Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Tony's Team and Why "Going Rogue" Isn't the Answer


I'd recommend everyone to read Bernie's Bytes from yesterday. There's one section in particular that intrigued me but, upon completion, irritated me.  The pertinent section begins with the second bullet point and continues through the sixth but I'll excerpt a bit here:

This is exactly the team that La Russa wanted, down to the last dirt stain, down to the last act of scrappiness. And Theriot is a big part of the collective team personality that La Russa sought to cultivate. TLR went rogue, and so far it's working.

The team looks quite good right now. It looks good because, well, it is a good team. This has nothing to do with Theriot's desire to roll around in the infield and not catch balls. It has little to do with the idea that Descalso is a "grinder" -- whatever the hell that is.

TLR never went rogue. It's a different team than 2010 but it's not one that patently ignores the tenants of sabermetrics at all. It's just a team that's more oriented toward offense than defense. It's a team that has Matt Holliday with an OBP > .500, with Lance Berkman over .450 and with both Colby Rasmus and Allen Craig on base more than .375.  How is that a team that offends anyone who wants a high on base percentage team?

Bernie also seems to indicate that there's some rebellion against run prevention:

At a time when so many organizations are putting a special emphasis on defense and stressing "run prevention" - as if that's some newfangled thing - La Russa is going rogue. He's rebelling against the revolution.

This doesn't feel right either. The Cardinals expected to enter the season with Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright and Jaime Garcia all three of whom have the ability to strike guys out consistently. While they lost Adam Wainwright, and their bullpen has changed somewhat, let's look at team seasonal strikeout rates for a moment.

Year K/9
2011 6.73
2010 6.77
2009 6.55
2008 5.92
2007 5.92
2006 6.11

 

It's possible that this is happenstance, but I see a clear trend, including the emergence of Adam Wainwright, towards a team filled with pitchers that are less reliant on their defense.  This isn't a club that is rebelling against the idea of "run prevention"; it's a club that's getting it's run prevention from another source -- it's pitchers.

So yeah, the rest of us can take our Wins Above Replacement and Equivalent Average and come up with formulas. But just give La Russa 25 players with a sharpened competitive edge who want to win more than the 25 on the other side. And he'll happily go into 162 games with that.

This seems disingenuous. Every year we read articles about how Tony La Russa wants to, above all else, win. The context of his return to managing each season isn't "Will TLR have a scrappy enough team?" but rather "Does TLR think he has the drive to continue to win?"

The quote above creates a false choice separating scrappy players from good players and ignoring the fact that you need good players to win, which is what Tony really likes. TLR isn't shy about saying when his team needs reinforcements -- Matt Holliday trade, anyone? -- and the idea that he'd be content with a team full of David Eckstein's and Miguel Batista's because they're scrappy and competitive is misguided.

At the end of the article, I just think that Bernie has it all wrong. He's stuck on one-dimensional characterizations. TLR wants scrappy players. Jeff Luhnow's "fancy product" of statistical analysis.  TLR campaigned for players that while they may be scrappy (Theriot) or good club house guys (Lance Berkman) are quantifiably GOOD players on the field.  Jeff Luhnow's fancy product is currently closing out games and comprises a significant part of the bullpen -- doesn't seem very shelved to me.

TLR may value certain personality traits more than Jeff Luhnow but Bernie's article does little to offer the shades of either person's personality not to mention the lack of any discussion of what role John Mozeliak plays in, you know, actually acquiring the players. As a frequent TLR critic, I'm reminded that these one-dimensional characterizations are misguided and that's something I've been guilty of myself.

What I'm driving at isn't that TLR doesn't want scrappy players. Or that Jeff Luhnow doesn't believe in a statistical model. Instead, I think that those are oversimplifications and in 2011, John Mozeliak seems to have found a way for everyone to have their cake and eat it too. Scrappy players who are genuinely good at playing baseball -- amazing that those guys aren't torn apart by their own mutually exclusive properties, no?

Comment 102 comments  |  7 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I virtually never listen to sport talk radio anymore

but I had Bernie on when he was talking about this on his show. My first reaction was “Why would sabermetric guys not like this team?” Value on this team has shifted a bit from defense to offense, but the value is still there. Does he not understand that one of the goals of these stats is to account for each player’s value as a whole?

Boog might've. Who's to say, really? With the extraordinary number of variables to account for, Boog very well mightn't've.

by The Continental on May 5, 2011 11:18 AM EDT reply actions  

Yeah, this is really just another example of desire for narrative

Sports writers and talkers like narratives. They like to be story-tellers instead of just bare fact-reporters. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. It’s why the term “journalism” is preferred to “reporting” so much. Would anybody be that interested in reading a bare list of things you did on a given day? No. They might be interested in reading your journal, though, which would probably try to impart some sort of meaning to the events.
Bernie’s striving for a narrative, and I think this particular attempt falls short of being convincing. I think azruavatar did a good job here of breaking down why that is.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on May 5, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions  

Everyone likes narratives - not just sports writers.

Look at the narrative here about TLR and his love of veterans and hate for young players. Or his bullpen management. Or ook at the narrative that the Cards never build from within. I once wrote a lengthy post criticizing what I thought was azru’s creation of inaccurate narrative in how the FO/TLR had constructed the roster.
  
http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2010/12/5/1856108/puma-eats-fat-elvis-and-everyone-riots#53611914

In sum, I don’t agree with Bernie. He’s wrong in this instance. But using the crutch of a simplistic and incorrect narrative is a staple here and is not only the province of PD writers.

by Willie McGee's Twin on May 5, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I was hoping that my post kind of implied all that

The reader obviously likes narratives too, or else they wouldn’t be so successful. Some on VEB (myself included) are definitely guilty of it too. Bernie did not commit some heinous sin with this article or something, but he’s not correct either. We all do this.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on May 6, 2011 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

sells the papers heh

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 5, 2011 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

i don't dislike many bernie articles.

the original article i disliked to a major degree. and he brought it back. bleh.

by stlcardinalsfang on May 5, 2011 11:36 AM EDT reply actions  

I don't understand why it is always an either/or frame to statistical analysis vs. ______________________

Lance Berkman is a sabremetrician’s dream offensive player. He is also a ton of fun to watch hit. Berkman is also consistently praised as a great clubhouse presence.

Matt Holliday is a sabremetrician’s dream offensive player. He is also a ton of fun to watch hit. He can hit for power and at a high average. He’s also a skilled defender, according to the models, even if he appears shaky out there to the eye.

Albert Pujols is a sabremetrician’s dream offensive player. Well, maybe not yet this season.

Colby Rasmus, Yadier Molina, and we could go on. This team is more easily liked by folks who are in tune with stats than last year’s.

Ryan Theriot may not hit for power, but he can draw a walk. He consistently takes tough plate appearances. He did so last night. But, he is terrible at defense. In fact, if you took a poll of guys the age of my dad and RB’s dad, they would probably find Theriot to be an unacceptable SS because of his poor defense. It’s only via stats that folks offset his poor defense with his offensive production, and this justifies playing him at SS. It isn’t how often he dirties his uniform so much as how often he gets a hit or a walk.

This is a baseless construction in Bernie’s mind of a disagreement. Basically, Mo and TLR gambled on Theriot and Berkman bouncing back and hitting enough to justify playing their respective defensive positions. This was the near-unanimous verdict on the offseason’s roster moves. Thank goodness their gamble has paid off so far.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 5, 2011 11:39 AM EDT reply actions  

Agreed. Berkma

Moreover, Berkman, while savvy, is about the least “scrappy” player I can think of.

I seriously cannot think of a position player in the majors that seems less scrappy than Lance Berkman.

by Willie McGee's Twin on May 5, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

u serious

Brandon Phillips
Curtis Granderson
Mike Stanton

Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
Twitter | Gas House Graphs

by mysterui on May 5, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

soriano

justin upton

You teach me baseball and I'll teach you relativity. No, we must not. You will learn about relativity faster than I learn baseball. --Albert Einstein

by IHeartBoog on May 5, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah

derek jeter’s about half as scrappy as lance berkman.

by DanUpBaby on May 5, 2011 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions   5 recs

What?!

Derek Jeter is a veritable coach on the field. He’s a middle infielder who hits lots of singles and grounders. He hustles. Jeter has grit coming out of his ears.

by Willie McGee's Twin on May 5, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

literally no-one got that

but i’ll rec it.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 5, 2011 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

I got it.

Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
"If I do it wrong just break another toe. Three's my lucky number anyway." -Evan Lysacek: 2010 Olympic Gold Medalist ♥

by ClemsonGirl on May 5, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's the Joke

"Miller came in from the bullpen with a gan of casoline." - Mike Shannon

by Alxfritz on May 5, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions   3 recs

They're either dynamic or exciting.

And Latin players are also one of those adjectives.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on May 6, 2011 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

YOU SUCK MCBAIN

But seriously, Ray Lankford was not scrappy enough.

"...and pujols has given st louis the lead"

by tgreenfield on May 6, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

How do you define scrappy?

Berkman runs hard (and is surprisingly fleet of foot, given his size), seems to give his all, and has a certain John Krukiness about him. I don’t think he chews tobacco, but you squint and imagine him doing that pretty easily.

Of course, this debate means nothing, at least until there is a Scrappiness Above Replacement stat, but I am genuinely wondering why you would not think of Berkman as scrappy.

by SouthsideCardsFan on May 5, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a great example of why labels such as

“scrappy,” “gritty,” etc. are so silly. They are empty vessels into which sportswriters and fans pour their own perceptions. Frequently, they project themselves onto these players and insult their talent level while singing praises as to their effort. As if the Berkmans, Pujolses, and Hollidays do not give it their all. It’s insulting to the players labeled as such and the players who are not.

To me, Pujols has always been one of the most gritty players in the league. He plays hard every day, will steal a base, often takes the extra base on the basepaths, and will break up a double play if need be. But, he’s of Latin heritage and really, really good, so it seems he can’t be called “gutsy,” “scrappy,” or “gritty.” It is ridiculous and says more about the bestower of such labels than the players who wear them.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 5, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Isn't Theriot too clean shaven for grit?

I thought Eckstein was the only exception for clean shaven grit? Shouldn’t Theriot have stubble and spit more if he wants to be gritty?

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on May 5, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're absolutely right

And if you asked Tony who his grittiest, gutsiest player was, I’m pretty sure he’d say Albert.

by lightbulb on May 5, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

this.

i don’t know how exactly to define “gritty” but i know how its NOT defined – guys who clearly don’t care, don’t hustle, don’t try to do the most in a given situation. that’s why i listed alfonso soriano and justin upton above. how about manny ramirez? these guys are just phoning it in most of the time. (upton has been a bit better this season…)

You teach me baseball and I'll teach you relativity. No, we must not. You will learn about relativity faster than I learn baseball. --Albert Einstein

by IHeartBoog on May 5, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think Manny usually plays pretty hard

he goofs around and is clearly an asshole off the field, but I think he’s often somewhat unfairly characterised as a guy who doesn’t give his all. Perhaps he could be criticised for not trying to improve his defense a bit more, but I think most of his mis-plays come from being genuinely cack-handed at defense, rather than lazy.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 5, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Braun is very similar actually

but because he’s white and looks like a tarsier no-one in the media will ever care.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 5, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure I agree about Pujols

he dogs it, IMO, sometimes REALLY badly on groundballs, even when he GIDP. I’m pretty sure if he actually ran hard out of the batters box on a weak grounder every time he’d have anoher 2-3 hits per year. He’s often thrown out by a couple of steps when he’s just ambled down the line; any time an infielder bobbles it slightly or pulls the 1B off the bag (which is more likely under the pressure of a closer play) he’s still thrown out in these situations.

