How does this team play offensively?
by etp_stl on Jul 21, 2009 10:04 AM EDT
33 comments
There was some discussion about how good this team plays offensively in terms of runs/game in the Halladay vs. Holliday fanpost. I thought I would do a little homework for those who believe this team is fine offensively.
I used B-R to look up the game results, and I did a little spreadsheet magic. I broke the information down by month, and I looked to see if it is reasonable to believe that this team is really a 4-4.5 runs/game team. I looked at the monthly average of all game results, and then I tried to throw out the outliers some by taking the average after throwing out the top 2 and bottom 2 games. The results came out as:
Month / AVE / FiltAVE
April / 5.78 / 5.58
May / 3.52 / 3.43
June / 4.07 / 3.72
July / 4.31 / 3.92
Total / 4.37 / 4.11
Clearly the month of May when guys like Duncan, Ankiel, Thurston, and Barden thought they were major league players is carrying the team averages right now. The previous discussion was whether or not this team, with Roy Halladay, could still be a 4 run/game team with the loss of any of the three top OPS guys on this team (Rasmus, Ludwick, Pujols).
It looks to me as though this team is tenuously hanging on to the 4 runs/game average now, and I don't see any way that they maintain it if you lose one of those three bats. This team is too fragile offensively to mortgage the number of future bats that are being requested by the Blue Jays for Halladay, IMO. The rest of the season would look like the results from the last two nights, and the team would just have no margin of error.
0 recs |
33 comments
Email
Print
Comments
like your avatar
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 21, 2009 10:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is this the new de facto Halladay thread
because if so I’m going to have to automatically disagree with prophetjohn.
by AWolfAtTheDoor on Jul 21, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm confused
that you quote me, but refer to me in the third person
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 22, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait
radiohead?
there is a chance i know you
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 22, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your whole stance on this matter confuses me a lot
Going by our averages, we are on pace to score 708 runs this year and allow 667, for 85.8 Pythag wins. If we acquire a +20 run pitcher like Holliday, we improve to 88.3 wins and likely in the lead for the division.
When you talk about “risk” factors, like Ludwick or Pujols getting injured, then I fail to see your point. Let’s say that we acquire Halladay, and then lose Pujols and Ludwick for 200 at bats and replace those with Nick Stavinoha. That would result of a loss of about 20 runs, which would lower our Pythag to 85.9 and likely out of the division lead.
That is exactly the risk you run by making a big trade. According to my most recent playoff odds, the Cards have a 33% chance of winning the division and a 37% chance of making the playoffs overall. Add in 2 wins for Halladay, those odds improve to 46% and 52% respectively. A 15% bump in playoff probability this year, plus whatever we would get next year, is huge, and I suspect it is worth the risk.
I don’t see why the crapiness of our offense matters. If we don’t score a lot of runs, we can offset that by saving more runs. Replacing Wellemeyer with Halladay would definitely help us do that.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 3:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
First of all, ...
I posted this thread because there were some that seemed to be under the delusion that this team was pretty good offensively. The fact is they’re not. I was also told be several that it was unreasonable to believe that this team could slip close to the 3 runs/game average with the loss of any of their big bats (Pujols, Ludwick, Rasmus). They are struggling to maintain that 4 runs/game average with all of those guys healthy and hitting.
My point is really simple. If we have a staff of starting pitchers that give up roughly 3 runs/9, and we have an offense that scores roughly 3 runs/9, then how do you project that this team is any better than .500? I posted this earlier to show what that rotation might look like.
Player – FIP – ERA – CG – IP/start
Carpenter – 2.69 – 2.47 – 1 – 6.1
Halladay – 2.85 – 2.85 – 3 – 7.1
Pineiro – 2.98 – 3.20 – 3 – 6.2
Wainwright – 3.62 – 3.04 – 0 – 6.2
Lohse – 4.50 – 4.26 – 1 – 5.2
None of these guys are averaging a CG/start, nor would I expect them to. So, on average, these pitchers are typically going to leave the game with either a 1-run lead, 1-run deficit, or a tie ball game. So, our bullpen can’t ever give up a run for us to win. Yeah, that’ll probably happen.
The point is the margin of error. When this team was scoring 5.5 runs/game, they were able to weather a pretty mediocre Wainwright and an injured Carpenter. They put up a 16-7 record. Since they’ve been hovering around the 4 runs/game mark or less, they’ve been a losing ball club. Not all of those losses can be hung on Todd Wellemeyer, though he is a very good bet to be many of them.
Secondly, I’ll take your word on the pythagorean stuff, as I’ve never looked into it. Even then, you’re predicting that making the playoffs is a 50-50 shot. This team is more than struggling to find viable alternatives from the minors to replace 3 replacement level fielders and 1 replacement level starter. So, you’re advocating that they trade away the only potentially viable options to fill those holes for a pitcher that gives us a 50-50 shot to make the playoffs? In addition, that trade will put the current payroll well beyond what the Cardinals want to spend, and there aren’t that many big money contracts coming off the books for next year (Pineiro is the only one coming to mind). So, there is little hope for filling the offensive needs next year from FA, and we will have traded away our best prospects for Halladay.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Currently we have the 3rd best ERA in NL
SF – 3.54
LAD – 3.59
STL – 3.70
Pitching is NOT the problem (the 5th starter will always be an issue)
As Etp says, the lack of scoring IS the problem. We have gaping holes in LF & 3B. DeRosa’s coming around to fill one. The only internal solutions for the other are Glaus (LF), Freese and/or Wallace (3B). If TLR isn’t comfortable w/those, Mo’s gonna have to make a move.
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
by gocards62 on Jul 22, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter how we win games
Replacing Ankiel with a 2 WAR left fielder will net us just as many wins as replacing Wellemeyer with Halladay. The only difference is that the latter is actually attainable.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait
halladay is more attainable than a 2 WAR LF?
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 22, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are no 2 WAR LF on the trade market
Maybe Holliday, but none of you guys seem to think he’s very good outside of Coors.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think VEP means a LF worth 2 wins or more over the remainder of the seaon.
yes?
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes... actually, I think Holliday could manage that
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
i meant 2 WAR over a season
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 22, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could make an argument for Adam Dunn
It would, obviously, be entirely about defense, but it’s not an unreasonable position.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Jul 23, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK. I get it.
You really think Halladay for a 50-50 shot to make the playoffs is a good deal. I really don’t think a 50-50 shot is worth the cost that it will take to get him, and I really think this team will not be in a position to upgrade offensively next year to improve the 50-50 shot to better than that.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A 50-50 shot is a hell of a lot better than our current shot
And that’s 50-50, being the divisional favorites. This year is as good as any to sell a couple players to get Halladay, cause the rest of the division kinda sucks. We still have a deep farm system, so losing Wallace won’t be crippling in the future (plus we would get the draft picks from Halladay).
Personally, we don’t need to get Halladay, but he is likely a 2.5 win upgrade over Welly. No other player can match that.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, ...
they are not going to get Halladay for just Wallace. This farm system will not be “deep” offensively after the trade.
Yes, 50-50 is better than the current shot. You can’t predict anything about next year, as we have no idea what moves will be made; but I can’t see this team making a 20% payroll boost next year. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see what happens, but without it there is no offensive upgrade next year. Or, do you want to trade away what’s left of the farm system then? Plus, you will have to either pay up for Pineiro again, or replace him with a comparable starter for your “next year” argument to hold water.
I’m not advocating another player, but Holliday is currently a 2.6 WAR player. Duncan is a -0.3 WAR player, and Ankiel is a 0.2 WAR player. That seems pretty close to a 2.5 WAR improvement to me.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to Holliday
He’s probably an equal upgrade in left as Halladay is in the rotation. If the lower cost in prospects outweighs the 6-7 WAR we would get from Halladay next year, I would definitely do it.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we are not close to scoring 3 runs a game.
again, the padres scored almost 4 runs a game with a team average ops of .677 last year. we are scoring an average of well over 4 runs a game. if the pads scored almost 4 runs a game with a team full of bardens and thurstons, we can score 4+ runs a game, even if we lose a bat.
if you’re going to make wild predictions like suddenly losing 25% of our offensive production, please point to a precedent.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you read the big numbers at the top?
We are not averaging “well over 4 runs a game.” Since April, when we had four players that were pretending to MLB level players, we have been hovering around the 4 runs/game. In addition, the filtering I applied is a reasonable way to predict the regression without going overboard mathematically, and that shows the team is already under that 4 runs/game.
Those 4 players from April having the distinct drop-off that they did, and the fact that they were platooning for two positions, dropped this team over 1.5 runs/game. So, losing 1 of the top 3 offensive players on this team, it is not unreasonable to expect that that would drop the offensive output by 0.5 runs/game. That would put us under 3.5 runs/game, which puts them closer to 3 runs/game than 4 runs/game. The arithmetic is pretty simple.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
show me the last team to average 3.5 runs a game.
4.37 was the average R/G, right? that was what you reported.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 22, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in addition, the team wOBA in april was .359. the team wOBA in july so far is .312.
to anticipate a further comparable drop in team wOBA — to .265 — is totally unrealistic. the Padres have a team wOBA of .300. even one third of that drop would be a further 15.3 points of wOBA which would make us worse than the Padres are. that’s just not going to happen. at some point, an ordinary replacement squad is going to provide that kind of production.
a single player worth half a run a game would be worth 81 runs above replacement per season. maybe if we lost albert pujols, we’d be talking about that kind of production. we’d probably see troy glaus pushed up to play first, who would not be a replacement-level drop off. your numbers are way off. we are not turning into the padres.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 22, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, ...
we were talking about the potential of losing Pujols, and I still can’t believe that people believe that a man that can’t throw the ball 90 ft. in the air and hasn’t seen MLB pitching in 9+ months is being counted on for so much offense (especially, given this organization’s track record with players returning from injury).
But, Ludwick was a 5.6 WAR player last year and Pujols is a 5.4 WAR player this year. If, as I’ve read, it’s 1 win = 10 runs, then you are talking about .333 runs/game for either player (assuming Ludwick is back). So, that’s not quite a .5 runs/game drop, but I have a pretty strong feeling that would affect this team by more than that.
I said the raw number was 4.37 R/G, but it is obvious that that is drastically affected by the first month of the season. Since that month, this team has been well below that for the most part. If you want evidence of a player’s effect, how about the fact that Ludwick was non-existent for the two months that this team was below 4 R/G. Now that he started hitting, they have gotten that .33 R/G better.
Regardless of whether or not this team is a 3 R/G or 4 R/G team, either leaves little to no margin for error for this team. I simply don’t believe it makes sense to mortgage the future for a 50-50 shot to win the division this year. That 50-50 proposition still counts on no other team in the division making improvements, either. Also, not a good bet, as the Cubs have woefully underachieved; and the Brewers could be drastically different provided a reasonably good SP is found.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand when you say
Regardless of whether or not this team is a 3 R/G or 4 R/G team, either leaves little to no margin for error for this team.
It doesn’t matter how many runs we score, as long as we prevent fewer than that.
And the 50-50 odds I have are with the Cubs regressing to their PECOTA projection (.580 winning percentage) .
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, ...
if we score 4 R/G, and our SP gives up 3 R/G, then how often can the team win when the bullpen is factored in? That’s not a thin margin for error? There’s plenty of room for pitching or hitting slumps or injuries there, right?
I am sorry for questioning your 50-50 odds not having factored in the Cubs regression. You make a better point than I gave you credit for.
As I said, I’m simply not going all-in on this hand. It doesn’t make good long-term sense, IMO. I have always agreed that this team would be better with Halladay in the rotation. My argument has always been that it seems to be going all-in with mediocre Cards.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The playoffs are basically a crapshoot
And evidence (like Nate Silver’s article) to the contrary, suggest that a strong starting rotation is the most important factor. Getting Halladay would make us favorites to win the division, and a legitamite contender to win the world series.
Besides, next year isn’t going to be much better. Pineiro will likely regress, and Carp is still a serious injury risk. Right now, this team looks okay, not great. Add in Halladay, and we look very good.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's called regression
And BABIP
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cute.
I’ve taken plenty of math and statistics classes, too. So, you know where you can put the condescension. What the hell does BABIP have to do with my above statement?
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our team BABIP has been about .275 since the first month of the season
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=STL&year=2009#month
I’m sure you know that will go up, meaning even if our players didn’t regress at all from the past 3 months, they would be expected to produce better by simply get less unlucky.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 22, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize for getting pissy.
I thought you meant something else by regression there. Anyway, it’s pretty obvious that you and tom_s are on one side of this argument, and I’m on the other side. You guys both made some good points, and I did purposely exaggerate some for effect. However, it’s clear that we aren’t going to convince the other of the correct plan of action, as it’s based on perceived value. I don’t feel that this team is the right one to take the kind of chance that you’re advocating, and you clearly think this is a good year to take our best shot.
I stepped beyond the etiquette of argumentation by getting pissy above. Sorry about that.
by etp_stl on Jul 22, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's fine, I was the one being snarky
I guess will just agree to disagree
/spouts out more stupid cliches
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 23, 2009 5:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Viva El Birdos
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
