First Quarter Report Card
Howdy, you all.
I had such a good response to my report card for John Mozeliak's first offseason, including the man himself bringing it up in a chat, I thought I would do it again. This time, I'm going to do the team as a whole for the first quarter of the season, and I don't have a clever, contrived lead in. Sorry.
Anyway, let's dive right in, shall we? The less said about last night's debacle, the better. So, without further ado,
We'll break it down by groups of positions. That should be fairly easy to get a hold on.
Starting Pitching
Overall grade: B+
I only give this a B+ because I hesitate to give out A's, particularly this early in the season. However, so far, the starters have done as good a job as anyone could have possibly expected. Hell, they've far outperformed what I expected, with the exception of Wainwright.
The biggest surprise of the rotation, for me, has got to be Todd Wellemeyer. He's shown us far more than I think we had any right to expect. He's been just as tough to hit as he's been for most of his career, but he's finally begun to get a handle on his walks and pitch counts. In his first season beginning in the rotation, Wellemeyer has looked far more comfortable, and far more confident, than I believe we ever saw him as a reliever, either here or in Chicago.
The disappointments? Well, there haven't really been any to this point, except for the fact that the cavalry does not appear to be coming, at least not anytime soon. Clement is looking more and more like he's just toast, and Muldoo has been up and down in his attempts to return to the big leagues, to say the least. Still, it's hard to complain when two of the pitchers you expected to be in the front half of the rotation haven't thrown a pitch for the Cards this season, and nobody really seems to care.
Bullpen
Overall grade:D+
This has been a definite sore spot for the team, especially lately. The relief corps appeared to be pretty solid early, but have revealed themselves to be the weakest link in this team as the season has continued.
I'm not sure the bullpen has been bad enough to merit a D grade on it's own, but this was supposed to be the strongest part of the team! Remember back during the offseason, and even into Spring Training, when we all thought the team would probably suck, but the bullpen would be really good? Well, so far, it's been very nearly the exact opposite of that, with the bullpen actually dragging down the team's record. If not for some very painful bullpen episodes, the Cardinals could very well be looking at anywhere from 3-7 more wins this season, and a substantial cushion over the Chicago bunch.
The biggest positive has got to be Kyle McClellan. He came into camp with almost zero chance of making the team, and is now, just about two months later, being touted by many fans as the best candidate to replace Izzy. K-Mac certainly has the stuff, and he's shown some real mental toughness already this young season. He'll have his ups and downs, to be sure; after all, he is a 23 year old rookie, but the future looks very bright for McClellan, wherever he ends up pitching.
The disappointment? That's not really a tough question; it's obviously the performance of Izzy so far. But a dishonourable mention also has to go to the left side of the bullpen. Flores has been pretty much crap, there's a very real chance we won't see Tyler Johnson this year, and Ron Villone... Well, Villone's been pretty solid overall, but he's come up small for the Cards the last couple of times out, and those have been games the team could ill afford to let slip away. The lefties have not been good.
Outfield
Overall grade: B
A very solid group this year. I don't think any of us thought we would see this level of production from our flycatchers this year; it's been the most pleasant surprise of the season for me. You know things are going pretty well when you clamour for a given player to get more playing time, but then can't come up with a good way to get that playing time for him without taking out another player who deserves it just as much.
Best so far? Skip Schumaker. I know, we all love the Ricker, and that's fantastic. But we all knew how talented Ankiel was coming in. There was some doubt, of course, as to whether he would manage to maintain any kind of consistency, or if he would just be horribly exposed, but we all knew the potential was there. The improvement that Skip has shown has really, to me at least, come almost out of nowhere. The plate discipline, the increased ability to drive the ball, and the continued excellent defense have moved Schumaker from the level of fifth outfielder/ defensive specialist into the realm of pretty solid leadoff man. He may not be the leadoff hitter on a championship club, but he's a serviceable, dependable leadoff hitter.
The disappointment, again here, is pretty obvious. Chris Duncan has been far less than we though he would be this year. He's still getting on base at a nice clip, due to his solid plate discipline, but his ability to actually make things happen by swinging the bat has virtually disappeared. His power stroke still hasn't come back, even when he seems to be completely healthy, and he's obviously a minus in the field. Duncan is the least complete player the Cardinals have in the outfield, and the one dimension he formally could be counted on to provide just hasn't been in extant. He has shown at least minor signs of life lately, so that's encouraging, but to this point, Duncan has been very disappointing.
Corner Infield
Overall grade: B
This one is really a tale of two players. Albert, obviously, is still the biggest asset the Cardinals have. He's probably the best player in the National League, even if he does occasionally drive us all crazy with his baserunning antics. He's reached base in every game he's played this year; it's tough to perform much better than that.
Troy Glaus, on the other hand, has been mildly disappointing, at least in one regard. The power definitely hasn't been there yet, and it's been pretty glaring, considering that power is the most striking part of Santa's game, at least in an ordinary year. He has, however, been a pleasant surprise with the glove, showing much better defensive prowess than what I had expected coming into the season. Glaus drags the grade down a bit here, but not a ton. His bat has underperformed, his glove has overperformed. I expect the power to be there, but I will admit to being a little impatient to see it show up.
Middle Infield
Overall grade: D+
Now this is a group that's a little less enjoyable to rate. The Cardinals, on balance, have one of the weakest middle infields in all of baseball. There's an almost complete lack of pop in these bats; in fact, the bats themselves are so weak they're almost not there.
Adam Kennedy has shown at least a pulse this year, hitting for a decent average and playing solid average defense, but he still mostly hit ground balls to the right side. They're slightly firmer ground balls this year than last, but grounders to the right, all the same.
Cesar Izturis actually helps the grade here slightly, as his defense has been as good as advertised, and his plate discipline has been better than what we've seen in the past. He's still an awful hitter, but he's done his part getting on base and has been a definite upgrade in the field over what the Cardinals have had the last couple of years. Overall, he definitely hasn't been great, but we shouldn't have expected more than what we're currently getting from him. Not a terrible signing, although I do think that Brendan Ryan could do mostly the same job much more cheaply.
Speaking of Mr. Ryan, he's probably been the brightest spot in the MI to me. He brings tremendous energy, he's hit well, he probably has more pop than any of the other guys here, and his defense is a plus. He does still have an occasional mental lapse, but he seems to have calmed down a bit since he's been here. Overall, I like the kid, and I would like to see him play more. Unfortunately, I kind of doubt that's going to happen.
Aaron Miles rounds out this rather unimpressive group. Miles has done exactly what he always does. He hits for a nice average, with no power and no walks. He has limited offensive value, and is on the team mostly for his versatility. The problem with that, of course, is that he's not really that versatile. He plays second base well enough, but doesn't really have the physical tools to play short or third base. As long as Miles is here, I'll probably say the same thing about him. He's fine as the 25th man, but he's really miscast getting 400 at bats. Sunrise, sunset.
Catcher
Overall grade: C
The catcher position hasn't really added much, nor detracted, from the team this year, in my opinion. Yadier has made some of his standard highlight reel throws, and has swung the bat pretty well, but he is what he is. I think there are better uses of resources than to carry a catcher who really only offers a glove, but that's my personal crusade, and I don't expect many to agree with me. Yadi has saved a few runs with his arm, and he's probably cost a few with the stick. Still, the Cardinals could do much worse.
Jason LaRue, on the other hand, really only has his mullet and his facial hair going for him. Since he's not riding a Harley up to the plate, he doesn't bring a whole lot of value, entertainment or otherwise. He has a nice arm as a backup, and doesn't seem to actively irritate the pitchers the way Einar Diaz used to. Still, when you find yourself looking back on the offensive play of Gary Bennett with nostalgia, something isn't right.
The catching corps is what it is. Neither of these guys kill the team, and Yadi's probably a small plus. But the Cardinals don't have an impact talent here, and that's why their grade sits squarely in the middle.
Managing
Overall grade: B
Sigh. Here's my chance to really stick it to Tony, and I can't bring myself to do it. Sure, there are plenty of things he does that still want to make me run my head through a wall, but I just can complain about the job he's done this year. Tony has this team believing that they should be good, and that's a pretty impressive achievment in and of itself. This is a team that isn't loaded with talent, and yet they've played solid baseball so far. They've done most of the little things right, and that's why they find themselves five games over, when I didn't think they would get over .500 for more than a day or two at a time this whole season.
I'm also including the coaching here, which I think has really been exemplary. I'm not a fan of Dave Duncan, by any means, but this pitching staff, composed almost entirely of castoffs and question marks, has been surprisingly solid. I have to give the man props for that.
On the offensive side of things, while the hitters haven't been great, the overall approach they've taken to most at bats has been. This team may not have the talent of the 2004-2005 clubs, but they have the same patient, tenacious approach that was a large part of what made those teams so tough to play. Like I said, the hitters themselves may not be All Stars in many cases, but the coaching staff has made these guys into tough outs.
Overall Team Grade: B-
I would like to just give this team a B, as I think they've played very well to this point, and have probably overachieved. I have to take them down just a peg from that, though, because there have been some troubling patterns early as well. They leave far too many men on base, the bullpen has hurt the team in the standing, and the starting pitchers are showing signs of coming back down to earth. This team has performed quite well, but it's not all sweetness and light. I think a B- is just about right for this group.
Where this team goes from here is tough to really see. There are obviously some areas that can be improved, and what can be done to shore up those weaknesses will largely determine the direction our Birds head in. I have a feeling the roster may look a fair bit different even by the time I do a midseason card; this team is definitely still a fascinating study in the way a roster can evolve when a team is in transition. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where the season takes us, even when it's frustrating.
Okay, gang. That's my quarterly report. Feel free to discuss. (Otherwise, the site really doesn't have much of a point, now does it?)
0 recs |
287
comments
Comments
I don't get it.....
I’m not a fan of Dave Duncan, by any means
To me, you lose credibility when you make a statement like that. You don’t have to agree with everything he does, you don’t have to think that he is “versatile” in his handling of pitchers, but the guy is likely to go down as one of the best 5 pitching coaches in the history of the game, if not THE best.
Some of our fans that “hate” on TLR and Duncan are going to be unpleasantly surprised when we have a new staff take over.
by SoonerfanTU on May 14, 2008 9:26 AM EDT 0 recs
To follow up on this.....
I’d say the number of pitchers Duncan has helped improve/succeed probably outnumbers the cases such as “Reyes” by at least 5-1. Pretty solid.
by SoonerfanTU on
May 14, 2008 9:31 AM EDT
up
0 recs
you posted this while mine was posted. So I guess you can nevermind my post as I agree on this point obviously
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on
May 14, 2008 9:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
duncan has plusses and minuses, like any coach
i’m not a huge fan of the guy either - and i say that will full acknowledgment of the guy’s successes. he’s had his share, but he’s also had plenty of failures. i don’t like his style.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 10:01 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I can handle that
Always going to be plus and minuses, and the minuses will add up with years growing in quantity. I’m just going into this year knowing if we have any chance at all, and if this starting core holds up, he’ll be one of the main ones to thank, at least from a coaching standpoint.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on
May 14, 2008 10:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
agreed --- duncan's had a very good year so far
and that’s exactly what red baron said.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 10:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree on a point or two of that.
I don’t have any issues with the fan or not a fan comment because at the end of the day the post is going to be opinionated, it’s a report card (recalls Mrs. Page having a bad opinion of his handwriting :)).
But I do see Duncan generally getting a lot of flack over Reyes like issues when he’s had a ton of success stories. At the end of the day I’ll trade a few ‘reyes’ issues over some loopers, welly’s, wainos and the like.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on
May 14, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
on duncan...
I think there’s more to it than just Duncan getting a lot of flack over Reyes alone.
It seems to me that while it’s very true he’s made a career out of great success stories, he’s also had some not so great stories very recently. Coming to mind just off the top are Jason Marquis, Kip Wells, and then yes, Anthony Reyes – in back to back years no less, and there are probably others. I’m very aware that not everyone will gel with the man, but it just seems to me that the recent pattern of at least 1 pitcher per year the last couple of years is troubling. It makes him look kind of stubborn and cantankerous.
As Larry said above, he’s got his plusses and minuses – heck, he’s human just like the rest of us. But if he’s truly taken the attitude of “my way or the highway” – well, that’s just not good leadership and not good coaching.
by A1R3Z on
May 14, 2008 10:15 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree
in general to everything you typed. I don’t necessarily agree with the Jason, Wells addition as I seen them more as “failed experiments” over “phenoms ruined by duncan”, and even if you look into the Reyes situation there seems to be more to the eye, outside influences and the like.
But one thing about it, if he is getting cancerous in his old age, you know that he’s getting closer and closer to being gone. If not at the end of this year, most likely the end of next when Tony’s tenure is coming to a close.
I’m ready for some new blood for pitching coach, but I’m glad that the new blood didn’t have to go through a baptism of fire with the core we have now. If that makes sense
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on
May 14, 2008 10:27 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Didn't Marquis.....
Have a really good year under Duncan in STL, or did I dream that?
by SoonerfanTU on
May 14, 2008 10:31 AM EDT
up
0 recs
He did
but he also had an incomprehensibly bad year as well.
"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
May 14, 2008 10:38 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Seems to be the story of Marquis career.................
Lou Pinella absolutely hates the guys and the Cubs would trade him if his contract were not so awful.
by ICbirdfan on
May 14, 2008 10:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
he had a good year...
a mediocre year, and a bad year…i would say it evens out to a league average pitcher…cant really complain about that…although i will always complain about Marquis
"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
May 14, 2008 12:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Marquis still sucks. Wells still sucks and sucked before Dunc saw him...
Reyes just doesn’t fit.
However the COL is looking good and so is Piniero and Loop. Lohse was okay for awhile.
Dunc seems to do a great job with pitchers that listen and are willing to take direction. The stubborn ones like Reyes and Marquis, not so sure abou Wells, seem to get nowhere. Thus they created thier own failures.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on
May 14, 2008 10:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
+6
perfectly typed.
I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang
by AdjustedExpectations on
May 14, 2008 10:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
but Red Blazer, what you're basically saying
is that duncan is infallible. you’re saying that all pitchers who listen to duncan succeed, and all those who ignore him fail — is that really true? duncan is never wrong? that’s what dave probably thinks. he has a one-size-fits-all formula for success; it has worked for him more often than it has failed him, and he believes in it, so he sticks to it. but that doesn’t mean it’s an infallible formula. it doesn’t work for everybody.
on balance he’s a good pitching coach, but he only works well with certain types of pitchers. i wish he had a broader range.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 12:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
it also assumes
that when a pitcher succeeds, it’s b/c of Duncan and when he fails, it’s all the pitcher’s fault. That’s a tremendous fallacy.
by houstoncardinal on
May 14, 2008 12:05 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Completely agree with HC and lboros
"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
May 14, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
that is true...
but when a pitcher fails most people blame duncan and that is not always the case, as well.
"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
May 14, 2008 12:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
???
No, when pitchers fail, THEY get booed. The vast majority of fans would blame the player for shortcomings and not a coach, even one as well regarded as Duncan.
"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
May 14, 2008 12:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
nobody blamed duncan for kip wells' failure
or jorge sosa, or jason marquis, or dustin hermanson or brett tomko or mike maroth.
to me, the frustration lies in the types of pitchers the cardinals won’t even consider. they never looked at ted lilly because he pitches up in the zone — not dave’s type of pitcher, so the cards wouldn’t even consider him. but they were hot in pursuit of miguel batista . . . . . that’s what is frustrating about dave duncan.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
agree completely
That’s the biggest complaint I have about Duncan and the Cards, is that they won’t even bother going after pitchers who could possibly help them because they don’t fit the particular Duncan mold. It speaks volumes – it says to the baseball community (free agency, other teams) that if you’re a pitcher who doesn’t fit our style (groundball, pitch to contact), then don’t come knocking. It says that we’re only interested in hiring those pitchers who will make our pitching coach look like a mastermind. I could go on…
Yes it’s true that if Dave Duncan is your pitching coach, than you need to supply him with the tools he needs to help the team succeed. And in this case he goes with what’s worked for him in the past. However, by passing up pitchers who are potentially more talented just because they don’t fit his mold, that’s doing the team and the fans a disservice. That’s just not good leadership. A good coach and leader can take what he or she knows and help apply it to ANYONE. Find a way to gel the ideas to the player. You take that more talented pitcher who doesn’t exactly fit your mold, and find a way to take the tools he has, take the experience and knowledge you have, and then find a way to get the best results using a combination of the two. That’s what a coach’s job is – to get the best out of your players, period, no matter who they are or what they bring to the table. And that’s not what Dave Duncan does, to a fault.
Is he a good coach? Overall, yes, he’s very good at what he does. But if what he does is limiting the team’s choices… well, which would you rather – pick a nice, fresh, ripe apple out of the barrel? Or weed through a whole container of rotten ones to find the one with the least bruises and worms? The best of the downtrodden is not necessarily the best of everyone available.
by A1R3Z on
May 14, 2008 1:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What is Colonel Wellymeyer doing on the Cardinals?
by Evilfrog on
May 14, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
colonel wellemeyer was acquired to pitch in relief
he was a waiver-wire claim who was picked up with no risk, who became an emergency starter because everybody else failed.
don’t get me wrong, i’m not knocking wellemeyer; he’s great. but it’s not as if duncan identified him and said, “there’s our next starting pitcher.” wellemeyer was a hard thrower who the cards thought could shore up the bullpen.
kudos to duncan for salvaging welley’s career —- he deserves all the credit in the world for that. nobody else in baseball thought this guy was worth anything. but it doesn’t speak to the issue we are addressing above. wellemeyer was brought here to pitch in relief, not to start.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 1:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
They did scout and try to sign Burnett
who doesn’t fit the stererotypical Duncan mold. I do understand your point, but sometimes, I wonder if this argument is a bit overstated.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'll give you that one...
To quote LB – “one size fits most” is probably a more accurate description of Duncan’s tutelage.
And while I agree – they did try to go after Burnett – I’ve always wondered about how much. Case in point – He signed for 5 years 55 million. If I remember correctly, Jocketty was given the go ahead to go 5 guaranteed years to match, and instead went with some sort of team option 5th year – which brought the money total to above the Jays total (60 or so?), but only 4 years (40-some odd million) guaranteed. If you want him that badly, and have the OK from the owner to spend, why not just do it? Maybe it was just as simple as a business decision – I don’t know… I’m sure I don’t know all the specifics. I’ve just always wondered.
by A1R3Z on
May 14, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
and now that I'm finished with my tangent
because the details of the Burnett offer wasn’t really the argument…
I do concede that you are correct. They did go after Burnett, and he doesn’t fit the Duncan mold. “One size fits most” is probably the best way to describe it.
by A1R3Z on
May 14, 2008 2:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I should also note
that Carp really wasn’t much of a GB pitcher in Toronto, and the team placed a lot of confidence in him before he even threw a pitch for the Cardinals
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Burnett is a power sinker guy
Very much in the carp mold.
by DriverZn on
May 14, 2008 2:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And even less durable.....
Regarding Burnett, that still was a bad contract in retrospect. He’s only thrown 300 innings the previous two years at a 117 ERA+ and that’s with Toronto’s defense being among the best in Ieague and he’s struggling so far this year. Not to mention if he actually does turn it around this year he’s out of there before they’ve done anything with him anyway in all likelihood.
With no evidence to the contrary, Colby Rasmus is clutch
by joker24 on
May 14, 2008 6:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Lilly
This one galls me a little bit. The fact that the guy got in a fight with his manager might have had something to do with it, don’t you think? I mean we’re talking about a guy who, on national TV no less, took his glove off on the mound and spiked it after giving up a home run (which hadn’t happened yet as of the 07 offseason, but still). It’s not a little bit possible that they didn’t take him on because he’s a raging psycho who wanted a boat load of money? They were looking at Batista b/c they needed a durable back-end guy for cheap, which is what he is. I don’t think Lilly is so much better than Batista that it justifies his baggage and his contract.
Johan Santana pitches up in the zone too. I doubt Duncan would pass on him if he became available to the Cardinals by some divine miracle.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
May 14, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I believe Gibbons is the Toronto manager
and he also got in Shea Hillebrand’s face that year as well. Seems that maybe he is the problem. Lilly is surely not a saint, but really who gives a rip? He is an effective pitcher, one that was off limits to us because of the philosophy of the pitching coach.
Busch III’s ability to supress HRs almost certainly would have played into Lilly’s strengths as well. It galls me that we weren’t in on the convo, this guy is a legit pitcher, not just some back-end, inning eater guy.
"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
May 14, 2008 1:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Fantastic!!
"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
May 14, 2008 1:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I would agree
...that Gibbons surely had something to do with it. He’s clearly a bit of a raging psycho as well. But the old saying is that it takes two to tango. Lilly obviously had something to do with that as well. Further evidence that Lilly is clearly off in the head came last year in the NLCS when he gave up a bomb and took his glove off and spiked it on national TV. Not even Zambrano has any thing done that. That was arguably one of the most cry-baby, unprofessional things I’ve ever seen on the mound by any pitcher ever. It was right up there with Clemens’s little bat chunk thing in the 2000 WS.
Look at Lilly’s numbers before he signed with the Cubbies, and you’ll see he sat at about 7.5 K/9 and 3.5 BB/9. He had posted an ERA as high as 5+ as recently as two years previous. And this was a guy asking for 10 million per? The Cards weren’t giving Suppan that, a guy who had recently helped pitched the team to a WS ring. Add it all together and I’m ok with the FO not taking a large risk on a solid, not spectacular pitcher with questionable makeup.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
May 14, 2008 2:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
but sidney ponson, who punched a judge,
was somebody they were happy to work with.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 1:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
and Ryan Franklin, after the steroid allegations
not to mention that Tony wanted to go sign everyone’s favorite happy songbird cheerleader, Barry Bonds.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 1:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Completely different
Neither Ponson nor Franklin were going to command multi-year contracts at roughly 10 million annually. If Ponson had hauled off and punched LaRussa they could have just dumped him and lost a negligible amount, whereas Lilly would still be owed a significant chunk of change.
Bonds is, at worst, the 4th best player that ever lived. If LaRussa hadn’t been at least curious about him I’d doubt his sanity. Once again, a little bit different.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on
May 14, 2008 2:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
but they were prepared to give miguel batista
$8m a year for 3 years — not quite as big a commitment as lilly, but still a major commitment. batista’s numbers were inferior to lilly’s, but he keeps the ball down and lilly doesn’t.
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 2:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I honestly can't say I thought Lilly was a good option
Looking at it now he looks like he may have been at a fair price, but he still has to finish this year and pitch next year.
I am not saying you only like Lilly after a good last year by any means lboros, because I am sure you looked at his stats and took into account pitching in the AL East.
by ICbirdfan on
May 14, 2008 2:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I wonder how much Lilly's baggage had to do with a no go.
Obviously if you have a player as good as Bonds you just deal with baggage but Ted Lilly is not that good of a player that makes teams say we can live with his side antics….....
This is privy info and you know all teams do back ground checks and what not prior to signing guys
by ICbirdfan on
May 14, 2008 2:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not only is that a maddening trait
but it makes it easier for the opposition if they face the same type of pitcher every night. When you see 89mph with a sinker every night it is easier to make adjustments.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
May 14, 2008 2:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
We have some variance
Some guys can run the sinker up to 91 while others only hit 87 with their sinkers.
Some throw more sliders while some throw more curves.
But we don’t needs no stinking changeups or 4 seamers. Its sad when you think neither Tom Glavine or John Tudor would have been able to work with the current pitching coach.
by DriverZn on
May 14, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Or Johan Santana....
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
May 14, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
oh come on now
let’s not be ridiculous.
Anthony Reyes != Johan Santana.
by Jhusk on
May 14, 2008 7:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
unless it's reyes
Then everytime he does good It’s A big fuck you to Duncan. But anything he get’s hit hard it’s because Duncan messed him up.
by Evilfrog on
May 14, 2008 12:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Again, not true
tons of people on this site trash Reyes for his crappy performances.
"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
May 14, 2008 12:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Tons of people on this site
trash Reyes for his crappy performances.
"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
May 14, 2008 12:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
second verse,
same as the first. lol
C'mon you Redbirds, lets prove em' wrong, again!
by yer dog first on
May 14, 2008 12:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
50/50 not really worth rehasing either......
This site is 50% DD fault and 50% Reyes fault…...
by ICbirdfan on
May 14, 2008 12:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Rick Ankiel
is a delicate flower.
"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
May 14, 2008 1:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Pitching philosophy
For whatever reason, when the discussion revolves around the philosophy of the team’s coaching staff people have very strong opinions.
"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
May 14, 2008 1:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
thats because
people in stl are for some reason really hard on coaches anymore. its weird, because we are generally considered soft about sports
If you are in St. Louis check out my band, Griffin and the Gargoyles
(formerly Gargoyle Reign, Gargoyle Lounge)
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com
www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
:-D
by jealousblues on
May 14, 2008 2:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think its an easy way to express frustration about the team
without having to cheer against/be mad at the players
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Does Duncan really have a one size fits all strategy?
He doesn’t seem to be pushing the groundball thing with Wellemeyer and Lohse. He was happy to let Stottlemeyer throw hard and get his strikeouts. Same with Alan Benes (not that that’s necessarily a success story, but still…) and Ankiel the pitcher. Duncan LOVED Woody, and he was a flyball pitcher.
Now it’s true that he pushes an ingame strategy that deemphasizes going for strikeouts aggressively, and I think he’s probably pushed an approach on Reyes that probably wasn’t appropriate for him, but I think it’s probably unfair to call his approach ‘one size fits all’
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 12:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
you're right, "one-size-fits-all" is probably too strong
but “one-size-fits-most” probably isn’t. dave duncan pitching staffs have the same characteristics year in and year out. almost without exception, they are in the bottom 1/4 of the league strikeouts and the top 1/4 in groundballs — no matter who the personnel are. that’s partly because he selects the personnel who are predisposed to execute his game plan, and partly because he imposes the same game plan on (almost) every pitcher.
it’s interesting how a very innocent comment by red baron (“i’m not a big fan of dave duncan”) has inspired such a large discussion, eh?
by lboros on
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That's fair enough
and part of me wonders if it’s just a way that the team has tried to assemble a competitive roster from junk while saving up for Rolen/Pujols type megadeals—sign cheap-o groundball junkballers, have them backed up by no-hit, good glove infielders, hope that the infielders can make the groundballers salveagable, and use the rest of the cash you’ve saved to sign high priced megastars who you hope can carry the team. It’ll be interesting to see if Mozilak will continue the strategy.
And yes, the intensity of this discussion is very interesting, especially considering that not only was the comment pretty innocent, but it wasn’t soemthing that he even went out of his way to highlight in the paragraph.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
May 14, 2008 1:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think it is great to have a pitching coach who gets his guys prepared
of course, there is always a “but”. I have heard a number of pitchers say that Dunc gets them better prepared from a strategy perspective than any other previous coach. However, there is more to being a pitching coach than strategy. There is conditioning, there is mechanics, and there is what I would call, for lack of a better term, pitcher development.
To me, pitcher development means helping a guy to either refine his existing repertoire or add new pitches to it. I am not saying Dunc does not do this, I just never hear it being discussed. Not to get everyone excited, but a prime example of this is Anthony Reyes. I think he is the perfect candidate for learning a new pitch, particularly a splitter. Look what it did for Schilling’s career. It is the perfect complement for a guy who has a good, high fastball. To cite an example closer to home, Andy Benes prolonged his career by learning a splitter. That pitch was not taught to him by Dave Duncan, but by Chuck Finley.
I don’t see how a guy who has never pitched could excel at understanding how to condition a pitcher or how to properly develop a pitcher’s stuff. Maybe it could be done, but it seems counterintuitive to me. I can’t think of a single example of a hitting coach who never hit.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
May 14, 2008 5:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Duncan
Does not matter at all that he did not pitch at this stage of his career. I would say if it were his first or second year coaching it would be an point of concern for me or anyone he was teaching.
He has been around a lot of very good and great pitchers in his time and has picked their brain enough to pick up things. I would also bet he did some pitching at the HS level and it’s not like he has never been on a mound or anything. I think considering Dunc was not a great player he picked a lot of people’s brain’s and knows quite a bit about pitching, devloping a pitcher, and knowing how pitchers think despite never toeing the rubber at the MLB level.
by ICbirdfan on
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
"Does not matter at all that he did not pitch..."
is a pretty bold statement. I wonder what all the other pitching coaches who actually pitched would say about that? I am not saying it is some sort of fatal flaw or anything, but to completely dismiss the experiences of men who actually made their living pitching seems a little extreme.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on
May 14, 2008 7:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That's what the 2 seamer was supposed to be
Duncan was sure he wasn’t going to have long term success in th