I find it constantly annoying tbh, and I don’t think the fans/team/manager would put up with it from a less talented player.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 5, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

see Yadi

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions  

While agreeing with bgh that everyone has his/her own definition...

I define scrappy as “lacking elite athletic talent,” not a power hitter, and a user of hustle, bunts, walks (often worked after weakly fouling off 8 pitches), HBPs, and fliners/quails/ducks to get on base. A scrappy player slides a lot – he tries to break up double plays even when there are already two outs. A scrappy player has to rely on his heady play, his baseball smarts, and his ability to get the job done and do the little things — all to stay on the roster or in the starting lineup. A scrappy player is a coach on the field and everyone thinks the player would be a great manager after his playing days are done. A scrappy player was never given anythign and had to work harder than the more-talented guys to “make it.”

Berkman is all hand-eye coordination and power. He’s always been a star – in college, was a first round draft pick, flew through the minors and has hit ever since. He’s been know not to be in the best shape all the time. I could go on.

Botton line — Scrappy players don’t get nickmanes like Fat Elvis and don’t eat twinkies in the outfield.

by Willie McGee's Twin on May 5, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

I like your definition,

complete with the whole “will make a good coach or manager someday” trait.

Let me say that, in my opinion, the most unscrappy player who gets labeled as “scrappy” is Dustin Pedroia. The guy has always been excellent at baseball and a star yet the media casts him as an overlooked scrapster. It’s absurd. The guy displaced Ian Kinsler at second base at an elite NCAA baseball program for goodness sakes! And was drafted in the second round!

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 5, 2011 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

As so often happens, I’m reminded of an FJM.

Eckstein v. Pedroia

Pedroia is a fine fielder and a tremendous hitter for a 2nd baseman and he just happens to be a bit small. But because he’s small, he gets a ridiculous amount of condescending praise heaped on him, all of which ignore his considerable ability.

"...Or we could make L.A.N.C.E. into a recursive acronym, like, 'Lance: Adam Needs Cartilage from your Elbow." -- Quote by our very own DanUpBaby

by redbirdnation8206 on May 5, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

But he's 4'6"!

It’s Pedroia’s size that gets him into the Scrappy Club.

by TBender on May 5, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think if you look up

gritty or scrappy it might say “see Pete Rose”.
Not really the greatest or most talented athlete ever but he got the absolute most out of what he had.
 I suppose there are plenty of ways to get the “scrappy / gritty” label, and, as mentioned above, it sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.
Bo Hart & Rex Hudler easily come to mind. They probably had the highest laundry bills in the clubhouse. How about Ron Hunt? He may still hold the record for being hit by a pitch….mostly on purpose, taking one for the team.
Grit, scrap, hustle are all interchangeable in my book and not measured by dirt on the uniform.
 Also, (this light bulb just came on in my head) if TLR really likes gritty and scrappy….and talent, he would have loved to have managed the Gas House Gang.
Now there’s “scrappy and gritty”.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Pete Rose is one of the greatest ballplayers of all-time.

Rose had 4,256 career base hits. He won three batting titles. Rose led the league in hits seven times. He also hit .303 for his career. One does not tally 4,256 base hits, win three batting titles, lead the league in hits seven times, and hit .303 over a 24-year career if he is not incredibly talented at hitting a baseball. Pete Rose had talent, a lot of it. Just like Pedroia, because he is short and white, the racist sportswriters condescended to him throughout his career.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 6, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think he expanded his talent with his hustle

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

He may have,

but even if he did not hustle, he is still a Hall-of-Fame caliber talent. You don’t amass 4,256 hits and have a .300+ average if you are not highly skilled at hitting a round ball with a round bat.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 6, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

But he's white!

"Sometimes you scare me." - azruavatar

by spants on May 6, 2011 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

what does that mean?

I don’t understand.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was pretty friggin talented at solidly striking baseballs

And he was good enough athlete to play a whole bunch of positions at least passably.

"...Or we could make L.A.N.C.E. into a recursive acronym, like, 'Lance: Adam Needs Cartilage from your Elbow." -- Quote by our very own DanUpBaby

by redbirdnation8206 on May 8, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

OK

I guess I need to clear this up. I’m not saying that Pete Rose wasn’t an athlete at all or that he had no talent. Of course he was and of course he did.
When I said he wasn’t really the greatest or most talented athlete ever ….
what I mean is that he wasn’t the fastest, he wasn’t the strongest and even though he won 2 gold gloves (outfield) he wasn’t the slickest fielder.
His real asset (talent) was hitting and hustling, and just being a solid player with fire in his gut. Mr. consistent, Charlie Hustle.
 I’m not alone in this opinion, I’ve heard it said countless times. I just happen to agree with it.
 There are lots of players that were better natural athletes and more naturally talented. I’m saying that Rose did more than most of them by pushing him self harder to squeeze out every drop of his ability. I’ve never seen anyone do that better and I’ve said for a long time, give me 8 Pete Rose’s and good pitching and I’ll win a lot of games.
 I think a guy like Willie Mays is born, and a guy like Pete Rose is made.
I think Pete Rose probably had to work a lot harder than a lot of other players, because he wasn’t the fastest, he wasn’t the biggest, he wasn’t the strongest, but he could beat you anyway because he had more will and more fire and was good enough across the board.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 9, 2011 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

But how can you say all of that to any degree of certainty?

