only jeopardizing that pitcher’s future, but hurting his current team’s chances at success as well. For the benefit of another half inning of work from a tired starter, a manager may be gambling with that pitcher’s next 4 or 5 starts at the very least. The evidence shown here shows that a season-long strategy to maximize the effectiveness of a pitching staff through managed workloads makes sense, even under an urgent “we need to win now, the future will take care of itself” philosophy.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 27, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

X

Sorry, I thought there was something else to this. I’ve read the Baseball Prospectus study, but it is so dated, as you noted, that it’s barely relevant to the current environment. The PAP leaders in 2007 aren’t anywhere close to the average PAP leaders in 1997, for example.

As it stands, your quoted recommendation about keeping pitch counts generally below 121 has not been violated. If the great concern here is over a 3% increase in Wainwright’s runs allowed over the next three weeks (over a baseline expectation of a 2% increase), then I’m still missing something.

by greenback06 on Apr 27, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

This one wasn't so much regarding specifically Wainwright

More making the point that painguy’s assertion that “abuse isn’t as bad as they say it is” is demonstratedly false.

With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch

by joker24 on Apr 27, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hardly

“Assuming a fairly abusive usage pattern across a staff, a team’s starting rotation could suffer a season-wide decline of about 2%.”

This statement doesn’t exactly blow me out of the water.

First, a 2% delta falls under the 5% rule of thumb for statistical significance.

Second, there’s the word “could”, rather than “does”.

by thepainguy on Apr 27, 2008 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Team LOB

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/tgl.cgi?t=b&team=STL&year=2008

BR to the rescue again, it won’t total it for you, but it does have a game log of LOB numbers.

by StLHugo on Apr 27, 2008 8:57 AM EDT reply actions  

you got 'em stirred up HC

you’re an idiot! you’re a dolt! i doubt that very many people would have taken offense at your suggestion 20 days ago . . . . . . having said that, i actually believe schumaker’s improvement is for real. he’s drawing walks, he’s hitting for extra bases (esp against rhp), and his BABIP has come down from last year’s “no-way” territory (about .380) into just above average territory (~.330). this looks like sustainable performance to me. even if his BABIP falls and his average drops to .280 or so, he’ll still be in the .370 range in OBP with a slugging average over .400 — basically, eckstein on steroids.

as of this moment, i’m more convinced of schu’s ability than i am of ankiel’s. i agree w/ you that rick appears to be the same kind of streaky hot-cold hitter that edmonds was — but as ankiel piles up more PAs and establishes more lasting patterns, we might come to find that his cold streaks are something of a baseline, and the hot streaks are abberations. i am not predicting that will be the case, but i think there’s a danger of it.

i totally agree w/ you re wainwright. you can understand why tony leaves him in there — the guy has got guts. that’s got to be the deciding factor. but the pattern that’s beginning to emerge is a troublesome one. you can push a guy like that only so many times before it starts to take a toll.

by lboros on Apr 27, 2008 10:05 AM EDT reply actions  

So if those cold streaks are the "baseline,"

you’re basically saying Ank is overrated. I hope you’re wrong about that.

Actually, Ank reminds me of Ray Lankford in many ways. When he’s going good, look out, but when he’s in a funk, you don’t even want to watch him hit.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Apr 27, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

The thing about Rick is that you don’t really know what you’re getting with him. He has way too little PA to really judge what his baseline is. I love the excitement his story brings to the table. But still.

He has earned a spot on the roster.
He should be in a uniform on a daily basis.
He should be the consistent starter in our OF.

But he shouldn’t be the mainstay even when he’s not producing. The argument on his productivity on the plate the past ten games is getting thin.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

i think he MIGHT be overrated

he’s only had about 300 plate appearances in the big leagues, after all — and only about 500 PA in the minor leagues since his conversion to full-time outfielder. so i think it’s too soon to draw any conclusions about him one way or the other. but i’ve seen enough at-bats where he looked overmatched at the plate to wonder about his long-term prospects.

by lboros on Apr 27, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

wouldn't you also agree (re: Skip)

that the reason we’re leaving so many runners on the bases, though, is b/c of a lack of power? Skip’s playing well, no question. I don’t know if it’s sustainable but my point wasn’t to punish Skip but rather to explore a way to get more power in the lineup. I’m not sure on Ankiel either but he definitely has more power than Skip.

