Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



faux foes?

last week a reader named jeremy sent me an e-mail which read, in part:

I was looking around at some of Baseball Propsectus' stats and came across Batter Quality of Pitcher Faced. I thought it sounded cool, so I sorted by decreasing OBP to see who'd faced really easy pitching to date. I was shocked when 8 Cards showed up in the top 10. This made me pretty worried that our OBP is a mirage and our offense is going to collapse in the near future. I looked at our schedule, and we've played 9 games against the top 7 NL staffs according to ERA, going 2-1 against the Cubs, Dodgers, and Pads. We haven't faced the Braves, Diamondbacks, Phillies, or Mets yet. This means we've played 87% of our games to date against the bottom half of the pitching in the league.

the cardinals played the phillies over the weekend, which gets them up to 12 games against above-average nl pitching staffs; they also have 3 games against the tampa bay rays, who rank 5th in the american league. so that gives them 15 games against good-pitching teams; they’re 10-5 in those games, for whatever it’s worth. here’s how the hitters have fared:

AB  R  H 2B 3B HR BB | AVG OBP SLG R/G
vs above avg staffs  533   70 143   19  3  18  48 | .268 .329 .417 4.67
vs below avg staffs 1901 264 518 106  9  51 246 | .272 .358 .418 4.71

jeremy’s concern does not appear to be entirely misplaced; the cards’ obp drops almost 30 points against good-pitching teams. but their overall scoring average doesn’t, and their average and slugging average have remained the same. another consideration --- the five pitching staffs in question have yielded an aggregate obp of .320 this year, and the cardinals beat that by 9 points. for that matter, they came out ahead on the other two markers as well, batting 16 points higher than the rest of the league against those 5 staffs and slugging 22 points higher. but then, it has to be noted that the cardinals generally avoided facing the ace of these good pitching staffs --- they didn’t have to hit against zambrano, kazmir, peavy, or hamels. that’s not a knock against the cardinals --- it’s not as if they are dodging good pitchers on purpose. but it might explain why they’ve outperformed the league against these good teams.

sample-size caveats apply heavily here; we can’t really draw any conclusions from a 15-game sample. the available evidence suggests that jeremy might be on to something, at least where obp is concerned; it’s worth keeping an eye on this. it will still be a while, though, before the cards run into a spate of difficult pitching. in their next 5 series (16 games), they only have 1 against a pitching staff that ranks in the upper half of its league --- the 3-game set at fenway. but starting on june 30, they will face good pitching on a daily basis for more than a month. 30 of their next 37 games will be against the mets, cubs, braves, padres, dodgers, and phillies, all of whom rank 8th or better in nl era. they’ll also have 4 games in that stretch vs the brewers, who rank 9th in the league; the only truly bad staff they’ll get to face is pittsburgh’s (last in the league in era). the good news is that pujols probably will be back on the field for most or all of that part of the slate.

jeremy’s inquiry got me wondering: does a similar effect help explain the unexpectedly good showing by the cardinals’ own pitching staff? apparently so: per BP, kyle lohse has faced the 5th weakest slate of opposing batters in the nl this year (aggregate ops of .709); wellemeyer ranks 7th (.709), looper 11th (.715), and wainwright 16th (.719); that’s among pitchers with at least 60 innings pitched to date (there are 60 such in the league). but before we write off the stl staff’s performance as a mirage, i have to point out that 4 cub pitchers (zambrano, dempster, lilly, and marquis) rank among the top 18 in terms of feeble opposition batters; if the stl pitchers are merely lucky, then the cubs’ hurlers are no less so. moreover, nearly all of the top 10 pitchers on the nl leaderboard rank among the top 15 or so in terms of low-ops opposition.

still, the cardinal pitching staff has only faced 3 teams this year with an aggregate OPS+ higher than 100 --- the cubs (111), phillies (110), and rays (103). they also have played 21 games against the astros and pirates, who both have OPS+s of 100 --- ie, dead average. in a total of 30 games against those clubs, the cards are 18-13, a .581 winning percentage; they’re 23-16 against everyone else for a winning percentage of .590. they’ve allowed 5.27 runs a game against the average-or-above lineups (4.76 runs/game if we eliminate the 20-run pasting at the hands of the phils, which skews the average), vs only 3.70 runs/game against below-average lineups.

cutting (belatedly) to the chase, it’s safe to say the cardinals still haven’t hit the difficult part of their schedule. only 18 of their games so far have come against teams that are currently .500 or better; the cards are 10-8 in those games, and 32-21 against losing clubs. they get 6 games vs the royals in the next couple of weeks, but beginning on june 30 they will face good competition nearly every night. 35 of their next 41 games will be against teams that are currently no worse than 1 game under .500 --- that includes 7 games each against the mets and braves, who are both 1 game under at the moment but can hardly be described as easy competition. it’s obvious carpenter won’t be back for any of that stretch, and unclear how much wellemeyer and / or wainwright will be available. . . . . best not to think about that now. they have an easy opponent at home this week, an extremely winnable series; better fatten up, because there may be some leaner times ahead.

0 recs | Comment 381 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

We've done well agianst good teams

Im more worried about the injuries to ace and best player than the strength of schedule right now. Combine those with the Injury to the Colonel and Yadi. Well, I just think that the injuries will have more effect on our record than the strength of schedule.

by Evilfrog on Jun 17, 2008 8:58 AM EDT   0 recs

i seem to remember

discussion on this site after the hot april that our schedule was easy due to a disproportionate number of home games, crappy opponents, etc., and that it would get a fair bit tougher in may. we seem to have made it through that stretch alright.

go cards, o's, and phillies.

...boiler up.

by moboiler on Jun 17, 2008 9:12 AM EDT   0 recs

perhaps you're remembering

this post of two Sundays ago. It’s funny. I wrote about my Dad in the first couple of paragraphs and he just called this morning and told me he read that post so I went back and read it just before reading this. LB’s post today re: our pitchers and hitters does verify the conclusion I reached—that both us and the Cubs have faced relatively easy schedules so far and that it’s going to get tougher. It’s difficult to keep up w/ LB’s good work so I’m always happy when he verifies some of the stuff I’ve posted before.

by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

in the end I don't care how it is done

I am happy with the theme behind LB’s post yesterday. Just keep faking it for 91 more games fellas (plus like the playoffs and stuff)

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Isn't this an NL Central effect?

plus our lack of Cub games. The other divisions have 3 teams listed as top pitching staffs; only the Cubs were listed from NL Central. That’s why they haven’t faced top teams too, although I would think Houston is up there for offense ratings.

Of course then we get into this whole balanced schedule mess and team ratings, is the NL Central really bad pitching or does it have some really good offense (Cubs, Brewers, Stros)?

Whatever the case, since we’re mostly going to face NL Central foes I’m not too worried about it. Maybe our pitching and hitting numbers are a little biased downwards, but we still have shown we can compete with good teams.

by enoscountry on Jun 17, 2008 9:16 AM EDT   0 recs

Doesn't doing good mean your competition is doing bad?

Doesn’t a good pitcher lower the OPS of those he faces? And winning against another team lowers there winning percentage? Sometimes I think we worry too much about how good our opponents were or are going to be yet we seem to be holding our own against every one this year, no true blowout series and only a few blowout games.

by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 9:28 AM EDT   0 recs

agreeed, it gets circular . . .

so it is hard to say whether a team is bad offensively b/c they are facing good pitching or because they are actually bad offensively

who will be the new MV3?

by sprfldcard on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It reminds me of Tommy Lasorda's

old joke about why his pitching career was so poor in comparison to a guy like Drysdale’s: “It wasn’t fair. Drysdale always got to pitch on the days the other teams weren’t hittin’.”

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 9:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sounds like McCarver's quote:

“Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn’t score any runs.”

by Ray Lankford on Jun 17, 2008 10:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

dammit

didn’t mean to post a one worder. Don’t know how that happened…

Anyway, my actual remark was going to be that it most definitely is circular especially in regards to the pitching. When the cutoff is 60 innings, that means that’s roughly only 10 games. In one game, a pitcher could get as much as about 13% of those innings. So basically, if someone were to throw a no-hitter and have 7-8 other pretty mediocre starts, they’re probably going to show up pretty favorably in the stats.

For the hitters, since they play everyday, there’s a better sample size, so I would be concerned that our hitters haven’t faced the toughest pitching yet.

But the pitchers… I wouldn’t be concerned in the least.

by mtalken on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i knew somebody would make this argument

it may seem circular, but it isn’t. there just aren’t enough plate appearances between any single pitcher and any single hitter to skew the results.

think of it like this: lohse has faced kaz matsui 8 times this year (the most he has faced any opposing hitter) and held him to a .250 ops. matsui has had 221 plate appearances against other pitchers this year, with an ops of about .695 . . . . you can’t argue that matsui looks like a bad hitter because kyle lohse keeps getting him out. matsui is a bad hitter because every pitcher gets him out . . . .

kyle lohse has faced 361 batters this year. those 361 batters have taken, cumulatively, upwards of 10,000 plate appearances in 2008. his appearances against them are just a tiny fraction of their overall sample - not nearly enough to skew the sample up or down one way or the other.

by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This is what i was thinking

The reason the Cards are beating ‘bad’ teams so often is because beating a team often is what makes it ‘bad’. I’d like to think of it more along the lines of proving their quality as a team rather than taking easy wins from crap teams.

But yeah, like you said \/ \/ \/ down there, it gets circular i think.

by cd on Jun 17, 2008 10:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yes, but

the other teams have played 70 games but only a few are against us. While our good pitchers may be able to lower their OPS some, the other 60+ games will weigh much more heavily than the few they’ve played against us.

by chuckb on Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

exactly

the padres and dodgers aren’t bad teams because we went 2-1 against them; they’re bad teams because they are both 8 under .500 against the rest of the league (excluding us). the nationals are 1-5 against us, and 28-37 against the rest of the league.

by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

while that is true

the bad teams have to play someone, if the padres had played the Ms more often would they be as bad as they are? I think these stats are very relative and often change after the fact. If we play a .500 team one day and beat them then the next day they are counted as a sub .500 team. Most of the time someone looks at stats like “how many good teams have you beat” they look at a snapshot in time, who are the good teams today, now how many times did you beat them? They don’t take into account that the team may have been a “bad” team at the time or a bad team may have been a good team. When we last faced the Stros they were above .500 I think and now they are below. Were they good then? Are they really bad now? I just don’t put very much stock into those type of stats.

by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 1:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Padres are 13-7 in their last 20 games

Climbing, ever so steadily…

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans

by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 3:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

so if they hit .500

will that make our wins against them more important?

I know where you are coming from though they aren’t completely out of it yet since the DBacks are starting to slip some. It is weird that the Top 2 NL teams are in the Central and the NL West leader is only 4 games over .500.

by StLHugo on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why do we keep looking for reasons to fail?

This team is pretty good. That’s the crux of it. They are just pretty good. They aren’t great, ala 2004. They aren’t horrible, ala THE ENTIRE 90’S. They really have no glaring weaknesses (weak-hitting middle infield excepted). They pitch fairly well. They hit for a bit of power. They walk some. They are fantastic in the field. And, to top it all off, they are fairly young and really deep.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 9:36 AM EDT   0 recs

I agree.

I understand that there are weak areas and possible rough patches ahead, but I sometimes think it’s too easy to over analyze and lose the positives we have going. I don’t want to put blinders on, but at the same time, why look for trouble?

mel

by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

it would be an incredibly boring site

if all we wrote, day after day, was some variation on “Gee, aren’t the Cardinals great?”

it certainly wouldn’t be worth my trouble to do that. what interests me is to weigh the team’s strengths and weaknesses and try to understand them.

by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 12:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

agreed but...

I too think we over analyze just a bit. While I know it isn’t the case it almost seems like some are just waiting for the team to fail as predicted. Nobody thought we would be where we are right now and no one knows if it is sustainable. I like the analysis but all the analysis in the world wouldn’t have predicted where the Cards currently set. This might actually be a pretty good team. Yes, they are definitely overachieving and it’s probably not sustainable at this level but barring a major disaster (Albert being gone, God forbid) this team is probably going to be making some noise in September. It’s going to be a fun summer and the TLR/Dunc connection right now are pulling the right strings. I’m enjoying watching this team gut out every series.

by okiecardfan on Jun 17, 2008 12:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The whole point of this site

is to overanalyze. If you don’t want to ruminate on subjects that are not readily apparent to the average fan then I think it is a waste of time to come and read the content here. Furthermore, while I consider myself on the positive side as a fan, I am still interested in understanding the team’s deficiencies so that I might better understand when the team fails.

by indakind on Jun 17, 2008 1:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i don't know

if i completely agree with that. Analyze, yes, but OVER? I dunno. Sometimes it has the feel of LOOKING for failure. I definitely am not a proponent of of “gee, aren’t the Cardinals great” everyday, but at the same time, I’m not sure I understand the need to look for failure to come.

mel

by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 1:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

"If you don’t want to ruminate on subjects that are not readily apparent to the average fan then I think it is a waste of time to come and read the content here."

people come here for their own reasons, and the average fan can understand more than you give them credit for. And, overanalyze = “ignoring truths in favor of analysis” it’s inherently a bad thing.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jun 17, 2008 2:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

People with a strong statistical/analytical bent

will constantly compare the team’s actual standing to where their analysis of the numbers suggests the team should be. For that reason guys like lboros are not likely to fall prey to irrational exuberance (and hopefully will not fall prey to irrational pessimism either). Really, the best statistical analysts in baseball are likely to have the same sober qualities that we would see in good stock analysts. But we have so much emotion tied up in this entertainment that we love, that sometimes levelheadedness looks like pessimism.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 2:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I know, I know.

I know what you are getting at, but when we win, it seems we have to justify, statistically, that we DESERVED to win. I realize that over a season, the law of averages will drag a team more toward their true potential, be it good or bad. I also think that we, as devoted El Birdos, sometimes miss out on the simple joy of winning no matter what the numbers say.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yes. exactly.

I think that this is a part of what I feel as well.

mel

by mel1975 on Jun 17, 2008 3:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

right

i don’t think lboros got into today’s discussion thinking it was going to have a negative feel. it just happened that way. there are other times when he has a post where he thinks its going to be negative and the stats actually look positive.

"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy

by FutureMan on Jun 17, 2008 1:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

well

some of the analysis is worth it, just trying to figure out if we are going to be a legitimate contender in the second half. it will alter how the GM performs the next few months, for sure.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think

this analysis screams of the age-old adage:

“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jun 17, 2008 4:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

btw

not necessarily this analysis will alter how the GM goes about the season (unless he’s actually an avid reader?)

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 5:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

LB, I do agree with you.

I was making more of a comment on the overall tone of the blog this year versus others. It seems that last year, we were a fundamentally flawed team that was VERY top-heavy. We had a couple of superstars and a bunch of underperforming has-beens. Yet, with all the flaws, we as a community were much more optomistic in our tone than it seems to me. I know that is just one man’s view, therefore we need to have a small sample-size warning (I’ve always wanted to use that term, tee-hee), but it seems to me that the prevalent opinion goes something like this: “Yeah, we’re winning, BUT…..” Whereas last year the tone was more of: “Yeah we’re winning DESPITE…..”.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i guess it's all in how you read it

i don’t think any of us would disagree that this team’s performance has been surprising. and few among us would deny that the team has some holes. you might think i’m a pessimist because i’m not sure whether or not the team can continue to surprise, and continue to win despite its limitations. other people might think i just have a healthy dose of skepticism about the team.

by lboros on Jun 17, 2008 4:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think we can all have a healthy balance

We can realize this team does have flaws, expect that some of those may be eventually exposed, and still hope like heck that they aren’t. People sometimes make the mistake of reading what somebody thinks, and interpreting it as what they want. I’m comfortable that while everyone here may have different thoughts and views on any number of topics involving the team, we all want the same results. If we keep that in mind the discussions of whether people are being too negative or too positive become almost irrelevant.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 17, 2008 4:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You know why I think they are winning?

I truly believe this team is winning because they have 2 servicable players for EVERY position (except for Pujols). We can almost always put 2 hot bats in the outfield. We have 4 fair middle infielders that all play quality defense. We have a great defensive catching corps. We have loads of good young bullpen arms. There are reinforcements ready to do a decent job, no matter what the situation. Ahhh, depth is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:38 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

To reply to my own comment.

This depth allows us to do a much better job of hiding our ineffeciencies than in years past. Tony is able to put players in a position to succeed, rather than let them languish in failure. We are much more able to ride the “hot” bat now, as slumping ones will just sit the bench.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 4:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hey!

1996 was pretty magical, until Game 5 of the NLCS anyways (shudder)

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans

by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 12:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah

I thought the teams in the 90’s were pretty entertaining, if not quite as good as the 80’s and aughts for the redbirds. I liked watching some Guerrero, Lankford, and whoever else I’m forgetting right now.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

oh yeah

Gilke, etc.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 17, 2008 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, the late 90's were pretty cool.

I was in college in Lebanon, IL at the time, and I got to go to lots of games in the $4 bleacher seats. I even got in a playoff game or 2. I guess I was referring more to the 1990-94 era.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Jun 17, 2008 3:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yep, with the exception

of 1997 which was one of the most painful seasons I can remember (even if we did land McGwire that year).

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 17, 2008 4:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

One positive

as our schedule gets tougher, the same can be said for the Cubbies.

Proud President of the Unofficial Skip Schumaker Fan Club!

I don't care about your fantasy team.

by stltrav09 on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM EDT   0 recs

Face/Off

Each of our schedules gets tougher because of all the remaining games against one another. We have only played 3 games to date with many more on the horizon. It’s going to be a very entertaining pennant chase.

by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Cubbies...

I’ve put on the back-burner till October. Right now there just another foe, as I think there’s little chance of us beating them for the division. I’m keeping a closer watch on what the top four teams in the NL East and the top two teams in the West are doing, cause these are the teams that will keep us out of the playoffs…don’t want to ignore the Brewcrew either.

by cardzfanbub on Jun 17, 2008 10:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I understand where you are coming from

But, it’s difficult to put the Cubbies out of mind. The Cards have played 71 games this season and have 91 remaining, 12, or, 13% of which are vs. the Cubs. That’s a fair share of the remaining schedule, and a share that could very well determine our playoff fate. Luckily, we also have 6, or 6.59%, of our remaining games vs. K.C., beginning tonight in STL. Tickets are still available…

by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Takin off work

...on thursday afternoon for a day game. get out of the office!

by cd on Jun 17, 2008 10:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

KC

aren’t chumps this year regardless of record. Ask Arizona, that had to pitch a gem in order to not be swept.

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

KC

is playing Bipolar baseball this season. It seems they have stretches where there are either playing very good baseball or stretches where they are absolutely putrid.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They're a momentum team

Highs are nice, lows are historically scary

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 12:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Luckily for me

the royals are just my second favorite team (way back in second). The Cardinals’ September swoon in 2006 almost killed me. How do those true blue royal fans put up with several of those a year?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the tough part of the schedule

will come in October. We should worry about it then:-)

by Harknights on Jun 17, 2008 9:46 AM EDT   0 recs

May I say something to the Mets GM?

Shame on you for firing Willie Randolph and the coaching staff in the early morning by telephone.
Ugh. I do not think Randolph was a very good manager; I do not think Manaya has done a good enough job to replenish the team of old injury prone players. I do not think the youngsters have given their best. There are legitimate reasons to fire Mr. Randolph.

But fire him by phone? What a cowardly thing to do. Mr. Randolph deserved at least a face to face meeting.

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

by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:02 AM EDT   0 recs

Only one GM is documented to be reading VEB

And that’s Mo. Clearly, more should (I’m talking to you Walter), since it has a tremendously positive effect on the results for the Redbirds. ;)

by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ha! He sure hasn't listened to my rants.

But maybe he’ll pass the word to Minaya…...

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

by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

With an addendum

I have another move that would jumpstart the Mets: trade their Reyes for our Reyes+ (yes, I’m aware that will never happen).

by bgh on Jun 17, 2008 10:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

of course if he were to be traded to St Louis

he would no longer be the most exciting player in baseball.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

right!

playing in the national league flyover division wouldn’t be quite as exciting…

by mattybobo on Jun 17, 2008 12:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Omar will hear...

plenty from the Noo Yawk media over the timing of this move!

If you’re going to fire your manager, why in the world would you make him fly all the way cross-country, win that night’s freakin’ game, and then can him at 3:15 AM Eastern? Talk about “twisting in the wind”!

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

by The Ol Goaler on Jun 17, 2008 10:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I hope he gets raked over the coals......

He should. This is about the worst way to handle this. The worst….....

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

by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Petersen (SP?) pitching coach and Randolph were fired but they kept Jerry Manuel?

I wonder why they kept Jerry Manuel as the interem coach? guess someone had to coach….
I guess the manager and pitching coach were not doing too well as they got fired.

by ICbirdfan on Jun 17, 2008 10:31 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

he wasn't that bad with the whitesox

personally I would have cleaned house with the GM gone as well, as I don’t think it’s all Willie – however, any chaos with the Mets gives me a sense of ease.

I use statistics much as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – as support rather than illumination. - Andrew Lang

by AdjustedExpectations on Jun 17, 2008 10:46 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The only thing I know about their pitching coach is that

Oliver Perez was a trainwreck before he got there, and now he’s at least decent (120 ERA+ last year, 81 so far this year)

Cardinal fan in the heart of Braves country
DFA Adam Kennedy!
Track 'em Tigers - An SB Nation Blog for Auburn Tigers fans

by Mr Redbird on Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

He has gotten pretty good results

from a group of pitchers that are all quite different. Especially worked well with Oliver Perez (who still has trouble staying “fixed”) and John Maine who really is on his way to being the most complete pitcher on the staff, Pedro becoming more of a finesse pitcher since his injury. Pelfrey’s been rocky….but even he has shown some improvement as the season has gone on. I think Peterson’s a good one. Someone will grab him before the week’s out.

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

by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 1:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Kazmir

Peterson also suggested trading Kazmir b/c of his mechanics and slight build. He said he could do wonders with Victor Zambrano…...

by njnick on Jun 17, 2008 2:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Everything I've heard said that was blown way out of proportion

"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA

by joker24 on Jun 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There were injury concerns with Kazmir

And he has been injured. A couple times in his young career. It still was a stupid trade.

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

by jillsinmo on Jun 17, 2008 4:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I hope Walter has his head in the sand

I fear that Cincinnati will jump on Rick Peterson now that he is out of a job for 2 reasons;
1: I dont like the thought of that staff having a really good pitching coach
2: I don’t like the thought of Dick Pole not being around anymore

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 17, 2008 12:06 PM EDT to parent up   0