I was alive long enough ago to watch Charlie Hustle play. I know he played the game really, really hard. But why was he a historically significant player? His ability to hit baseballs. Maybe he was further along on the works-hard spectrum than some, but to say guys like Willie Mays were “born” is undervaluing both Rose’s talent and Mays’ work ethic.

ALL pro baseball players, at some point, worked their tail off to get where they are. It makes for an interesting narrative to say that player X hustles his can off and gets all he can out of his talent, but doesn’t someone like Albert Pujols get a lot out of his talent? Sure…. it’s just that there’s more of it there than with someone like David Eckstein.

My point is this… I don’t see anything wrong with admiring a guy’s work ethic or toughness or scrappiness or whatever, but when it comes to analyzing his actual playing then that’s all that should really be done. Analyzing his playing based on results is the only way to really do it, because frankly no one has any damn clue what any player’s actual ceiling is or how much they’re maximizing it, that’s all pure guesswork based on observations and personal preferences. Sportswriters are, by and large, the king of making that mistake.

"...Or we could make L.A.N.C.E. into a recursive acronym, like, 'Lance: Adam Needs Cartilage from your Elbow." -- Quote by our very own DanUpBaby

by redbirdnation8206 on May 9, 2011 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

agree to disagree?

I’m not undervaluing both Rose’s talent and Mays’ work ethic.
 I’m comparing someone who obviously is a natural athlete to someone who, in my opinion…and others, isn’t as naturally gifted.
He’s proof that playing hard and pressing yourself can put you in a league with the Hall of Famers.

ALL pro baseball players, at some point, worked their tail off to get where they are. It makes for an interesting narrative to say that player X hustles his can off and gets all he can out of his talent, but doesn’t someone like Albert Pujols get a lot out of his talent? Sure…. it’s just that there’s more of it there than with someone like David Eckstein.

This is my point exactly. Albert doesn’t do what he does with ease, I’m sure he works hard at it like most players do. But he seems to have an “ability far beyond those of mortal men”. He has a gift, a natural gift that other players just can’t match no matter how much they work at it.
Despite what our constitution says, all men are not born equal.
How do terms like “He’s a Natural” and “Charlie Hustle” ever come to be? Nothing in the numbers indicate Natural and Hustle, yet some athletes get those labels. There’s nothing in the numbers that shows “Daring” either, and Pete had that, and turned singles into doubles and doubles into triples. The numbers just show a double or triple…how bland and how shallow they can be. Those terms come from simple observation, and there’s something to it sometimes.
Muhammed Ali was a “Natural”, Sonny Liston wasn’t. It was obvious.
Both were heavyweight champs. I bet Sonny worked harder (opinion).
Ruth is a better example. He could party all night and hit home runs all day, he didn’t seem to need as much workout as everybody else….so I hear. He was a Natural.
 What I’m saying about Rose is that he did more with his skills than others with similar skills because he made himself into a great player. (opinion).

…but when it comes to analyzing his actual playing then that’s all that should really be done. Analyzing his playing based on results is the only way to really do it…

You sound pretty certain about that, but I think that only provides an incomplete picture of a player in his entirety. In that respect, I think numbers can sometimes be blinding. (opinion)

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 10, 2011 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

For the love of god

Fund a way to post this in the P-D and rub Bernie’s face in it

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on May 5, 2011 12:25 PM EDT reply actions  

Not that the trolls there deserve the knowledge

just that they need it, like charity

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on May 5, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

*find

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on May 5, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with your "have their cake and eat it too line"

I think Mo did a great job with roster construction this year. I love the bench. I now love the bullpen to a certain degree. Sure, mo probably got lucky that berkman and theriot remembered how to hit, but I still give him a lot of credit for this roster.

And, amazingly, TLR has kept his patented overmanagement to a minimum.

Once Albert stops leaving 4827481374 guys on base per game, this team is going to be the favorite in most every series they play

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

Trevor Rosenthal Update (as of 4/27/11):
27 IP, 35 K, 11 BB/HBP, 9 ER, 2.31 FIP

by VolsnCards5 on May 5, 2011 12:29 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

And, amazingly, TLR has kept his patented overmanagement to a minimum.

I will actually give TLR some credit on this one. He’s pretty much picked a bunch of guys, made the lineup ensuring they were in it (and left Yadi/Berkman out of it enough to prevent me from mashing a panic button), and stuck with it for the most part. He hasn’t tried to reinvent the wheel. His stubborn insisitence on using Batista in close and lates is a bit unnerving, but thus far it’s been a good year for TLR in my view. So far…

"...Or we could make L.A.N.C.E. into a recursive acronym, like, 'Lance: Adam Needs Cartilage from your Elbow." -- Quote by our very own DanUpBaby

by redbirdnation8206 on May 5, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I've been pleasantly surprised with TLR this year

perhaps face-rot agrees with him.

He’s shown a pretty quick hook to Franklin and Miller, not used Batista TOO egregiously, and shown a lot of trust in the two newest members of the bullpen. There’ve been fewer outright awful lineup/substitution decisions, and he seems to be tinkering and doing dumb stuff like hit-and-runs and bunting somewhat less (although there’s been at least one instance of each in the last week that haven’t been very sensible).

I’d have liked to have seen a bit more of Tyler Greene, but generally he seems to have shuffled the mediocre infield pack pretty well, too.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 5, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

this!

I too have been happy not to see the micro-managing this year. And I’m really happy to see Tony playing Rasmus EVERY DAY!
But what happens when there’s a losing streak? And what happens When Skip returns?
You and I know that Punto should be the starting 2bman over Skip. I may be bitching at Tony again, we’ll see.
But so far I can’t complain too much from my armchair and I’m coming out of it, screaming, less.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

small victories, I guess

after today’s win, we’re still a game behind where we were in 2010, after 33 games.

It's 7:05 somewhere...

by SleepyCA on May 7, 2011 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

but we're not competing against the 2010 Cardinals

we’re competing against the 2011 Brewers (who are better than us but now 5 games back) and the 2011 Reds (who are not better than us and are 1.5 games back). I’d argue we’re in a better position now than we were then, in many ways.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 7, 2011 5:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know that the 2011 Brewers are actually better than us.

I think all three clubs are pretty close.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 7, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

+1

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 7, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

i think the Reds are really over-rated by having had such a lucky 2010

without Rolen I think they’re a few games behind us and the Brewers.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 9, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

for sure

I’d say they were a few games behind the cards and brewers BEFORE they lost Rolen

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 9, 2011 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Their starting pitching appears to be turning healthy.

And that concerns me.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on May 10, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

I just think there's a lot of mediocrity in that team

I think there’s maybe only three above-average position players there. Admittedly, one of them is one of the best players in the league, and their pitching is solid enough, but there’s really no-one scary on that roster.

I think if they went 79-83 last year, we wouldn’t really be talking them up as a legit contender this year to the same extent.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 10, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

well said

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 11, 2011 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not going to worry about the Reds

until Rolen is legitimately healthy and Jay Bruce starts hitting like he did last year.

  • Cueto should help them for sure, but who knows about Bailey.
  • Volquez is walking nearly SEVEN HITTERS PER NINE.
  • Arroyo is doing his best Bronson Arroyo impression again this season.
  • You could call Travis Wood “unlucky” since his FIP is 2 runs lower than his ERA and is giving up a 27% LD rate, but as I see it, he’s a fly ball pitcher in a home ballpark where a lot of fly balls end up being home runs, and his HR rate is way below average right now.
  • Leake has looked good so far, as has LeCure in his starting opportunities.

It’s hard to say. They have so many guys who are just up and down (Bailey, Cueto, Leake) and other guys who seemingly get away with murder of peripherals while having some success (Volquez, Wood). The one thing they do have is depth, and a lot of it. Enough that they could make a big splash of a trade mid-summer to get another arm, bat, or bullpen help.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 10, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

they're like that team that can swoop in and win if the better teams falter

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 11, 2011 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

yeah

I think they need a ton of luck to win 90, and both us (after our good start) and milwaukee have the talent to do that.

Saying that, they’ll probably sweep us now :-)

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 13, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

sure looks like that might happen

ugh

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 14, 2011 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

all three teams have the talent to do that.

I don’t think any team wins 90 without some degree of luck.
Cincy started the season with a big dose of luck….Wainwright is out for the season.
More luck (for everybody but us)…..Albert isn’t hitting.
This season could be a dogfight till the end, and luck, good and bad, might be the deciding factor. Ya never know!

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 15, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

I still expect it to be a dogfight this year

the 3 teams are just too evenly matched for it not to be imo

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 16, 2011 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

i thought the berkman acquisition was a case where the saber types got it right.

a lot of more traditional folks said “berkman just isn’t an outfielder,” because the traditional view is that people just fit into certain position spots, and not others. when you don’t try to assign some value to defense, it’s hard to weigh whether a player’s offensive advantages offset his defensive deficits.

but because we spend our time trying to weight defensive value and offensive value and see how they offset each other, we could look at him and say that he might be a crappy outfielder, but that if he regressed to his career norms at the plate, he’d be a pretty decent outfielder, because the offensive production would outweigh the defensive inadequacies.

bernie’s honked this horn before, and i think he’s way off.

"chipper jones grounds out, third baseman albert pujols to first baseman mark hamilton." 5.1.11

by tom s. on May 5, 2011 8:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Does that concept also apply to Theriot?
i thought the berkman acquisition was a case where the saber types got it right.

I see it a little differently (surprise!)
If my broker advises me to buy some stock and it does well, he looks great. But is he lucky or good? The best psychic is the one who’s last guess was correct.

a lot of more traditional folks said "berkman just isn’t an outfielder," because the traditional view is that people just fit into certain position spots, and not others

A lot of the traditional folks probably did dismiss Berkaman as an outfielder, but I’m not sure most of them did. I don’t really know, but I didn’t
There were saber types that rejected the idea as well.
When the Cardinals picked up Berkman as an outfielder there were plenty of folks here (saber types) who didn’t like it.

when you don’t try to assign some value to defense, it’s hard to weigh whether a player’s offensive advantages offset his defensive deficits.

Assuming that assigning value means in terms of numbers, I mostly disagree (not totally) that it’s hard to weigh the offset without it.
To me, it’s all relative to the team as a whole, and it can change quickly and often if any one piece of the team falters. Theriot is ok at ss…..yesterday. The team’s been hitting. He may not seem so good during a drought, even if he stays the same. But his defense will matter more then and that’s not too hard to see just by looking.

Disclaimer:
not meant to be an argument either for or against saber types. It’s just a different view.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think the "saber-types" were generally more positive about Berkman than about Theriot

but part of that comes from the knowledge that Theriot (who is a 2nd baseman playing out of position) would be used all year at SS and we’d have a terrible MIF with him & Skip both in the field. I personally thought Theriot, if used judiciously, was a pretty good acquisition and had a decent chance to bounce-back and be about an average player. He just isn’t a shortstop.

I suppose you could equally say that Berkman just isn’t a right-fielder. And, arguably, in both cases we had an internal candidate for the position (Ryan at SS and Craig/Jay in RF) with a better glove. So, yeah, not quite sure where the congintive dissonance comes from there. Maybe you can argue that Berkman had a higher ceiling, whereas Theriot was never going to more than average.

Still bitching to contact.

by Felonius_Monk on May 7, 2011 5:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Mozeliak is a good GM

if not great… considering the weird constraints he has to work with. admittedly, all GMs have constraints, but it seems like Mozeliak’s are a little more extreme?

The amount that Theriot is being marketed in St Louis is baffling to me… he’s on a few of the commercials already, he gets written about pretty often, and he is the preferred starting shortstop. all this makes me shake my head, it is very illogical.

the idea that Larussa “went rogue” is super hilarious…. he’s always had a couple of good hitters on each of his teams surrounded by a pretty good supporting cast. not every team has that. Dave Duncan has helped make his career, it would be interesting to know just how much over 50% that is. because having effective starting pitching and some hitters that can get on base is very important, not crappy fielders who exhibit intangibles because people say they do. anyways, great article robot!

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 5, 2011 9:24 PM EDT reply actions  

One of the things I'm eager to see is Mo's first season as GM without TLR as manager.

I’d like to see what/how he does without having to deal with the weird “TLR gets a greater say than normal in team building” dynamic we all seem the think is going on.

by dronemc on May 6, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

is Theriot a hero?

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 6, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

He's either a hero

a ruse, or a bill of goods.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 6, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also,

six years ago, wasn’t Tony rebelling against the “stats guys” by insisting that defense was important? “Scrappy” used to involve being a fantastic defender.

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

by Valatan on May 7, 2011 11:18 AM EDT reply actions  

Yes yes

I actually do think that TLR has a contrarian streak that fits well with a “snapping up undervalued assets” approach. When defense is cheap and offense is expensive, get defense and groundball pitchers. When defense is expensive and offense is cheap, get offense. When lock-down closers are cheap, get lock-down closers. When they’re expensive, rotate also-ran starters and kids.

Manage your team accordingly. Bat your pitcher 8th sometimes but not always. Play for one run, using squeeze plays and stuff, sometimes but not always. Eg, this team seems to be running a lot more, particularly at the bottom of the order, than past teams. Seems like he’s gambling for runs, since he knows the defense isn’t great and the pitching has some weaknesses.

Sometimes TLR sticks too long in his patterns, and he is def loyal to his guys to a fault, but I don’t think he’s doing it unthinkingly, or merely out of habit, like some managers might.

by kindred on May 13, 2011 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

This is a perfect example of what "Black Swan" author Taleb would call a

“Narrative Fallacy”.

I think there are times where we apply false logic to decisions made by TLR and the front office when, in reality, there’s little of our “logic” that applies to the situation because there are many facts that we can’t possibly know. So we try to construct a narrative and then apply things to that narrative. The problem is that there are many times where our concept of the facts changes when applying to the narrative, creating a fallacy.

In this case, the narrative is that TLR is anti-saber and pro-“grit”, when in reality, as Az has pointed out, he’s simply trying to put the best possible players on the field and to win games. Which is what Jeff Luhnow is doing. And what John Mozeliak is doing. And what Bill DeWitt is doing. I don’t think that all of those guys all agree with each other 100% of the time (and I would certainly say that there’s quite a bit difference in what they term as “valuable”), but they are all committed to winning games.

That said, I DO think that TLR’s hand has been forced a bit this year (especially when it comes to using the young relievers), but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. You have to give him credit for using those young guys in high leverage situations, which Bernie doesn’t do in his piece. He doesn’t give Tony credit for yanking Ryan Franklin when he did in favor of a guy who hasn’t closed games since college.

The Berkman acquisition is looking like a genius move at this point, but I don’t think that anyone expected him to be this good (and, in addition, if everyone thought Allen Craig was actually this good we wouldn’t have gone after Lance Berkman in the first place). The Yankees certainly didn’t, or they would have picked up his option year since he’s far better than what they’re running out in LF and DH these days. Theriot is doing Theriot things (getting on base, playing shitty defense, hitting .290+). K-Mac has been smoke-and-mirrors spectacular to this point, as has Kyle Lohse. Garcia has been brilliant. We have the #1 offense in all of baseball in terms of scoring runs all while the best hitter in the last decade is hitting .240. Anyone would look like a genius at this point, but the season is only a bit more than a month old, and depth is still a major problem in the rotation and the middle infield.

This club looked pretty amazing offensively through April last year, so, as Winston Wolf would say: “Let’s not start sucking each other’s Popsicles just yet, ok?”

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 9, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions   2 recs

Also

After watching numerous Punto AB’s, I’m forced to eat a little bit of crow AND understand why Gardy liked him so much up in Minnesota. The guy takes GREAT AB’s. Just battles and battles, continually spoiling pitch after pitch. His outcomes are just about the same as Brendan Ryan’s are, but the path to getting to outcome is more valuable to the team, imo.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 9, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Punto was a very nice pick up for this team imo

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 9, 2011 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can agree with some of this...

but not all.
I’m not a MLB manager and don’t know what goes behind the decisions made, but I don’t think Tony always puts his best team on the field or gives his team it’s best chance to win. More often than not he does, but some things are hard for this mere mortal to understand, not being privy to all the reasoning behind them. Things like..why is Theriot at ss instead of 2b?, and why hasn’t Rasmus been playing every day until now?
 In some of his earlier seasons here you could count on the starter going 5 or six regardless of how badly they were getting shelled. Games would frequently be out of hand by the time he tapped the pen.
 Tony does a lot of things right and he’s a winning manager, but I think he could do better on lots of occasions. It seems like it took him 5 years to adapt to handling a NL pitching staff. We had teams that could have had better chances to win if the pitching had been handled differently.
But what do I know? probably not more than 2% of the reasons behind the decisions…and Tony wins his share.
I bitch anyway….I’m a fan and that’s what fans do. It’s their job.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 9, 2011 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think Tony always puts his best team on the field or gives his team it’s best chance to win… Tony does a lot of things right and he’s a winning manager, but I think he could do better on lots of occasions.

/emphasis mine.

Sure you do. So do I. But there’s a difference between “I don’t think” and “I know for certain”. You’re using imperfect information to determine this, and Tony is using imperfect information to determine his decisions as well. Would you agree, though, that Tony La Russa does not intentionally try to lose games? Sure, he makes mistakes, but there’s a world of difference between making a bad decision based on imperfect information or gut instinct and losing games on purpose to make a point.

The point here is that when you try to construct a narrative, such as “Tony doesn’t always put his best team on the field”, you’re now only looking for examples that fit your narrative, and ignoring all examples to the contrary. In fact, what you SHOULD be doing is the exact opposite: finding all the examples that prove your theory false and seeing if they then hold any water. It’s very hard for people to think this way, however.

What Bernie’s doing in his piece is that he’s taking a narrative and then finding and conforming evidence to fit the narrative. Az has pointed out, though, that a lot of what he’s saying doesn’t fit the narrative AT ALL, and there’s a lot of evidence to support the idea that the entire narrative is a fallacy, even within the context of Bernie’s evidence of the narrative itself.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 9, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

it's interesting

people usually dislike movies that don’t put forth a typical story arch or narrative with western ending… but life keeps going on.

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 9, 2011 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

I disagree

The AVERAGE movie fan supposedly doesn’t like those types of movies (or so a studio exec would tell you), but I happen to like movies like Memento, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, Being John Malkovich, etc. specifically because they are different and tell a story from a different perspective. There are some people who simply want to go to a movie and check completely out. I’m not one of those people and neither are a lot of others. Even the action movies I like involve some kind of buy in and aren’t conventional (The Bourne series, The Transporter series, Die Hard, etc.) It’s the Jerry Bruckheimer knock offs that I can’t stand — like pretty much everything MIchael Bay has ever made with the notable exception of Armageddon.

Similarly, The Hangover took a twist on the buddy comedy by creating a post-party flashback mystery/suspense angle in which to tell the story. It’s a detective story disguised as a comedy buddy flick.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 10, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

people usually dislike them

people like you and I think they are great… not sure why you are disagreeing

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 11, 2011 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions  

I guess I was thinking about open ended movies and philosophical studies

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 11, 2011 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Because I think those people would like those movies

if those movies were marketed like the big blockbusters and artists were allowed to make those movies without meddling from executives who know nothing about art.

I have no doubt that Memento is a blockbuster if it’s marketed as a blockbuster. The reason the mainstream is mainstream is because we like to be treated this way.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 11, 2011 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions  

Of course...
Would you agree, though, that Tony La Russa does not intentionally try to lose games?

I would agree with that.
But I disagree that the horse is before the cart….that the narrative came first and premise was built around it…speaking for myself, not Bernie.
 The premise came first and then a narrative (simple expressing an opinion based on observation) was created.
 When Tony lets Albert sit on the bench with the game on the line in a do or die situation in an All Star Game, it becomes fodder for said narrative, along with other instances similar in nature that accumulate until such time that the narrative is created.
 Theriot at SS instead of 2B is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if Tony really is putting the best team on the field. In his mind I’m sure he believes he his. He’s won more games than I have so I respect his thinking but at the same time I happen to disagree, but that’s only an opinion. I’m not offering any proof because I state anything as being factual. I said "Idon’t think Larussa………
 If Bernie is acting like a cop (accuse, then build a supporting body of evidence) then he should be taken to task for it.
 However, I can remember times that Bernie came out and said he was wrong about something. I don’t remember hearing LaRussa ever doing that. If he has then I missed it.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 10, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

You're actually doing it right here:
When Tony lets Albert sit on the bench with the game on the line in a do or die situation in an All Star Game, it becomes fodder for said narrative, along with other instances similar in nature that accumulate until such time that the narrative is created.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. If Jim Leyland leaves Albert on the bench in the ASG, it’s a “stupid mistake”. When Tony does it, it’s the sign of bigger problems and a lack of playing his best players. You’re applying facts to your narrative to support it, even when those facts may have little or anything to do with the narrative itself. Then you defend your narrative by trying to make the other party prove a negative:

The premise came first and then a narrative (simple expressing an opinion based on observation) was created.

That’s a chicken or the egg argument, isn’t it? It doesn’t matter when the narrative fallacy was “created” only that there is one, and that the evidence you’re using must then be applied ONLY within the confines of the narrative, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary, such as, the top 4 position players (Pujols, Holliday, Rasmus, Berkman) on the Cardinals have missed only 12 out of 140 (4 players X 35 games) possible games so far this year, and 7 of those were for Matt Holliday’s appendectomy. The heart of the order has been Rasmus, Pujols, Holliday, Berkman in over 2/3 of the teams games so far. That would seem to refute your notion that he “doesn’t play his best players” or “overmanages his lineup”. Yet, what gets brought up is that Theriot is playing out of position even though there isn’t another regular on this team that can play SS and the fact that we signed him to play SS (so it’s as much Mo’s fault as Tony’s that he keeps getting run out there).

I mean, if you want to rag on him about Theriot, fine. But it’s not like there’s a future HOF SS sitting on the bench behind him waiting for his turn to play. There isn’t. He’s probably the best option we have at the position right now, and while we may be upset about it, it might also be the truth.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 10, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

fallacy could be in the eye of the beholder.

somehow, this conversation has gotten twisted. We’re obviously not on the same page and maybe not even in the same book.
It’s a definite possibility that I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying to me and vice-versa. It could get pretty deep here and probably end up in a stalemate.
I’m debating the merits of continuing this……………………………
let’s try again on another topic, eh?

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 10, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's actually the problem -- the "Eye of the Beholder"

The reason that the fallacy exists at all is that the “eye of the beholder” (or human cognition) is specifically trained to look for a narrative because it helps us understand things better. The problem, and fallacy, arises when the narrative itself prevents us from logically thinking OUTSIDE the narrative and trying to cram everything we see into the frame of it.

Do you see what I mean?

  • Narrative Fallacy: Tony LaRussa over-manages his teams and does not always put the best possible product on the field.

And what you’ve been doing is giving examples that support your narrative, but NO instances that DON’T support your theory: like not running Big Mac out there when he was hurt but could play, pitching Ankiel in a playoff game when he probably shouldn’t have (he was our best option to start that game, though), replacing an aging Mike Matheny with a young, offensively challenged Yadier Molina, benching Berkman against tough lefties for Allen Craig a couple of times this year, etc.

Instead of looking for things that support your narrative, you should be looking for things that falsify it. That’s the quickest way to determine whether your narrative actually holds any water, and it’s very tough for anyone to do this, mainly because positive reinforcement makes you feel good, while negative reinforcement makes you feel shitty.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 10, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

FWIW

This is why sportswriters stick to narratives — it makes their stories relate to the audience better, flow nicely, and generally are pleasant to read. The problem is that most of them contain, at best, lots of fallacies or half truths that make things look a lot cleaner than they are.

As Talib exemplifies, "If it’s listed as “common sense”, there’s a high probability that it’s a fallacy".

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 10, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

I read and listen carefully

to what is said and written. I fully agree that there is a lot of tripe out there and some people just suck it up, and the sportswriters, speech writers, script writers and on and on and on use whatever works.
 I find lots of fallacies because I take the words exactly as they’re stated and try not to add or subtract from them…..and most of the time I dismiss it as being either smoke or propaganda.
I don’t know who Talib is but I agree with his statement because there’s nothing “common” about common sense. Something will probably be wrong with the statement to somebody.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 10, 2011 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

did you read this somewhere?

is this something being taught in a class?
I respectfully disagree with this whole theory, and I see it as exactly that…a theory.

When using my statements to critique, twice you have omitted the part where I say “I don’t think………” and those are very important words. They tell you that I’m making a statement as an opinion and not as a fact. To me that makes a lot of difference. If you are going to analyze my statement, then analyze the entire statement.

Secondly, I gave an opinion and stated some examples that helped formed that opinion, and also stated, without examples, that most of the time Tony makes good moves. I believe that the examples do support the opinion. That is somehow a fallacy? That’s where one of us is making a left turn.

I think you are implying that I’m making a generalization that totally dismisses any exceptions, and also using faulty or incorrect or incomplete reasoning or data to do it.
If that assumption is correct, then:
1)

I don’t think Tony always puts his best team on the field or gives his team it’s best chance to win… Tony does a lot of things right and he’s a winning manager, but I think he could do better on lots of occasions.

is not a generalization. It points out both sides of the coin. It says that I think he makes both good and bad moves
2)
the reasoning or data is wrong or incomplete…..well who ever has all the correct and complete data and is 100% beyond reproach in their reasoning? You only have the data you have, everybody operates on the data they have.
3)
I think it’s both unreasonable and silly to expect someone to cite a laundry list of pros & cons, positives & negatives, supporting & unsupporting evidence when they’re merely attempting to express an opinion.

 in a simpler example:
I think the sky is blue.
It’s merely an opinion because I said “I think the sky is blue.”
If I’m producing a narrative fallacy for someone because I failed to mention that the sky is sometimes black, gray, green or orange, then I say they are simply nit-picking.

The idea that there is only one way to do anything has always struck me as being limiting & confining. To expect people to conform to the normal, excepted way of thinking and doing only slows progress and builds fences around ideas and communication.
so, one man’s opinion is another man’s fallacy.

What’s wrong with the idea of accepting what someone says as their words and thought rather than have them say it in a manner that you can accept? You don’t have to agree, but they don’t have to alter their statement to fit in a box either.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 10, 2011 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

As I said

Now the onus is on me to “prove a negative”. In other words, if I don’t agree with you, then I have to prove that YOUR fallacy is completely wrong, when the onus should really be on you. This statement is prescient:

I don’t think Tony always puts his best team on the field or gives his team it’s best chance to win… Tony does a lot of things right and he’s a winning manager, but I think he could do better on lots of occasions.

So you’re either asking for perfection or you’re trying to have it both ways in order to prevent your opinion from being logically dubious.

This is also making the assumption that you yourself, or some other manager, would always make all the right decisions and would never be subject to scrutiny for the moves made.

I don’t really care whether it’s your opinion or not. If it’s based on false information it’s then open to debate and discussion. You don’t just get to label things as “opinion” and then get to say whatever the hell you want and not have to back it up with evidence. That’s part of the reason our political discourse has gone to hell in this country — people making factually inaccurate statements and then pleading that it’s just their “opinion”.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 11, 2011 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Look

I’m not trying to have a personal confrontation here, I’m just pointing out that having an undocumented opinion does not let you off the hook for presenting factual evidence to support it.

Saying “I think” doesn’t mean you can then follow that up with whatever you want. If the opinion has fallacies they should be pointed out. You’re entitled to your opinion, you’re not entitled to your own version of the facts.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on May 11, 2011 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's been fun

but I’ve had enough. We’ll never come to an agreement, or even understand each other on this.
let’s just agree to disagree and move on, eh?
thanx for the conversation.

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 11, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rasmus has been playing a ton this year

center fielders usually get more days off than other outfielders, also

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 9, 2011 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

yes...

that’s what I meant.

why hasn’t Rasmus been playing every day until now?
(meaning until this season).

Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.

by Dave Pendleton on May 9, 2011 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

ah

"I do not want my mom to be Fredbird"
free compositionson guitar and keyboards through looping pedal (no overdubs)

by Cards Fan in Chitown on May 11, 2011 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols