Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



New Blog: Five For Howling - for Coyotes fans Bar-right-arrows



unlikely sources

surprisingly --- or maybe not surprisingly, depending on how you feel about la russa --- adam kennedy is not the worst hitter tony has ever started at first base. in just his 12th game as the st louis manager, back in 1996, he started danny sheaffer at first base; take a look at sheaffer’s career record and see if you think kennedy is a worse hitter. in 1997 tony started tom pagnozzi at 1b one day; pags had a .628 ops at the time in limited duty (he’d been injured most of the year) and a career ops of .658. 1999 yielded a bumper crop of execrable first-basemen; with mcgwire at first base, coming off his 70-homer year, tony didn’t even carry a backup at the position. in may he gave a start at 1b to super joe mcewing, then a very popular rookie (he was hitting .372 at the time); david howard (career slg .303) started not one but two games at first base in ’99; and poor old broken-down willie mcgee started a game there as well (he had a .246 / .290 / .276 line at the time). there was also a game in 2002 that miguel cairo started at 1b.

even at his current, diminished level, kennedy’s a better hitter than all the aforementioned --- and he did knock in the go-ahead run off kenny rogers last night. the card lineup featured 3 middle infielders, a rule V draftee, and a guy playing his 2d game in the big leagues --- and it romped to the win. it’s turning out to be that kind of year.

albert has been down for 12 games now, and the cards have actually hit for more power in his absence --- 16 dingers in 12 games, which works out to 216 homers over a full season. they’re averaging 4.41 runs a game in his absence, a far milder downturn than we might have feared. where is the offense coming from? here are the hitters since june 11, in descending ops order:

AB  R  H 2B 3B HR BI | AVG OBP SLG
barton 10  2  4  2  0  1  3 | .400 .400 .900
larue 27  4  9  0  0  2  6 | .333 .379 .556
kennedy 30  2 11  2  0  1  4 | .367 .367 .533
miles 34  4 12  1  0  1  2 | .353 .405 .471
molina 28  3  9  2  0  1  1 | .321 .321 .500
schumaker 47 10 13  1  0  3  7 | .277 .320 .489
ryan 24  3  8  3  0  0  3 | .333 .360 .458
ankiel 50  9 11  3  1  3  6 | .220 .291 .500
glaus 44  5  9  1  0  3  9 | .205 .300 .432
ludwick 48  6  9  3  0  1  6 | .188 .286 .312
duncan 40  1  7  1  0  0  1 | .175 .250 .200

mighty mites to the rescue. some of us will ascribe character virtue to these performances --- ie, the scrubs on the roster gutted up and willed themselves to play better in albert’s absence --- and others will just call them random data blips, the ups and downs that happen for no reason at all during any 162-game season. neither answer is entirely satisfactory. my biggest problem with the "guts" formulation is that it implies that the hitters who haven’t done well during albert’s disablement lack guts, or aren’t "winners," or whatever terminology you want to put on it. that doesn’t seem fair to, say, ryan ludwick, who was due to cool off at some point and just happened to do so at the moment the team needed him most. but if we’re going to write off the slumps to random chance, then don’t we also have to explain the hot streaks in the same manner? it doesn’t seem consistent to do otherwise. . . . . however, i’m not willing to embrace the "randomness" formulation entirely either, because that turns the ballplayers into automatons. expecting their performance to be unaffected by a trauma such as albert’s injury is unrealistic. the truth is that they grapple w/ the same psychological / emotional effects that we fans do --- fear, doubt, anxiety, etc etc. it goes without saying that some players can manage their emotions more readily than others. . . .

i’ll leave that pair of issues unreconciled, and open for discussion.

when albert when down, i said i was less concerned about the offense than about the pitching and defense --- as long as they kept runs off the board, i figured they could stay afloat. so far, that has largely been the case. in the 12 games since albert hit the dl, the cards have yielded 59 runs, or just shy of 5 a game --- but 20 of those runs came in a single game. in the other 11 games, they have yielded only 39 runs, or fewer than 4 a contest. looper has a 2.05 era in 3 starts since albert got hurt; lohse has a 1.93 era, pineiro 2.37. and the unsung hero of the pitching staff this month is russ springer, who has appeared in 8 of the 12 games during albert’s absence and pitched 6.1 innings of 1-hit, 1-run ball. he threw one of the most important innings of the season to date --- the bottom of the 7th in the friday night game at fenway, where he faced manny ramirez with the sacks jammed and nobody out and escaped the threat with the cards’ slim lead intact. springer has been murder on right-handed hitters this year, holding them to a .182 average and a .200 slugging average --- he’s allowed just 1 extra-base hit (a double) in 63 plate appearances.

the cards should be proud of how they’ve stayed afloat, but there’s no time for self-congratulation. the brewers are surging --- 15-6 this month. they’ve closed to within a game and a half of the st louis.