The real problem is that our OF has too many specialists in it. If Skip’s a specialist—he’s an OBP specialist whereas Ludwick and Ankiel are power specialists. We need a Skyan Ludmacker who can get on base a lot AND hit for power.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Duncan

He has power and gets on base better than any of the other outfielders.

by ICbirdfan on Apr 27, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Until

you go up against a lefty or go into a park with a team that isn’t so kind to a LF. Then that breaks down pretty quick.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

HC, i would agree with you partway

if we look at why the cards have been leaving men on base, a big part of the reason is that they haven’t hit for enough power. but that hasn’t been schumaker’s fault - it has been the fault of the power hitters who are already in the lineup. ludwick’s ISO with RISP is .080; glaus’ is .135; and duncan’s is .000. so i don’t think they need more power hitters; they just need the power hitters who are already there to do their jobs. if that happens, the offense will be ok.

schumaker is doing his job - he’s getting on base, and hitting with enough power to get himself into scoring position. and i don’t think it’s a fluke; i think he can continue to do it. that’s a turnaround for me, because i wasn’t convinced by his performance last summer. but he’s added a sharp batting eye to his game, and that’s a big addition.

by lboros on Apr 27, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

couldn't agree more

I also think we the lineup has a power void that needs to be addressed. However, I don’t think holding skip responsable for the sins of the middle infielders is the way to go. lborors hit the nail on the head, skip is producing and other “power” guys aren’t. How many HR have glaus, Duncan and Ankiel hit since the first week of the season? If those guys start to hit bombs like they are capable of then this lineup will start to put up the numbers we expect from them. I only had one other comment and that is on skips extra base ability. He does have 8 extrabase hits out of his 27, and last season 16 of his 59 hits went for extra bases. That’s a good number for a lead off guy. It takes to kinds of hitters to score runs, guys that get on base and guys that knock them in. We need to keep both type hitters in our lineup.

by stickman179 on Apr 27, 2008 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree that Skip's doing his job

this wasn’t an indictment of Skip but if you have power on the bench and need power in the lineup, putting Ludwick in the lineup could alleviate that problem. Now I guess you could say that Ludwick should play instead of Ankiel since he’s cold right now and that’s fine—that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw. Skip’s just not going to hit for power and we shouldn’t expect him to. Besides, I just said it might be a good idea to TRY the lineup. People are reacting as though I said bench Pujols b/c he hasn’t homered in a week!

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

idiot

just kidding. man you are taking some grief this morning, if i had anything valuable to back you i would, but i dont, so good luck.

by UNCDubya on Apr 27, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

the real problem

is that our middle infielders have absolutely 0 power and don’t get on base. If we had more power there, we wouldn’t be leaving so many people on base. If Ludwick could play 2b, we’d have a solution. Unfortunately we have too many OFs w/ offensive talent and too few middle infielders w/ offensive talent.

by chuckb on Apr 27, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Thus the need to make a trade for a 2B who can drive the ball. Oh and keep playing Brendan Ryan. While he is not spectacular, he is if you compare him to Iz2.

by indakind on Apr 27, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Some observations.....

Wainwright was awesome yesterday, but I still worry about the high pitch count. Someone has observed that it’s not the number of pitches thrown, but the number of pitches thrown when fatigued. He was clearly showing signs of fatigue. I hope field management backs off a bit with him.

I don’t think anyone has brought this up, but when you continue to have low scoring games it adds pressure to the entire pitching staff, because they know any run they give up could be the game. Yes, they are pros and their job is to put up zeros. But great, good, mediocre, and bad pitchers are all going to have great, good, mediocre, and bad outings. It would be nice if the offense would pick them up once in awhile…..

Now from some other teams:

John Smoltz rather quietly posted his 3,000 strike out this week.

Brian Anderson of the White Sox has had a rough go of it the last few years-he got the walk off hit for them yesterday-nice for him.

Pitching match up of the day is Webb vs. Peavy-how many innings is that one going to go?

Favorite sign seen on ESPN in the stands was “Our Chris Young is better than your Chris Young” at a D’Back-Padres game.

The Yankees are in big trouble-Mussina on fumes, Kennedy and Hughes suffering severe growing pains, Joba has an injured leg, Farnsworth ready to ignite at any time, Brian Bruney out for the year, A-Rod and Jeter playing at less than 100%, same for Posada and I want ESPN to stop putting them on my TV!

Jacob Ellsbury is the real deal.

The first manager to go down will be the Rangers Ron Washington, the next will be the Jays John Gibbons.

Matt Morris has most likely come to the end of the road with the Pirates. They had a meeting about him yesterday in Pittsburgh, and it appears he will be removed from the rotation, and possibly released.

The Tigers are looking more like what everyone thought they were.

The Marlins are still playing well. Mike Jacobs and Scott Olson are off to the best starts of their careers. I did not see that coming…..

I wondered how long it would be before Tim Lincecum was the best pitcher in the NL. I’m starting to think it’s going to be THIS year…...

That’s all I’ve got, folks.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Apr 27, 2008 10:26 AM EDT reply actions  

I seen Ellsbury with the Pawsox twice last year.

I have a man crush.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Matt Morris will be released

meaning he can practically pitch for free.

Think he’d take a trip to Memphis to see if he has anything left? Trust me, I know he’s be AWFUL. I watched yesterdays game and he was getting shelled. But, I’d like to think that for 500K, Dave Duncan could try to revive his career for the poor guy.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 27, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm sadly afraid

that Matty Mo is done; no gas left in the tank.

It’s a shame, but Father Time gets all of us eventually…

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Apr 27, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

He's been released by Pittsburgh

It’ll be interesting to see where he ends up.

Still looking for 1985 Regular Season games on DVD/VHS

by Hardcore Legend on Apr 27, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like Az'y said

you guys are missing the point. Skip has done a great job being a tradional leadoff hitter. The point is we have a serious lack of slugging in our lineup with our middle infielders, Molina, pitcher and Skippy. This is a big reason we are leaving guys on base, we lack guys who can clear the bases more often. Getting Ludwick in the lineup in place of Skip brings another bat with real power.

If we had Tejada at SS and Brandon Phillips at 2B then we could bare Skippys lack of slugging and he’d be fantastic setting the table. But we need to upgrade our team slugging and adding Ludwick into the lineup for Skippy certainly does that.

by gossard56 on Apr 27, 2008 10:30 AM EDT reply actions  

Ha-Ha....If we had Tejada at SS and Brandon Phillips at 2B......

Which brings up the question of Tejada playing SS. I had heard that he couldn’t. Do my eyes play tricks on me? He looks fine to me out there.

The Cardinals did try to acquire Tejada, but couldn’t match up in a trade. It’s a dream of mine that we too will have middle infielders that scare the opponents pitchers….

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Apr 27, 2008 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

believe your eyes

I think it was just a rumor that Miguel could not play SS. Maybe he was a bit banged up last year so it appeard he had lost a step. He plays a real good SS and he hits very well, put it this way Brendan Ryan nor Cesar Izturis is a much better defensive SS in my opinion and you get ten times better offense from Miguel.

by ICbirdfan on Apr 27, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

I live in Baltimore and I've watched Tejada

a ton in the last few years. I’ve always been amazed by how many people downplay his abilities—sportswriters, statheads, etc. Miggy is a terrific player and will help Houston immensely this year. Don’t underestimate just how depressing the state of Orioles baseball has been in this decade; not to say that Miggy should have been slacking just because he was on a lousy team, but the situation here cannot have helped his performance.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Apr 27, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Moving Skip to 2B solves everything

we have a leadoff hitter who will get on base and not strike out much AND we can play Lud and Dunc in the OF everyday (and throw in Barton once in awhile).

Obviously, this won’t be happening anytime soon, but if Izturis is still below or around the Mendoza line come July, I think management would really have to consider DFAing him (or maybe one of those “mystery injuries”). If AK starts hitting last he did last year, he may go as well which would mean Ryan at SS and Skip at 2B.

Ahhh.. let me dream please : )

Proud President of the Unofficial Skip Schumaker Fan Club!
(now accepting applications)

by stltrav09 on Apr 27, 2008 10:58 AM EDT reply actions  

Moving Skip to 2B...

...is a move that, IMHO, would only happen between seasons. Send him to the Jose Oquendo School of Infield in the fall and Spring Training, and voilá! Instant Infielder!

It would be a tougher adjustment than the one Mike Shannon made from RF to 3B; the double-play pivot is the most problematic part of playing 2B… I doubt that such a switch could be made in-season.

Me, I’d like to see Boog Ryan play every day for a couple of weeks, and see what he can do! Iz2 ain’t a-gonna hit much; AK and Miles don’t hit many “gappers”; maybe the Birds need to use the running game more with the lower end of the lineup. Ryan and Iz2 can steal bases; if AK/Miles can slap the ball on the ground to the right side, that opens up the hit-and-run.

I think Glaus, Ankiel, and Duncan will reach the fences more as the weather warms up… but then, I’m an optimist by nature!

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Apr 27, 2008 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Shannon had that good arm

so had the luxury of playing a lot of balls off his chest. He was naturally aggressive and had quarterback feet, so 3B ended up a good spot for him.

I’m not sure 2B would be as good a fit for Skip. Also, given the short shelf life of second basemen, the time for it may already be past.

by random on May 18, 2008 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tony

I dont think Tony does anything because he is thinking about what the media or fans will think…he usually not a conviential wisdom kinda guy…other than tha i agree with you post i have said Duncan would make a good lead off hitter or at least worth a shot…

"Back in the day when I played, a pitcher had 3 pitches: a fastball, a curveball, a slider, a changeup and a good sinker pitch." - Mike Shannon

by nomar34 on Apr 27, 2008 12:01 PM EDT reply actions  

wow.

excellent post, and so true. i love this site.

by krippledmaster on Apr 27, 2008 12:11 PM EDT reply actions  

Generally a good post, but a few bones to pick

Ludwick leading off:
I don’t like this idea. I also don’t like how you impliedly refer to Tony and people like me as “those who insist on doing things the way they’ve always been done just b/c that’s the way they’ve always been done.” First, as you point out, Tony is batting the pitcher 8th. He also helped to popularize the one inning reliever, so I don’t think that criticism is valid against him. I know your particular comment wasn’t directed squarely at him, but it’s the overall implication of those who criticize for going with more traditional 1 and 2 hitters v. saber-happy choices like Lud.
Besides this sort of underhanded shot, I think you undervalue traditional baseball wisdom. I agree it shouldn’t be held onto blindly, but I disagree that it is. There are many valid reasons to prefer a more traditional leadoff hitter. I don’t have the numbers or the time to compare Schu and Lud in these ways, so I’m not even going to say I’m totally opposed to the idea. I do think that just looking at obp is a bit over simplistic. Ideally you want someone who’ll be on base every plate appearance, but that just won’t happen – so you look at everything you want and see who best fits the overall picture. Besides obp, a leadoff hitter should see a lot of pitches, should be a good contact hitter, should be at least a threat to steal, should be a decent bunter, should not strikeout at a high rate, and must be able to score from second on most singles and from first on most doubles. There are good baseball reasons for each of these qualities even if they don’t necessarily show up in run expectancy stats. I’d be happy to go into them if anyone wishes to discuss them further, but this is a long comment already.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that there are similar reasons why someone with power like Lud should be batting in the 2, 5, or 6 spots, but I leave it there for now for the aforementioned reason.

Bottom line: I don’t think many people stick to baseball wisdom blindly, they stick to it because it’s more than 100 years of wisdom based on valid observations that shouldn’t be brushed aside easily. I know sabermetrics says they should be brushed aside b/c of stats – which has some validity – but I think many to most long-time baseball men feel that those stats aren’t gosple and don’t necessarily flush out the whole picture for certain strategic choices.

by fltfire on Apr 27, 2008 12:20 PM EDT reply actions  

one more thing

It’s worth pointing out that Lud’s obp may be somewhat artificially inflated as well. He has spent a significant amount of time batting in the 6 slot. Pitchers are much more likely to pitch him carefully or simply pitch around him when he has Yadi or Kennedy batting behind him. If he bats leadoff (like Schu) ptichers will come after him every at bat to make sure he doesn’t get on in front of Albert.

by fltfire on Apr 27, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry

I must have missed it and thought it should be mentioned. I didn’t mean it to be a critque or to accuse you of making an oversight.

by fltfire on Apr 27, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ludwick leading off, Skip out of the lineup

The idea of having another power hitter in the lineup is nice, but who would he be knocking in? Skip is the one that is continually on base. So if you take him out and replace him with Ludwick then we lose the high on base percentage. The easy answer is: Glaus, Ankiel, and Duncan need to start producing more, you can platoon Ludwick and Duncan, but Glaus cannot continue to leave the bases loaded for the final out of the inning. I am a big supporter of the BOB acquiring him, and I like the doubles, but he has got to do it in the clutch. It has been said here before, we need to use the hit and run a little less and just start stealing straight up. Put some pressure on the pitcher, get him distracted from his job of pitching to the batter. That is what base stealers are supposed to do, pose the threat and force the pitcher to throw more fastballs. That will help Santa and Natty Light hit for more power

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

by showmejoe on Apr 27, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wainwright - days off.

After both of Wainwright’s high-pitch starts, he was/will be given an extra day’s rest, due to the day off.

That has to be taken into consideration in the discussion.

by so_cal_cards_fan on Apr 27, 2008 12:38 PM EDT reply actions  

the risk

of the high pitch count is the game itself in which a pitcher exceeds a certain amount of pitches. the way i read it is that its not a “wear” injury per se, which as you describe, would benefit from an additional day off; but more like an injury that occurs while on the mound pitching fatigued. in other words, he has a much higher likelihood of doing serious damage on pitch 120 than he does on pitch 90, and a day off next week is irrelevant in that scenario.

perhaps i am reading this incorrectly but thats my interpretation.

by UNCDubya on Apr 27, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

theory vs proven fact

You are ‘correct’, in the sense that the tenor of the author, and his opinions expressed in the comments here, is that the extra day off matters little or none, and I won’t repeat his arguments, which are reasonable if not conclusive in my opinion.

Yet it is quite clear that TLR and Duncan feel differently – a perfect correlation between five events with binary outcomes: extend/not extend and extra day/no extra day. We can reject a hypothesis that the correlation is randomly perfect at the 95% confidence level.

That said, it belongs in the conversation, and indicates that TLR/Duncan are concerned about pitch counts, and feel that the extra day is an ameliorating input in the decision.

by so_cal_cards_fan on Apr 28, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

due to Thursday being an off day

Wainwright will have 5 days off before facing Cubs on Friday night. I’m sure La Russa considered that before sending Adam out for the 9th Saturday. I bet Wainright asked to go out.

by ridgesee on Apr 27, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Steve Phillips...

Has taken Carlos Lee as his hitter for BBT’s Sunday competition.

Let’s hang an ohfer on that man.

by tinstl on Apr 27, 2008 12:55 PM EDT reply actions  

I'll have to disagree

with most of this post. No need to explain because so many have already voiced similar opinions. Anyway, reading through the responses is pretty entertaining, and I just wanted to cast my vote.

by mikeonthecards on Apr 27, 2008 1:09 PM EDT reply actions  

the return of 10 run sundays is today

i hate brandon backe, i hate miguel tejada, i hate brad ausmus, and i hate the astros.

by stlcardinalsfang on Apr 27, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions  

+1

Couldn’t have been said any better! Go Cards!!

by mikeonthecards on Apr 27, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hell of a game

First home game I watched this year and coming back from a break between innings on FOX SW there was something at Busch I’ve never seen before.

When did they start having the Cards version of Hooters girls on top of the dugout blowing whistles and flinging T-shirts into the stands with a large rubber sling-shot?...................Because I like it.

I want to know more about this. Who are these women? Is there a fan club? Is there a calender I can buy? Are any of them into internet stalkers? Boy I hope so.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on Apr 27, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions  

And the legion

of Team Fredbird fans keeps growing…

I can’t tell you when they started, as I don’t live in the STL area, but I would imagine it started sometime during the DeWitt era…

"The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it." Bob Gibson to Tim McCarver

by player2bnamedl8r on Apr 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh yeah..

Here you go…

Team Fredbird

"The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it." Bob Gibson to Tim McCarver

by player2bnamedl8r on Apr 27, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the link

Time for the internet stalking to begin. I knew we had people helping out the mascots, somehow I’ve missed that they were all hotties. I was way off on the Hooters part, according to Home Run Derby they work for Hotshots Bar and Grill, much more family friendly.

"Do what you want to the women and children but leave me alone"- George Carlin

by That's a Winner on Apr 27, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

If only we would have been able to swing a deal for...

Edgar during the off season. Perhaps we could have swung a line-up that looked a little more something like this.

schumaker 2B
duncan / ankiel of
pujols 1B
ankiel / ludwick of
renteria SS
glaus 3B
molina C
picher P
barton of

I know it iscompletely unrealistic and skip playing second is unlikely nigh unforeseeable. But I like the mix of it better and know I am going to get ripped for it (i’m ok with that). But I figured wth why not.

Unless you can teach skip to play 2B and somehow convince the tigers to give up Edgar I might as well keep dreaming. Oh how fun pipe dreams can be though.

I do understand that the premise of your post was to discuss the options of inserting more power into our line-up. I just don’t find the idea of taking skip out of the lead-off slot and replacing him with power in that spot to be all that attractive of an option.

The real issue, as I see it is that the production we are getting out of our SS specifically Izturis, is a major whole. If we had Skip’s bat playing 2B and a power hitting short stop (a nice commodity to have) I think we would be looking pretty good. As it is, I’m not to worried about it right now, the season is young and it is early. The team is playing better ball than what we were advertised to be able to play. We need to try and turn our dither of outfielders into a power bat, but that power bat does not need to try and jump into our already crowded outfield. It needs to find a home elsewhere in the line-up.

So, start the ripping

by streamman on Apr 27, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions  

and yes I realize that, this would require us eating kennedy's contract.

but seriously send miles of in the trade and make Kennedy your utility middle infielder if you don’t send him off as well. Hell get rid of the both of them and let Ryan be your MI.

1 C Molina
2 1 Pujols
3 2 Skip
4 SS Edgar
5 3 Glauss
6 LF Barton
7 CF Ankiel
8 RF Rasmus
9 SP Wainwright
10 SP Lohse
11 SP Wellemeyer
12 SP Piniero
13 SP Looper
14 CL Izzy
15 ST Franklin
16 7th Springer
17 LO Reyes
18 LS Johnson
19 LS Villone
20 MR McClellan
21 C Larue
22 MI Ryan
23 OF Ludwick
24 OF Barton
25 UT Mather

by streamman on Apr 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I just saw

Someone repping a veb shirt. Near 509. Props

check out VEB on facebook...just search groups for Viva El Birdos

by Dttl89 on Apr 27, 2008 1:43 PM EDT reply actions  

why did skip move to the outfield ...

... way back when? does anyone know this? was he a bad MI? sorry if this has already been discussed. just seems like this move could solve so many issues.

by staticard on Apr 27, 2008 2:09 PM EDT reply actions  

if I recall correctly there was a mention about him having less than adequate play off of grounders. I can’t remember where I came across that, so take it for what it is.

by AdjustedExpectations on Apr 27, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ludwick vs. Schu

I’m surprised that this was received so poorly. PECOTA likes Ludwick for a .331/.493 (.274 EQA) line, and Schumaker gets a ringing .324/.391 (.246 EQA). Even if you hate projections it’s hard to say that someone with a .386 minor league SLG% is a better hitter than Ludwick. If he is, in fact, a worse hitter going forward, I don’t see why you’d want to play him over Ludwick in any fashion. So Skip’s basically starting because Ludwick hits for more extra bases (let’s hope I have to eat my words and Schumaker comes up with a .420/.440 line this year, but that’s, uh, unlikely to say the least).

The better leadoff hitter is the better hitter. This isn’t a hard concept people. If you believe that Skip is a better hitter, then be my guest. And name your wager.

by haltz on Apr 28, 2008 1:51 AM EDT reply actions  

better leadoff hitter is the better hitter?

Then maybe Albert should leadoff for us from now on.

by fltfire on Apr 28, 2008 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Rolling with the extreme example

Let’s say that the choice was between Albert leading off and Albert sitting on the bench, which do you choose?

by haltz on Apr 28, 2008 4:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

but that's not the choice

even for Lud. Whether he plays instead of skip, ankiel, or Duncan, it doesn’t necessitate that he leads off. I’m not even saying that he shouldn’t lead off when he plays or that he shouldn’t play over one of the others. At the moment I’ll stand mute in regards to my opinion on those issues. My only point is that a high obp and/or being a “better” hitter doesn’t necessarily mean that the player should lead off. There are other factors to consider and you have to balance any given lineups strengths and weaknesses to determine who should bat where.

by fltfire on Apr 28, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Then you are misunderstanding

me and we might be on the same page. A leadoff hitter doesn’t need to really be a certain type. Some guy shouldn’t play RF because he profiles better in a certain spot in the order. You want to get the best RF, C, SS and so on in the lineup, and then figure out the best way to optimize it.

My point is that given the choice between two leadoff hitters, which one is better? Well, the best leadoff hitter (in the NL let’s say) is going to have the highest EqA. That’s pretty much the end of it, so if the choice is to play Schumaker instead of Ludwick because he profiles as a certain low-SLG, high-AVG hitter with speed or whatever because the lineup needs a “Leadoff Hitter” well, that’s some preposterous reasoning if you ask me.

And look! Ludwick actually led off tonight. Hysterical.

by haltz on Apr 29, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols