Season's Over, Folks.
by the red baron
on Jun 7, 2008 10:18 AM EDT
I've got the hiccups this morning. It's really, really beginning to piss me off. I've tried every folk remedy I can think of. I've tried holding my breath, drinking water in a variety of odd ways, sugar, bourbon, and at least five other more arcane actions that I'd rather not discuss in a public forum. Nothing's working so far. However, I have come up with a potential plan of action. Since nothing else is working, I'm now considering setting myself on fire. A little unorthodox, I know, but I'm pretty sure it'll take care of the problem.
Is anybody else beginning to get the opposite feeling when Braden Looper takes the mound that we're increasingly getting every time Welley goes out there? It's really strange. It used to be that we were terrified when we saw the Colonel on the mound; now I feel like we've got an excellent chance to win every game he starts. Looper, on the other hand, gives me the feeling that the Cards had better score eight runs, because he's not holding the opposition down.
Actually, that's probably not quite fair to Looper. He wasn't completely horrible last night. He struck out seven batters, he didn't walk anyone, and he kept the ball in the park. He should have had a really nice night. Unfortunately, the defense behind him was less than airtight. That play by Izturis, when he threw the ball away on a pretty sure double play, was a back breaker. Instead of a runner on third with two outs, you get two runs driven in, a man on third, and nobody out. That's tough for any pitcher to come out of unscathed, much less than one who was throwing a lot of line drives in the first couple of innings.
You know what, though? It still doesn't change the fact that I get a distinct sinking feeling whenever I see Looper's name in the game preview. I just don't feel good about him on the mound anymore. He doesn't seem to have a real out pitch; both his slider and splitter seem to generate fairly weak contact when they're on, yes, but neither seems to get many swings and misses. His fastball isn't a real weapon anymore either. He's definitely still got the guts and the heart, but I just don't see a whole lot from Braden that impresses me in terms of repertoire anymore.
Great to see Mitchell Boggs make his debut last night. I think Parisi makes a nice long reliever, but he just simply doesn't have the stuff to start. Boggs, on the other hand, I think may just have the stuff to make a good starter down the road. For now, I like seeing him get some low pressure, long relief innings. He gets his feet wet, without being thrown right into the fire. I worry a little bit about him being forced into taking Pineiro's next scheduled start, though. If he fails miserably, what does that do to his confidence? I don't think Parisi is a huge part of this team's future; Boggs very well could be. If he gets shelled and falls apart, the Cardinals could end up really, really regretting it. Still. I love the kid's demeanor on the mound, and he's definitely got the stuff. He was bringing serious heat last night, sitting between 92 and 95mph all night long. He has nice sink on that fastball too, and the Houston hitters just weren't squaring him up very well. He did throw one really bad pitch, a fastball at 94 that just sort of sat there for Geoff Blum to whack into the stands. Still, it was a very impressive debut from a pitcher who has just seemed to get better and better until he's finally here.
Oh well, enough about that game. I'm seriously short on time, (and, honestly, ideas) this morning, so let's move on.
The biggest news at the moment is the health of Todd Wellemeyer's elbow. We all howled the other day when he was pulled from the first game of the split doubleheader with only 79 pitches, seeing as how he was just cruising along. Turns out, of course, that he's apparently having elbow discomfort. We won't know for a while how serious it is, but it's always a concern when a pitcher goes down with any sort of issue in a joint. So I was sort of thinking about what would happen to the rotation if the Colonel is, indeed, out for any significant period of time, and I think it's pretty likely that the whole thing just collapses in on itself like a dying star.
And so it led me to today's discussion topic: we all know, of course, that if Albert's elbow pops, the season is pretty much over. My question is this: are there any other players on this team you feel that way about? Is there another player you just think the team cannot function without?
Here's the question: what one player could get hurt and you just say, "The season's over?" Again, we're ignoring Albert; we all know if he goes down we should just pack it in. But what other player is there that this team just can't make it without?
Discuss, guys. I've got to go. Take care of yourselves. And if you don't hear from me again, you'll at least know that I did manage to cure my hiccups.
0 recs |
88
comments
Email
PrintComments
TLR Complaint Department
So, do the complaints about LaRussa turn 180 degrees today from “He’s an idiot for taking out Wellemeyer so early!!!!” to “LaRussa ruined Wellemeyer’s elbow by over using him!!!!?
by Tackle Box on Jun 7, 2008 10:25 AM EDT 0 recs
Well yeah.
Some one has to be at fault for this 2 game losing streak.
by Evilfrog on
Jun 7, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The point stands actually
that there was no rationale, from a baseball strategy perspective, for removing Wellemeyer in that game. That’s what the complaints were about. Now that we’ve learned that there was a health reason, it confirms the basis of the complaints, but nevertheless explains why the substitution occurred.
So says, Titus Pullo (formerly The Dude)
by Titus Pullo on
Jun 7, 2008 12:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
hopefully it's just the team
making up an excuse for taking Welley out early to confuse the other teams and the elbow is not a real concern. but then again, it probably is. especially since Welley is a converted reliever, that could be of import.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on
Jun 7, 2008 2:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Is his elbow hurting
not rationale enough to take him out of the game?
Why is it assumed that we need to know everything immediately and when it is pointed out later that we over-reacted, it’s not our fault because we didn’t know?
by Tackle Box on
Jun 7, 2008 2:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
throw logic out the window don't you know nothing
you are ruining all of the monday morning / armchair quarterbacking. And that my friend is no fun, not what so ever. LOL I shall now be booooed and shunned loudly and disdainfully.
by streamman on
Jun 7, 2008 3:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well
Wagonmaker, obviously. Molina to Larue is a pretty steep dropoff but they would probably call up Anderson in that situation. I thought about Glaus but I guess Mather could fill in there. Lohse is currently blessed by a microscopic HR/FB percentage but he’s churning out the innings so I’ll go with him as #3 behind the Mang and Wagonmaker.
by mikedallas45 on Jun 7, 2008 10:29 AM EDT 0 recs
Guys we can't do without
1.Pujols (duh)
2.Wainwright (ace, on a cruddy rotation, if he goes the rotation will follow)
3.Molina (everyday player whose defense and ability to call games helps win games, huge dropoff to Larue)
4.Glaus (another everyday player, great defense so far this year and has hit for power of late)
5.Ludwick (not just the player, but his production can’t go away)
by Romo9 on Jun 7, 2008 10:57 AM EDT 0 recs
if he goes the rotation will follow
on what do you base this opinion?
ability to call games helps win games
”...the hypothesis most consistent with the available facts appears to be that catchers do not have a significant effect on pitcher performance…” – baseball prospectus
by astrostl on
Jun 7, 2008 2:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
now how does putting
"…the hypothesis most consistent with the available facts appears to be that catchers do not have a significant effect on pitcher performance…" – baseball prospectus
up differ from what you are going on about? It is just someone’s view on a hypothesis
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jun 7, 2008 4:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
even better still go back to the 2000 nlds and imagine how things might have been different...
had matheny not gotten a hunting knife as a present. I know revisionist, and an “intangible” moment. But, just stop and think about it. And do not that the title says most consistent with the available (read as quantifiable/measureable) facts appears to be… in other words sounds to me (without reading the article itself) as if the author is drying to duck out from beneath a weak correlation.
by streamman on
Jun 7, 2008 10:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
even better still go back to the 2000 nlds and imagine how things might have been different…had matheny not gotten a hunting knife as a present. I know revisionist, and an "intangible" moment. But, just stop and think about it.
fair enough, i really did think about it. if somebody gets in a car wreck, one can wonder how things might have been different if they spent just one more minute on some other activity before leaving. i think ankiel going off the rails is not nearly as random as a wreck, though. my personal opinion is that somebody that gets so close to the edge is likely to go off, whether it be the high pressure of the playoffs or just another game in april with perhaps not enough sleep the previous night or problems at home. but could things have been different in that particular post-season? sure, it’s possible. i don’t think that game-calling is analogous to likely treating the symptoms (but not the disease) of an agreed mental issue, though.
And do not that the title says most consistent with the available (read as quantifiable/measureable) facts appears to be… in other words sounds to me (without reading the article itself) as if the author is drying to duck out from beneath a weak correlation.
i think it is giving truthful scientific credit to the possibility that there could be an impact, and that if so it could be capable of being measured. given the amount of analysis already performed, though, i don’t see how one could argue that game-calling is significant because if it were we should already be able to measure it.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 1:20 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You are right he is doing what many researches have...
allowing for the possibility that someone may come along with a better model that is more capable of accounting for whatever intrinsic variance the test subject includes. So the author feels it necessary to account for the possibility that, yes indeed someone may be able to come along and find a way to measure it. In that case is he really saying that he believes whole-heartedly that there is no significant effect of the quality of the pitch selection being called. Or could it be that he believes that the model is incomplete in someway, and that the abilities of the catcher have a reasonable if small and near insignificant effect on the game the pitcher pitches.
One thing that numbers can’t always accurately predict and measure on this scale is the effect of some event on the human psyche.
You posted that gentleman’s thesis as a response to someone suggesting that if Molina were to go down, that the team would be in dire straits. You did so in a manner to suggest that his abilities at calling a game, and working with a pitching staff are irreverent. Yet your response does little to engage in discussion as to why you believe it to be a false pretense.
You have already shown in this thread, a bias against ignoring unmeasurable, non-quantifiable events and properties. Remember your general biology classes in which you discussed inter and intra-specific interactions? A good baseball team to me and I’m sure many others exhibits many qualities of a mutualistic synergy. That is to say the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (1+1 = 3 or 5 or 25…) I’m sure you understand that thinking though.
However, I am unaware of any statistical measurement which attempts to quantify that observation on a baseball team (no I do not personally sit around and read bp or bill james). I would propose though, that the 2006 ws champion cards and this years team might be a good case study of just such an idea. If you were to look at the individual statistics of each player you would (as many national pundits, and fellow veb readers, myself included) greatly underestimate the end results which each team has been able to produce.
The question was, the loss of what players would result in an irreversible change of fortune for this team. Your fellow reader offered the opinion that the loss of Molina would be such an instance. Owing to his defense and ability to call a game. You cherry picked the phrase ability to call games helps win games, not considering the whole context. You then offered an authors view on a debatable subject as evidence as to why you believe the commenter was wrong, and why Molina does not hold that much value to this team. In other words you were attempting to discredit the commenter’s view on the subject but did little to add to the discussion. You simply dismissed him with a wave of your hand, or keyboard be it as it may.
by streamman on
Jun 8, 2008 1:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You posted that gentleman’s thesis as a response to someone suggesting that if Molina were to go down, that the team would be in dire straits. You did so in a manner to suggest that his abilities at calling a game, and working with a pitching staff are irreverent. Yet your response does little to engage in discussion as to why you believe it to be a false pretense.
the response had nothing to do with molina, and everything to do with the amount of implied credit that was being given to game-calling. i wouldn’t disagree without a reason, and i don’t like to disagree without stating my reasons. in this case, my reason is that there is no clear data to suggest that it is a meaningful factor in baseball games. if it were really there, i think we’d see a clear difference when an allegedly great game-caller goes from one team to another: former team suffers, new team excels.
However, I am unaware of any statistical measurement which attempts to quantify that observation on a baseball team (no I do not personally sit around and read bp or bill james). I would propose though, that the 2006 ws champion cards and this years team might be a good case study of just such an idea. If you were to look at the individual statistics of each player you would (as many national pundits, and fellow veb readers, myself included) greatly underestimate the end results which each team has been able to produce.
i love the cardinals, and i love that we won the 2006 world series. i was fortunate enough to attend the event with my father, and it’s no doubt the highlight of my “career” as a sports fan. we still got there by the skin of our teeth, though, being the benefit of a then-crappy division. the best hitters in baseball reach base less than 50% of the time, and the best teams in baseball would love to win just 100 out of 162 games. there is a lot of variance in the game, though, and even the odds makers didn’t assign the tigers a 100% chance of victory because the cardinals will win the series many times if it were repeated even if both teams played to the full extent of their potential. that’s just variance, great variance.
ou then offered an authors view on a debatable subject as evidence as to why you believe the commenter was wrong, and why Molina does not hold that much value to this team.
molina was never a part of my communication, certainly not as typed but also not even in thought. my response would have been the same if we were talking about any catcher on any team.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 9:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think there's only 3 beyond Pujols that would sink us
1) Wainwright
2) Wellemeyer
3) Molina
Ludwick, is of course, a good pick, but outfield is the one place where we have an excess of at least decent players. I don’t think the options being Ankiel, Schumacher, Barton and Duncan is going to be the cause for our season going down.
The two pitchers are absolutely necessary at least until we start having out corps of DL pitchers start to come back. And if we really hope to keep pace with the Cubs, I think we need those pitchers PLUS guys like Carpenter and Clement.
by mtalken on Jun 7, 2008 11:20 AM EDT 0 recs
4
AK. If he goes down then you have either miles or Ryan over there more so than now…who would hit into all the double plays?
I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punch and judy hitter-major league 2
by punchinjudy on
Jun 7, 2008 1:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yep
those are my top 3 also
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on
Jun 7, 2008 2:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Outside of Waino, Welley, and Albert...
I think Molina is our most valuable, and potentially most damaging piece to lose. Everything that he brings to the team, A) an uncanny ability behind the plate, B) a great knowledge of the hitters, and C) and exuberance that is just huge in the dugout and clubhouse. If we lost Molina, I’d be inclined to say it’s time to pack it in… or at least get Bryan Anderson a shot. I’d rather has a rookie up here learning how to hit than have Jason LaRue continue to not hit.
by mynameistyler on Jun 7, 2008 11:25 AM EDT 0 recs
exuberance that is just huge in the dugout and clubhouse
how do you know, and how can its effects be measured?
by astrostl on
Jun 7, 2008 2:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
just because...
you can’t measure it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
by Glowsticks on
Jun 7, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Thank you
Measurement is a great and informative tool, but the fact that some effect may evade measurement doesn’t mean that it either exists or doesn’t exist. It just means that it is difficult to measure and we have no effective way to do so at this time.
by fltfire on
Jun 7, 2008 6:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
just because…you can’t measure it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist
i agree, but i also think it can’t be that big of a factor if it can’t be measured.
i think http://ussmariner.com/2008/05/19/evaluating-chemistry/ puts it all very well.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 1:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I thought Looper showed well last night.
He was staying inside himself. Weathered the errors reasonably well. If he would of had a few runs early, like Lohse of late, he might have had a quality start. Lets face it, this team has some real holes, which have been talked about at length by many…......Of concern to me now is Mather….... He doesn’t seem to have any ability to adjust his swing to fulfill any situational opportunities…..... just long and strong…...like Glaus, Ankiel, Ludwick….....The hitting philosophy of this team sucks….....more so than any team I’ve studied so far. The Giants beat the hell out of Pittsburgh….....Nats got shelled…..Huston has been really down. I would say this team is in trouble tonight even with Wainwright up…......
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on Jun 7, 2008 11:34 AM EDT 0 recs
Umm, we have the fourth best hitting in the NL after the cubs, braves, and houston.
And we’re doing it with essentially one big-ticket hitter. I don’t think glaus counts yet up there with Chipper and Tejada and Berkman. Whatever we are doing with our hitting, we’re doing it right.
And I think it’s a bit early to say what Mather can or can’t do. Maybe we should give him a full 6 or 7 games before we pronounce sentence.
by tom s. on
Jun 7, 2008 11:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Love the Kid
Love Ankiel….......we need a new hitting coach…......At AAA and the big league team. This team has been incredibly lucky…......... The pressure will eventually injure and expose a pitching staff on the Bubble. The bullpen we have seems very frail…...... we need a few rubber arms to protect these starters.
Wellenmeyer has the first signs of death…... elbow inflammation…they will put him on serious anti-inflammatory drugs….....he will return, be overused, and have to shut it down, if not tommy johns awaits…....thats the life of a beg leaguer. Thats why its such a joke when Tony extends these guys beyond reason…............If this team scored more runs, we could throw fewer pitches…......where we stand in the statistics is little comfort for me.
Westcoastbirdwatcher
by westcoastbirdwatcher on
Jun 7, 2008 11:58 AM EDT
up
0 recs
at least we can take a walk this year
last year’s team was atrocious.
go cards, o's, and phillies.
...boiler up.
by moboiler on
Jun 7, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The ball to Izturis
was not going to be a double play. I was at the game. It wasn’t hit hard and Izturis had to take a couple steps to his right. No chance for a DP. He certainly should’ve made the throw and gotten one out but we weren’t getting two there. The defense last night was positively abominable. The Astros hit a lot of balls hard off Looper but he managed to survive, were it not for the errors.
It was good to see Boggs get a little work. I’m not sure what the guns on TV said but the ones at the park were saying 94, 95, even dialed it up to 96 once. Now, that gun’s probably a little fast b/c I saw it had Moehler one time at 90 but Boggs was still 3-4 MPH faster than any other pitcher, except Valverde, who threw last night.
by chuckb on Jun 7, 2008 11:34 AM EDT 0 recs
gameday
had Boggs at 93-94 on his fastball – but many of those were way up in the zone (Berkman/Blum) – in fact Blum’s HR came off a 94 mph fastball up in the zone.
Speed is nice, but Boggs did well in AAA because of his GO/AO ratio not because of his Ks. His pitch-to-contact style may not be as prevalent as a reliever though. He didn’t have command of his breaking stuff last night it seemed. I think thats understandable with him being juiced in his first MLB outing, but I hope to see him get pitches down in the future.
by enoscountry on
Jun 7, 2008 11:49 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Looper is fine in my opinion...
If he wins 15 games with an era just under 5 I would be happy. He is gonna have some off nights but he battles on even with poor stuff. Had the defense held we might have had a chance to win. Also it was nice to see a pitcher go past two innings( see Parisi).
Hope Boggs can show well.
"Why does he keep saying that?"
by Red Blazer on Jun 7, 2008 12:00 PM EDT 0 recs
We'd be pretty much screwed
If we lost Wainwright and Wellemeyer for any extended period of time. We could probably make do without one or the other (especially if it’s after the all star break and Carp is back, even if he’s only at 75% or so) but if we lose one for the rest of the season or both for more than a few starts, season done.
To a lesser degree, Molina and Glaus. It’s a pretty steep decline to their back ups.
by stl tyler on Jun 7, 2008 12:13 PM EDT 0 recs
Just to be contrary
I’m going to argue that the one player we would most miss, beyond Albert, is…...Cesar Izturis. I’m semi serious about this. I think that the story of this season is the synergistic effect of the Cardinals vastly improved defense on their surprising record. Cesar, of course, isn’t the only acquisition. Increased playing time for Skip, Rick and Ryan has vastly improved the outfield. Yadi has been healthy and Kennedy is better than last year. But I do think that Cesar has glued the infield together. Do we seriously think that this group of no name starters (and relievers for that matter) are primarily responsible for holding down the oppostion’s scoring? I think that the air tight defense has kept the pitcher’s confidently “pitching to contact”, kept the starters in games longer and simply won several games with outstanding plays. Keeping the opposition’s score down also allows the hitters to chip away with walks and singles rather than trying to hit 5 run homers. Specifically it takes pressure off of El Hombre to always drive in the runs and lets him let the pitchers walk him if they choose.
Synergy, though, is a fragile thing. Take a gold glove fielding shortstop out of an otherwise unremarkable infield (I know Albert’s great but he needs help) and that synergy can break down quickly. So endeth my holistic baseball rant for the day.
by easy on Jun 7, 2008 1:01 PM EDT 0 recs
Synergy, though, is a fragile thing.
it’s also an intangible thing, so i’m not personally inclined to give it very much credit.
by astrostl on
Jun 7, 2008 2:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
intangibles mean nothing?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jun 7, 2008 3:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i didn’t say it means nothing, i said i’m not inclined to give it very much credit.
if it can be measured and is shown to be significant, i’d be happy to give it very much credit.
i will be surprised if that happens, because big things have big impacts and are thus easily seen.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 1:28 AM EDT
up
0 recs
the 2008 cardinals team would be (in my opinion) a very good case study in which...
something big (team chemistry and synergy) is having a big effect, and being easily seen. But then again you know what opinions are, and I suppose mine is quite similar to my arsehole.
The MLB is not a statistical vacuum, and should not be treated as such. There have been many examples in which a modeler developed a fancy and pretty model to determine the effect of event a. Only to find out that his model… was quite imperfect. Why does this happen? Because, no model can account for and include all of the variables. Making nearly every mathematical model dealing with the natural world, inherently inaccurate. Thus the existence of error bars, and deviation. How often do baseball statistics account for that deviation. The biggest fools in science are the geniuses that think they can sit in their lab and run their models and take it as biblical truth. Ground truthing is a really bear, but it has to be done. Give something very little credit, because you have very little respect for it and it will bite you in the ass and call you judy.
by streamman on
Jun 8, 2008 1:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the 2008 cardinals team would be (in my opinion) a very good case study in which something big (team chemistry and synergy) is having a big effect, and being easily seen.
our results could be described as a “big effect”, but there is no more clear a connection between it being synergy or perhaps the fact that alcohol is now banned in the clubhouse. those elements may now be present, but unless a straight line can be clearly drawn from cause to effect the cause cannot be assumed.
if synergy is a big deal, i think there would be plenty of available data to support it – no new models necessary. the regular activity of roster changes, injuries, etc results in a wealth of individual and team statistics. if it’s all about player or players + team, the impact of their presence or lack thereof can be extracted and measured. large sample sizes would of course be necessary, but baseball has a huge history and plays a ton of games.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 10:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What's your opinion?
Instead of questioning everyone else’s comments without saying anything yourself or giving any alternative to that which you’re criticizing… maybe you could contribute to the discussion?
by mynameistyler on
Jun 7, 2008 3:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i don’t think my opinion on the main subject of which player means the most to the team would be awfully exciting. if you examine my post history you will find that i do more than criticize, but i think i am adding plenty of value to the discussion by questioning faith in intangibles. the alternatives are things which can be measured.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 1:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
come to work in my field and you will quickly learn to accept the intangibles
Yes, it is damned hard to measure and account for “intangibles” without some very, very, very fancy and high falutin’ math (certainly far beyond my capabilities to comprehend). But that does not mean that you can or should readily dismiss them and their effects. Simply because something is nearly mathematically unmeasurable, does not mean that it has an insignificant effect. Or that it should be thrown out because it isn’t fun to try to understand.
by streamman on
Jun 7, 2008 3:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
players join and leave teams all the time, and it’s been that way for many years with bountiful statistics that measure baseball performance. i rhink any effects along those lines should be relatively consistent if large, with the other players clearly gaining or suffering as a result of a synergy change.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 1:42 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I would argue that
Wellemyer, Lohse and the rest of the no name pitching staff have clearly gained from the vastly improved Cardinal defense this year. I suspect you would agree with that part. The question was who could the Cardinals least afford to lose for a long period. The question itself implies looking at a synergistic effect on the team. If it didn’t it would be a boring question. My statement was that losing a key component of that improved defense would hurt more than losing a key pitcher or hitter (other than Albert). I am not implying that Cesar Izturis or any other player is a bundle of synergy, only that a combination of physical skills, mental makeup, attitude, intelligence etc. can come together on a team to create the surprising results that we are seeing here. This is not a great pitching staff. They are doing better because of the defense. This is not a great lineup. To a lesser extent, I would argue, they are doing better because the team is consistently in ball games, I think that most of us would expect that, should Albert go down, we would lose more than just the statistical difference between him and his replacement. When Carp went down last year, the rotation, which had been strong in spring training and in the first few weeks of the season, fell apart. Beyond that I think that you would have a hard time convincing most people who have played a lot of team sports that there is no such thing as synergy. It is palpable when it’s there and even more so when it’s not. and it is ultimately measured in wins and losses.
by easy on
Jun 8, 2008 1:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i don’t argue that synergy doesn’t exist, or that it can’t have an impact. i’m only saying that i see no reason to believe it has a meaningful impact, because if it did it could be measured. you say it’s measured in wins and losses, but the effect of winning or losing is not necessarily linked to the “cause” of synergy.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 10:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
So it sounds to me like you are suggesting that worrying about such attributes is pretty much pointless. When a GM says player x is not a fit for us, it doesn’t always mean that their bat, arm or glove are unneeded or not valuable to the team. Often times in fact they are suggesting that the players make-up is not a fit for the team. The biggest thing is to remember that you are dealing with living, breathing, emotional human soles. Talent evaluation is not simply all abou the numbers. What all would you say is part of the proprietary statistics which many teams are now keeping.
I can give you many examples from my personal life as a Division I athlete in which the make-up of an individual had a negative impact upon the team, when their individual statistics suggested that they should put the team over the top. I can also give you many more examples to the contrary, in which the make-up of an individual went far beyond their individual statisitcs to add something intangible to the team make-up which put the team over the top.
by streamman on
Jun 8, 2008 1:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i don’t mean to imply that baseball players are strat-o-matic cards, because that is not how i feel. as for your personal experience, it’s not to detract from it in any way but the sample size is likely insufficient to be of statistical value. i don’t even question the intangibles which you say were provided, but if that was what put the team over the top it should be able to be shown. most sports have healthy amounts of variance, and between assigning it to that or an unlinked cause and effect i would bet on the former.
by astrostl on
Jun 8, 2008 10:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hey Baron,
Do you have ninjas chasing you?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jun 7, 2008 1:55 PM EDT 0 recs
we don't stand a chance at the playoffs if...
-we don’t play good D
-brendan ryan (or someone equal to or better) doesn’t get to supplant AK7
-if molina, wainwright, or welley gets hurt (I actually think that we might be able to survive without pujols, don’t hold me to this though, anti-jinx in effect please, just being contrary… wait, just kidding, we need the Pu)
if any of these happen, we will need:
-Ankiel, Ludwick, and/or Glaus to go on a long tear (or maybe Mather, but we shouldn’t have to rely on a call-up)
-some rookie to effectively replace Looper and/or Pineiro (if one loses effectiveness or the other stays injured)
-Chris Carpenter to be savior of this club (we deserve it, since so much dinero is locked up in hurt pitchers)
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jun 7, 2008 2:14 PM EDT 0 recs
Thanks a lot Baron
Now I’ve got hiccups from laughing at your first paragraph.
I think this may be the first post to make me laugh and make me sincerely concerned (what with your hiccups and the cardinals injuries) at the same time.
Without further adu, my thoughts:
Aside from Pujols and Wainwright, the obvious 2 guys you need to keep your head above water, I think the follow players are vital to our success:
1) Ron Villone – Ron has been Tony’s go-to guy in long relief situations and left-lefty match-up one out to get situations. Randy Flores’ inconsistency also adds to Villone’s importance.
2) Skip Schumaker – It seems without Skip in the lineup the cardinals just don’t have a table setter for guys like Pujols, Ludwick and new-found power hitter, Troy Glaus.
3) Kyle McClellan – McClellan has been the anchor of the bullpen this year, much to most of our surprise. He has been consistent and never really seemed nervous on the mound, lets just hope they don’t try to convert him to a starter.
4) Adam Kennedy – Actually, this one was a joke.
As a whole, I’m really concerned about the bullpen, sure it’s been pretty good, but there’s a bunch of young guys out there and it seems like one key injury to McClellan or Villone could send them into a panic. The BP just seems really fragile to me this year and I dread any injuries out there.
I''m a Jenius!
by gibbons on Jun 7, 2008 2:17 PM EDT 0 recs
oh yeah
forgot about McClellan. definitely a key to success there. I think that Flores is actually a hair better than Villone though…
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on
Jun 7, 2008 2:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bonderman out for the year: maybe Mizzou should adopt the professional Tigers as well
Not that he was doing outrageously well anyway, but the Tigs are pretty much toast.
Willis has a 16/3 BB/K. That’s 16 walks to 3 strikeouts. Not a typo. He’s going to get blown up. Who knows what happened to Verlander but he’s not nearly the same, Rogers is 43 and toast, Robertson has been a victim of some bad luck but it’s not like he’s a savior anyway. Armando Galarraga is sporting a .192 BABIP despite his 3.76 ERA. That is a brutal rotation, and it’s only terrible if Verlander figures his stuff out. And and Todd Jones and his 9:10 K/bb at the back end with no middle relief either. Even if the offense turns into the ‘27 Yanks that’s probably not going to make up 10 games.
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on Jun 7, 2008 2:46 PM EDT 0 recs
Amazingly
Even at the beginning of this season, some people were still clamoring for the Cards to trade for Willis.
Shame his career’s fallen so far.
by liam on
Jun 7, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah
there are few non-Cardinals I want to see suced as much as the D-Train. HIs huge smile and his joy for the game, and that big kick in his delivery were all just pure joy. It’s sad watching him collapse
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on
Jun 7, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's a wonder it lasted so long with those mechanics big scap load and wild actions and all
Though eyeballing it: outside of a couple games his rookie year they managed his workload pretty well…..but then rode him really hard in ‘06 and any time he was decent last year.
As bad as this sounds, for these small market teams who aren’t going to be able to keep their guys anyway it makes sense to squeeze all the bullets out of a guy as you can…
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on
Jun 7, 2008 2:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I read it was a blood clot.....how is that from pitching? I mean isn't that something wrong with
your arteries? Kip Wells has had the same sort of problem. Come on you medical people, help me out here…..because folks that don’t pitch get them too, right?
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on
Jun 7, 2008 6:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah
my dad had one, he had to start taking koumadin or some such drug to thin his blood. Tony Gwynn (the good one) had one also, almost killed him.
Ankiel is Jesus!
by Cards Fan in Chitown on
Jun 7, 2008 6:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I was talking about Willis there not Bonderman
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on
Jun 8, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Bonderman is another inverted W guy
like Reyes, Wainwright, Prior, Wood, Wellemeyer, Smoltz.
Start the clock on Wagonmaker.
by Hardcore Legend on
Jun 7, 2008 3:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I have never noticed that before
but it does makes sense. I suppose this means AW does it too
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on
Jun 7, 2008 3:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wellemeyer Wood and Smoltz not really Ws
They are vertical scap loaders i.e. they get their arms in the “down-L” but they don’t really break the shoulder line. Lots and lots of guys are “down-L”-ers. Bob Gibson, Pedro, Schilling, Nolan Ryan to a certain degree etc etc etc
Wood threw across his body and was way late with his arm not to mention not consistent with his mechanics at all. Bringing up Smoltz doesn’t exactly inspire a feeling of a lack of durability——elbow surgery 12 years in to a hall of fame career and shoulder at age 41 don’t do it for me…
Say it with me: mechanics aren’t everything. Bert Blyleven threw with the M (who the hell came up with “inverted W” when there’s a letter that actually does the same thing!) and he threw ~5000 innings among many, many others. Everyone’s favorite boy Mark Mulder wasn’t remotely an M guy and his shoulder is pretty much like this at the 2:00 mark.
Start the clock on Wagonmaker.
I suppose they should’ve said the same about Webb four years ago…
"Regression to the mean is so much more fun to watch when it’s a Cub who is regressing." SleepyCA
by joker24 on
Jun 7, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