0 recs | Comment 279 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re wimpy first basemen,

don’t forget Einar Diaz. A couple years ago I went to RFK in DC when the Birds were playing the Nationals. Just as I arrived in the bottom of the 1st, Pujols was getting tossed by the umpire for arguing a call at 1B. TLR then plugged Diaz into first for the rest of the game. And yes, he was truly wretched.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 25, 2008 9:29 AM EDT   0 recs

Diaz

I was at that game. I think Pujols was actually tossed for continuing to argue about being called out on a steal attempt in the top of the first. When they came back out in the bottom half, he just kept giving it to the ump and was tossed. Pujols was safe on that slide into second from where I was. From what I remember, Marquis pitched a shutout and we won 6-0. No idea if that’s what actually happened though

by brafi on Jun 25, 2008 11:19 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, that sounds right.

What I really remember the most is the damn sunburn I got that day.

If I recall right, Diaz wasn’t that great at playing his OWN position; I can only conclude that TLR really does have a sense of humor.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 25, 2008 11:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

actually

that was a bullpen game. Mulder was suppose to start and was scratched with either a back pain, or neck pain. Cal Eldred started the game. I remember because I drove down for that game as well, and found out on the way there that Mulder wasn’t starting, and then the first inning when Albert got tossed. It sucked. Although, they did win.

by stickman179 on Jun 25, 2008 12:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mulder scratches from a start w/ back pain?

Nope. Don’t believe it. That would never happen, sorry.

by effin fisk on Jun 25, 2008 1:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tried to see Big Mac in 98

He got tossed for arguing a called third strike in the first inning. Thankfully I love the Cards so I was okay, but not what I was hoping for.

by CardFaninTTown on Jun 25, 2008 2:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I remember that game...

it was on FOX. I remember being so pissed at McGwire for getting tossed.

If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

by cardsrul on Jun 25, 2008 5:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Einar Diaz

had an unbelievably hard time actually catching a baseball.

Well who the hell can see forever?

by Alxfritz on Jun 25, 2008 12:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Automatrons

I have a hard time just ascribing wins, losses and performances to statistical peaks and valleys. If we ignore the human element to the game then why bother following it at all? Seeing guys step up when others go down add to the drama. Taking two wins at Boston and now the first game in Detroit under these circumstances make me keep watching and make me feel this team really is something unique.

The day I start using ‘regression to the mean’ in regular conversation is the day I should stop watching baseball.

by paposse on Jun 25, 2008 9:57 AM EDT   0 recs

My problem with that is

it implies that Kennedy and such were playing as bad as they were before Pujols went down because they didn’t feel like it…or it wasn’t important enough to them. I just think that is an insult to them. The prospect of being DFA and being out of the game you love wasn’t motivation but Pujols going down was?

If you don’t like “regression to the mean” then how about “shit happens”

by Harknights on Jun 25, 2008 10:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If we are being poetic then

”...If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same…”

by Harknights on Jun 25, 2008 10:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well done

Putting a technical term on a very real aspect of human performance doesn’t dehumanize it.

These are things about people that’ve been known since the times of Homer, no doubt. We just have some tools men then didn’t, but would’ve gladly used.

by liam on Jun 25, 2008 11:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I see your point

But I don’t usually think that is the case. I’m not implying they aren’t out there competing every other day also. The whole human element point is that in dire situations (although, we’re just talking baseball, not to be confused with real life) people reach for a new level maybe they didn’t they were capable of. Who knows. But that’s what keeps it interesting to me.

Shit happens works.

by paposse on Jun 25, 2008 10:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

USS Mariner sums up my thoughts on these kinds of subjects with their post on team chemistry

Here.


There are generally two kinds of team chemistry. There’s good chemistry, where a team works well together and makes everyone better, and there’s bad chemistry, where players don’t like each other, characterized by factions in the clubhouse.

But then there’s good-bad chemistry, where players hate each other so much they work really hard to show the other players up, and the end result is they all work their ass off, glare at each other a lot, and win a ton of games.

And bad-good chemistry which is when everyone’s friendly and comfortable and doesn’t try hard enough to win, and spends their time hanging out together instead of working out, and they joke around instead of concentrating in drills.

There’s young team optimism chemistry, where a rebuilding franchise is learning the game, improving, working well together, keeping their head up even through the losses. They may not know they’re not supposed to win so much.

Then again, they might not know how to win. That happens, too.

And there’s winning team chemistry, where they expect to compete each day and win a championship.

And losing team chemsitry, where they’ve all given up and don’t really try.

Team chemistry is observed changing in-season, too. A team on a losing streak will find something wrong with whatever chemistry they had working up to that point. If they’re optimistic and have faith, they’re not realistic or working harder. If they’re working harder and depressed, they’ve lost faith and are flailing about. If they stick together, they’ll be ignoring to the problems they need to confront. If they admit that one part of the team or one player is struggling, they’ll be turning on each other.
If they start winning, whatever they were doing during the losing streak was key.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 11:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sounds like

This year’s team has “winning team chemistry” and last year’s team had “losing team chemistry,” at least based on the above definitions.

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 25, 2008 11:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For now

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 11:22 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Was this written by someone

with personal experience of major league baseball team chemistry? Because it sounds great but is awfully speculative. I’d be interested in hearing an objective discussion of this from veteran ML players who have been on a lot of different teams in different situations.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Jun 25, 2008 11:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Think it's dripping with sarcasm

Lord knows there were some serious issues in the clubhouse last year. I have to believe that all had some impact on the wins and losses. Just because it isn’t quantifiable doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

I’d be hard pressed to think of a season where the Cards had more chemistry issues than they did last year. At least when looking from afar, as a fan. That being said, I think all those issues didn’t cause near as much damage as Kip Wells and Mike Maroth giving up touchdowns every time out.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 25, 2008 1:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's about the Mariners this year #1

But now my favorite part if you read the whole link:


I have to believe that all had some impact on the wins and losses. Just because it isn’t quantifiable doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Click the link and scroll down to “Chemistry doesn’t matter enough to see”.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 2:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Take if for what it's worth

Usually if if comes from that site and if you can’t assign a number value to it, then it’s often dismissed or discredited.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 2:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sorry I wasn't clear

I was veering way off direction there. I love the USS Mariner – knew they weren’t talking about us and our situation. I was just speculating they were being sarcastic about the whole general concept of chemistry.

Then I just added my own thoughts – it has to matter a little, but you’re better off focusing on the talent on the field if you are trying to troubleshoot problems. Hancock killing himself, Spiezio snorting rails 24/7, Rolen and LaRussa, et all, had to have some negative impact. But having a bunch of starters that couldn’t get through 5 innings is the better starting point.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 25, 2008 3:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Question being

Point being if we did have starting pitchers who could get through 5 innings (or even 6 or 7!) then it’d become “good-bad” team chemistry IMO. Winning--which is caused by talent—-causes chemistry. Can things snowball and become worse/better than the talent? Probably to a certain degree, but it’s basically irrelevant to constructing a team on ability.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 3:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

More or less we agree

I stop short of saying it has no impact. I just read the link, and thanks for posting it. Sounds like they reach the same conclusion…Maybe it’s there, maybe it’s not, either way it usually isn’t worth the attention it gets.

As far as this stuff goes, some of it probably matters more than others. If people don’t like Brendan Ryan because he sits in the wrong section of the plane and acts goofy, I refuse to make the connection that it affects anybodys play on the field. Same thing if Pujols and Rolen really didn’t like each other. To me that stuff is completely irrelevant.

However, if you have a few guys that have serious personal problems. Maybe they stay out all night, show up to the park in bad shape. They need teammates staging interventions and babysitting them to the point they don’t show up to the game in their best shape themselves…..In those type of cases then I can understand viewing it as a “chemistry issue” that matters, even if it is nebulous and can’t be measured.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 25, 2008 3:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It only gets attention

because it’s hard to refute. Just like saying “I don’t go by stats I go by my own eyes”.

I just simply quit talking about baseball with non-sabr’s because their ace in the hole is shit like Club House Cancer, Team Chemistry, Grit, and Clutch.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Jun 25, 2008 6:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's a crutch

It’s a card that is played a lot. Anytime expectations aren’t met (on either side of the spectrum), you can be sure talking heads will eagerly attribute it to good/bad chemistry.

Still, I sometimes think that those of us that are more stats oriented are a little too militant in our rejection. Almost out of rebellion of the stupidity, it seems. Sure usually it’s overstated, no arguments there. But to deny that it could ever be a factor, at all, seems to be going to the other extreme IMO.

by Merry CRasmus on Jun 25, 2008 6:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How in the hell

can you not be a stat-head? It makes the game so much more enjoyable.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jun 25, 2008 6:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

By the end of the season/

Yes, it could be a factor. Guys could just be down on themselves and not play to their potential. I don’t buy for one second that chemistry “helped” anyone, there’s no way music in the clubhouse or Edmonds handing out game balls is going to heal Rolen’s shoulder in the WS etc, but I can buy that it hurt a team retrospectively.

The problem is teams will think that they have to mix up the chemistry and not upgrade talent. 2 weeks of April wins can have a team saying “last year was last year that’s over, we’re winning now” and magically they have good chemistry and again I don’t buy for half a second that any “chemistry” related issue matters in the first two weeks of the season.

Look if there’s true vitriol, like Rolen/LaRussa, I can see something being there. But short of that, it’s all revisionist bullshit for “not that good” or “they had Randy/Schilling”.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 6:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think a good example of a change helping immediately

is the trade a few years ago (okay, more than a few) that sent Ray Lankford to the Padres for Woody Williams. At the time, the Cardinals were horrible and were playing lifeless baseball and the number one moper in my eyes were Ray Lankford. He was a long-time Cardinal and was visiably a malcontent at the time.

They shipped his ass to San Diego and brought in a great leader and personality in Woody Williams. The team caught life and we all know what happened.

By no means do I think it is this easy, but I do think that trade had a humongous impact on the team.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 6:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Either that

Or Woody Williams throwing 75 innings of 189 ERA+ baseball. That might have helped.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 7:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It can definitely help in the short term

A friend who is a former major leaguer talked about how hard it is to stay focused every night for an entire season. Even though they are playing what is a “game” to us, for them it’s a job.

I’m sure you’ve had good days and bad at work – ever had a rough day and had somebody notice and determine that it’s time to head out for a decent lunch to cheer you up?

Stupid crap like that can help all of us at work so to assume it doesn’t help professional baseball players who happen to be human is a bit too simplistic I think.

by birdo rojo on Jun 25, 2008 6:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Baseball is played by humans?

But firstinning.com and baseball-reference.com don’t even post pitcures of these so called “hu-mans”.

just kidding guys. don’t get bent out of shape.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 7:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Statistcal

analysis is just another way of expressing understanding….... As quantum mechanics is to the ” Art of Classical Physics”. lboros creates a delightful blend of quantum science and artistic observation in his introduction. He loves the Cardinals!!!!!
Sometimes I feel like we deify Albert Pujols too much for the good of the team.
I believe the use of Kennedy at first is the end of Chris Duncans tour, even though he will probably start today.

Westcoastbirdwatcher

by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jun 25, 2008 11:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If there's a righthander throwing

then Duncan should probably be playing first and it has nothing to do with his bat. Kennedy almost killed Looper twice yesterday because of bad throws to first. Kennedy is a superior defensive player, but once again first base is much more difficult to play than people want to believe. And those throws to first hitting a running pitcher should be evidence enough. Those are routine plays that first basemen make multiple times a game. What happens when something comes up that isn’t so routine?

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 1:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Looper took the wrong angle to first

both times in my opinion. Looper was running to a spot about 5 feet in front of first instead of a direct line to the bag. I admit the timing was off, but that is to be expected. If Looper had gotten hurt, I would blame TLR for playing Kennedy at first to begin with rather than Kennedy. I’m no Kennedy fan, but Looper looked at fault there.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 1:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But the pitcher isn't supposed to run directly towards the bag

It’s supposed to be a rounded path that brings him up the line. otherwise he and the runner are crossing paths and that is a recipe for disaster. Both throws were to the foul territory side of first base which Looper had to reach across his body for and took him into the path of the runner.

Don’t believe everything the Detroit announcers say. I heard it too, but they didn’t even know what inning it was in due to the parade of arthritic Tigers marching through the booth.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 1:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I was listening to Shannon on the first one...

and he blamed Looper after watching the replay. I watched the second one and would have to say that was Looper’s fault, too…he didn’t reach for the ball IMO it was right at his chest.

by cardzfanbub on Jun 25, 2008 2:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Okay, I've watched both plays a second time

The first play was where Kennedy fielded the ground ball about 15 feet behind 1st base standing almost directly on the foul line. He then threw the ball directly down the line. If Looper doesn’t catch it, it hits Granderson in the chest. Looper was stepping on the foul line as he caught it and it was caught to the middle/right side of his chest. Plus the throw was rushed. Kennedy had time to make a good throw and he didn’t take the time probalby due to inexperience. The correct throw would be to the glove side of Looper (his left), while not causing Looper to be directly in front of Granderson when he caught the ball.

The second throw was much worse than the first. Now, FSN Detroit only showed the origional play and never bothered with a replay because they were probably talking about how whatever decrepid Tiger in the booth had bought 3 pairs of shoes from the play-by-play man 30 years ago…but I digress. Kennedy fielded that ball even with the bag about 20 feet or so towards 2nd base. Here, the throw should once again be to Looper’s glove side, which should be easy since he’s standing to the left of Looper. Instead, his throw was way out in front of Looper, high and he not only had to reach across his face to catch the ball, but he had to jump a little. For what it’s worth, this is actually a tougher throw since you are hitting a guy angleing away from you as opposed to the first throw where he was running directly towards Kennedy.

Now I’m not going through all this to bash Adam Kennedy, quite the contrary actually, but I will say he is not a good firstbaseman. A poor one, to be honest. Both throws led Looper in front of the runner which is a horrible position to put your pitcher. Kennedy didn’t do it on purpose, he just doesn’t have the experience to make that throw. It’s a tough throw to hit a running pitcher so he has enough room to tag the bag while not leading him into the runner. It is the 1st basemans role is to deliver a good throw to the correct spot, not to throw the ball to where the pitcher is.

Bottom line is, you just can’t put anyone at first. Sure , if all he had to do was run to first and catch balls thrown by the infielders he’d be fine. But in reality, the first baseman has some of the most difficult plays to make on the diamond coupled with having more territory to cover on balls hit to the outfield.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 4:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

1B........

The only reason it’s an easy position is anyone can play it but not anyone can play it properly/well….............

I did not see the throws made by Kennedy as I was not watching the game when both throws took place.

Would it have been better for him to underhand feed the ball like good 1B do?

by ICbirdfan on Jun 25, 2008 4:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No,

the throws were way too long to underhand, plus the runners in each situation were Curtis Granderson and Edgar Renteria. Granderson can fly and Renteria isn’t exactly a slouch, so the throws needed to be overhand. He just didn’t throw them where he should have. Cost an out (and almost a sprained Looper ankle) on the first. The second, Looper made a good play and saved the out.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 4:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, TLR begs to differ

Kennedy is on 1b tonight again.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 4:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

TLR does things

I think we can all say are out of the ordinary. But, what I believe this shows is exactly where Chris Duncan will be playing once Albert comes back. Basically, he’s being kicked off first base by an inferior (by a mile) “first baseman” and he’s being kicked out of DH by a kid who not only hit’s righty, is making his 3rd career start.

Granted, I’m not sure where you are getting your lineup from. But, I’ll take you for your word. Basically, it looks as though Duncan’s bat has taken him out of the lineup against a right handed starter.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 4:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Duncan is playing LF

Ludwick is giving the night off.

Listening on 1380AM. Didn’t have a pen ready when they talked about the line up.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 4:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

then I understand

Duncan is playing over Barton (left/right thing I guess) and since he’s the only other outfielder then Kennedy plays 1st.

Don’t ask me to explain the logic. but I think the Barton defenders definately have reason to bitch.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 4:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

"Don’t ask me to explain the logic"

If you could explain TLR, you could make a few bucks with a book. Even Tony can’t explain Tony.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 5:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

But Duncan will probably

make a great diving catch and double up Granderson at first on a great play digging the ball out of the dirt by Kennedy after Dunc hit the go ahead grand slam or something.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 5:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You give TLR too much "luck"

He’s pushing his luck I think with Kennedy at first and he’s pushing the Cards luck with Duncan in the line-up. I think Duncan will get another single, strike out twice with runners in scoring position and ground into a rally killing double play.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 5:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh i agree

I was kidding about the whole thing but he has had a bit of a King Midas like touch.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 5:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm kidding too

just had to counter the “how does he get away with that” thoughts we have when his Midas touch happens. I think he sometimes just out smarts himself sometimes and THOSE things are the ones that drives me crazy. He got lucky with Schu hitting for Barton last night… pretty gutsy, but I would have liked to seen what Barton could have done. I think that gift of a HR really pissed the Cards bench off and there was no way they were going to let that HR decide the game.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 5:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Way off base

First of all, Barton has gotten starts lately against lefties, so him getting the start and then calling on Skip against the righty is pretty much par for the course.

Secondly, I don’t think the hr pissed off LaRussa and that’s about as dumb a claim as I’ve heard. You really think they would rather lose than have Barton hit a homerun that won a game? Ridiculous.

I have to remove myself from this conversation.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 6:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think

he was talking about the Mig homer gift?

by TNTinCO on Jun 25, 2008 6:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Read it again

I believe he was talking about the STL bench being upset at the Detroit “homerun” that was really just a double off the top of the wall.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Jun 25, 2008 6:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Alright

I guess you can read it that way so I do appoligize. I simply read that as they were upset Barton hit a homerun and that’s why the took him out.

My bad.

by Tackle Box on Jun 25, 2008 6:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No problem

I just have to read my comments over sometimes to see if my point is coming across. No apologies required.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 6:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pinch hitter

Tony probably just wants to have somebody to PH besides Duncan!

"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."

by BigMOman on Jun 25, 2008 4:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's been a fun week

I hope we can get another win from Detriot in the next two days before we head out to KC. And then I hope we get some payback in KC. After that I wish that Edmonds stops playing with my emotions.

We start pulling away from the philies in the wild card race. And now we have the Brewers coming up right behind us. But im not to worried about them. Because unlike the philies, we have a lot more games against them.

by Evilfrog on Jun 25, 2008 10:03 AM EDT   0 recs

Just to point out the Brewers

would be in first place in the East or the West but are in thrid place in the central.

The media couldn’t wait to tell everyone how bad the Central would be at the begining of the season (well the bottom is) but it’s at least better than expected.

by Harknights on Jun 25, 2008 10:04 AM EDT   0 recs

you mean the bottom

that beat the Yankees 12-5 last night?

"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."

by BigMOman on Jun 25, 2008 10:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

or the bottom

that took 2 out of 3 from the Yankees over the weekend

...or the bottom that took 2 out of 3 from the Rays over the weekend?

"Give a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life."

by BigMOman on Jun 25, 2008 10:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Or the bottom

that took two out of three from the Red Sox.

by Red in Chicago on Jun 25, 2008 10:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The NL central versus the east and west

No one has a losing record versus the EAST
and only cinci has a losing record versus the WEST
makes an argument for being the strongest division in baseball…top to bottom

mattnj

by mattnj on Jun 25, 2008 10:29 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

wow

Didn’t realize that. Putting it that way sure looks impressive.

I enjoyed the Buccos win last night.

by paposse on Jun 25, 2008 10:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd say it is...

the NL Central has been very good so far and compete with anybody.
The Cubs and the Cards have some of the best records in baseball.
The Brewers have Ben Sheets and some stacked hitting.
The Astros are similar with Oswalt (although not performing up to par) and stacked hitting
The Pirates can score a lot of runs and have a great offense, while the Reds have Volquez and also a decent offense. Not too shabby for a traditionally panned division.

Ankiel is Jesus!

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 25, 2008 1:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

tidbits unrelated

Ben Sheets will test the Free Agency rather than sign a mid-season extension. Doubt he’ll be a Brewer next year.

Oswalt is in the mist of trade rumors, but the team has not asked him to waive his no-trade clause as yet.

by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Jun 25, 2008 1:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mmmm

I wish I could have me some Roy Oswalt. Too bad that’s outrageously unrealistic.

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

by joker24 on Jun 25, 2008 2:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs