tugging at loose threads

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 9:35 AM EDT in St. Louis Cardinals News

yesterday's game put me in mind of a july 4 comment from The Dude, an infrequent but always perceptive poster. writing after the cards' 1st 8-game losing streak, and while they were dropping their fifth consecutive series, he said:

Losing is a Disease
Baseball's a strange game. Pujols gets injured and suddenly, at that very moment, Mulder goes does, Ponson loses whatever it is he had at the beginning of the season, Thompson loses whatever it is he had last season, and Marquis goes on one of his bad streaks. . . . I can't help but think that the L-8 streak wrought some serious damage to the Cardinals morale and pscyhe.

There's a great montage in The Natural that focuses on a motivational speaker who advises the Knights after every loss that "losing is a disease." If so, the Cards appear to have come down with a bad case of it.

The Cards may not be the best team in baseball this year, but they're better than their recent record. I hope Tony finds a way to get this team back on track, and soon.

that sums it up, no? they caught the fever and still haven't shaken it three months later --- much as the 2004-05 caught the opposite bug and fed off it for ~ 275 games. in may 2005 -- a long time ago -- after the redbirds had lassoed another win and tautly tied 'er up, i wrote admiringly of their

teamwide vigilance, a kind of hyperconcentration -- the do-no-wrongness that lets you win games despite being outhit and outpitched. some dismiss it as luck, others exalt it as "character" or "professionalism" -- but whatever it is, you can't manufacture it; it evolves.

that finely honed quality seems to have gotten shattered in chicago and detroit; the cardinals stopped finding ways to thread the needle to victory and began finding loose threads instead -- and tugging at them. the 3d inning yesterday -- which found the cardinals chucking the ball around the infield like little leaguers while baserunners (some of them doubled over with laughter) skipped around the diamond -- shows just how tattered the fabric of this ballclub has become.

the other metaphor begging for overwork is, of course, the concussion. the cardinals sustained two of them before/during the period of interleague play -- eckstein on june 15, edmonds on the 21st -- and have staggered dazed and confused ever since. it's impossible to exhibit "hyperconcentration" when you're seeing double, i guess; tough to uphold the standard of "do-no-wrongness" when you're not quite right in the head. since those two concussions -- i'll use june 22 as the cutoff -- the cardinals have kept pace with the pittsburgh pirates:

	record on june 22	record since june 22
hou	37-35 (.514)	33-37 (.471)
stl	42-28 (.600)	33-39 (.458)
pitt	26-47 (.356)	32-39 (.451)
cin	39-33 (.356)	32-39 (.451)
mil	36-37 (.493)	29-41 (.414)
chi	28-43 (.394)	32-39 (.489)

of course, the disease / concussion metaphors don't explain the pitching staff's collapse . . . . or do they? couldn't the same mental laxity that manifests itself in terrible fielding also account for the team's terrible pitching? that's the common wisdom where marquis is concerned -- his problems are between the ears. and neither sid ponson nor jeff weaver has ever been accused of having steely will on the mound . . . . . does it all simply come down to izzy's hip and mulder's shoulder?

in my mind, the answer is both yes and no. the cardinals have sustained significant injuries this year, ones that couldn't help but show up in the w-l column. but last year's infirmary was even more crowded -- walker and sanders were lost for two months apiece, molina for six weeks, rolen for half the season. it reached the point that guys like grudzielanek and molina were routinely batting cleanup. yet the team kept winning. i think they did because the roster had qualities this year's lacks: depth. balance. a margin for error. the 2006 cardinals just weren't built on a bedrock foundation -- that was clear from the get-go, even during april and may, when the slogan was (remember) "you can beat the cards this year, but you still can't beat pujols." had they stayed completely injury-free, they were probably a 95-win team, with albert accounting single-handedly for wins 86 through 95 -- ie, a .500ish club with 1 transcendent player. when injuries eroded that already thin base, the cardinals became a .450ish team with 1 transcendent player. . . . .

which brings us right up to the present .

and now more bad news: reyes has a tired arm and will take a turn off. according to the p-d, reyes self-reported the fatigue -- came to the coaches and told them his arm wasn't right -- and he sure looked weary friday night; he's at his career high in innings pitched. under other circumstances i might wonder why the rookie is getting shelved after 1 bad start, whereas mulder marquis et al have received 4th 5th and 6th chances to bring things around this year; but if it's true that reyes himself expressed concern (and i'm taking that at face value), then la dunc are doing the right thing to give him a rest.

however well or poorly he pitches in his remaining starts (if any), i wouldn't expect to see anthony on the playoff roster.

Tweet Comment 88 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

playoffs

"i wouldn't expect to see anthony on the playoff roster." The playoff roster? A little presumptuous don't you think?

by lerwin1 on Sep 11, 2006 9:49 AM EDT reply actions

Maybe yes, maybe no

The odds of the Cardinals blowing the Central are slim to none. The Astros would basically have to go either 7-0 or 6-1 to gain any appreciable ground on the Cardinals, and while that's completely possible, it's not likely, considering they're not even a .500 team.

by Robb on Sep 11, 2006 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions

maybe a little

presumptuous --- but if they miss the playoffs, suffice to say i won't lose sleep over it.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

That's

pretty much how I see it too. If they make it, I'll of course root for them--though I expect very little. If they don't make it, meh--so what, an early end to this frustrating season. My hopes are (perhaps foolishly) looking forward to 07.

by rockin redbird on Sep 11, 2006 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Ditto

I'm in that same mindset, as well. Besides, I have more pressing issues in my life to fret over than the playoffs.

by cardsrul on Sep 11, 2006 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm not yet ready to look forward to 07

for a few reason:

Jimmy Edmonds - what a fiasco this is turning out to be...him hurt/not playing well and whining about his contract extension
Starting Pitching - I'm not sure that our starting pitching is going to be appreciably better next year. Carp and Reyes are givens. Will TLR and DD be able to remove Wainwright from the closer's role if he does well there? Financially, I think they have to try him in the rotation, but will they? So lets assume we have Carp, Reyes and Wainwright. Unless they sign someone like Schmidt (Zito isn't the ace we are looking for, imo) we are looking at two more league average pitchers at best.
2b, LF - I like Duncan but can he sustain this? And if not will we have a respectable fallback option or do I have to watch Gooch get ABs. Are there any impact 2b (Soriano excepted)?
Eckstein - What do we have at SS? Is he now damaged goods? I can't stomach Aaron Miles at SS for a whole season or Eckstein doing his Aaron Miles impression that I've seen post-concussion.
Yadi - Defense is awesome but you know what else is great...a catcher that doesn't hit like a pitcher. (PS - Wonder if we could snag Piazza for some part time duties...he's put up good offensive numbers this year. Good pop off the bench)

This post isn't intended to be all doom and gloom but I'm also not ready to be excited about 07. I'm FAR more interested to see what happens this offseason. After that...well who knows. This team has a lot of work to do between 06-07.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Sep 11, 2006 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions

that seems pretty realistic to me

Never mind that we still need to find a left fielder that can actually field occasionally and a couple starting pitchers.

I think next year could easily end up being as painful as this year.

by dontEATnachos on Sep 11, 2006 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions

next year might be a lot worse

depends on what walt is able to do tradwise --- and what he's allowed to do payroll wise --- this offseason.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

From what I read

in the P-D article , it doesn't look good for next year at all. And the fact that DeWitt is now asking for public financing for the Ballpark Village makes it even more likely.

by cardsrul on Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

And that can be a good thing.

If we're going to suck, let's make it "productive sucking" and do some long-term planning for once.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

"productive sucking"

Heh.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Sep 11, 2006 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Zito

Would be a far better bet than Schmidt.

by ryanisforever on Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep.

Younger and better

by Valatan on Sep 11, 2006 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Not that PECOTA is the end all be all

but it projects Schmidt to be the equal or better pitcher for the next 4 years compared to Zito (VORP and WARP). It's close and I do like Zito's age better but I am wary of the last two pitchers that Beane dealt, Hudson and our own Mulder, who are not very good anymore.

Schmidt vs. Zito - VORP
36.9 - 33.0
30.5 - 26.0
23.4 - 23.8
21.0 - 20.7

Schmidt vs. Zito - WARP
5.7 - 5.0
4.8 - 4.2
4.0 - 3.8
3.5 - 3.4

Take it for what its worth. I personally think Zito will require 5+ years at 15-17 mill annually. I think you could snag Schmidt for 12-14 mill anually for 4 years. (But lets hope that 5th year isn't what losses us a pitcher again!)

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Sep 11, 2006 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions

look at those NL Central records

wow. pathetic. none of those teams deserve to go the playoffs.

Cardinals Diaspora

by Ryan Van Bibber on Sep 11, 2006 9:54 AM EDT reply actions

Playoffs

Here's a question I've been asking myself: If I root for my favorite team to NOT make the playoffs, because I don't want to witness the embarrassment I am sure will happen, then does that make me a bad fan?

I grew up with the "root through thick or thin" mentality, but won't we all just "take it on the chin" from this particular squad?

As exhilarating as the last few years have been, this year has been one of the more frustrating in recent memory. I really wonder just how long I want to be frustrated---perhaps ending the pain quickly is the only merciful way to end this particular season.

by cmat on Sep 11, 2006 10:08 AM EDT reply actions

I'm holding off...

on wishing the above. I get his point, kind of like hoping your kid doesn't get called off the bench when you know he will only stink and crush his spirit.
However, they've got 3 full weeks and 20 games of baseball left. If they can get hot and go 15-5, suddenly they are the team no one wants to face in the playoffs.

"Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer." - Ted Williams

by WiscCard on Sep 11, 2006 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Problem is...

not making the playoffs involves an agonizing 3 week slide in which the Cards go 6-14 and the Stros go 12-8 or something...

Quickest way to end it is a brutal '05 Padre-like beat down in the divisional series where we will have the misfortune of watching Marquis or Weaver tarnish the magnificence of October ball...

by guayzimi on Sep 11, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Playoffs

The fact remains - the best team doesn't win in October, the hottest does. And while I wouldn't expect anything out of the Cardinals in the playoffs, a break here and there and the Cardinals are in Game 7 of the NLCS with a chance to go all the way.

In fact, with the low expectations everyone is going to have out of this team this year, maybe they won't choke.

by Robb on Sep 11, 2006 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

I've been wondering if that'll be the ultimate irony--that this is the team, despite the clear inferiority to previous cardinal teams.

I hate MLB's current playoff format. I know I've repeated this endlessly, but god, do I hate the current playoff format.

by Valatan on Sep 11, 2006 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

That's an

ultimate irony I'd be happy to deal with. If that were to happen, it would reveal to all the inherent flaws of this playoff format--but not before our guys got their hardware. Unfortunately, what we'll probably see is another painful sweep to end the first round (I'll gladly eat crow on that if I'm wrong).

by rockin redbird on Sep 11, 2006 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

the cards don't fit the profile

so-so teams that get hot in october always have dominant pitching, which atones for all sins come october. i read somewhere that the cardinals are on track to post the worst team era in history by a 1st-place team. if the unthinkable were to happen . . . . am i the only one who would be a tad embarrassed to call these guys champions? i can't actively root against the team --- just don't have it in me. but i always considered it a joke that the '87 twins were called "champs"; i'd feel the same way about this cardinal team if they went all the way.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Houston and the Marlins

are the real threats, if going by this profile. Both have to fight for the wildcard (unless Houston gets REALLY hot and takes the Central), but I can see both doing damage in the playoffs.

Even though I'm an NL-only guy, I have to admit that I hope the Twins make it into the playoffs. Not only because of their recent history (remember when they were considered to get contracted?), but also because a 1-2 punch like Santana/Liriano could be absolutely electric to watch. I wouldn't want to play them, that's for sure.

by cmat on Sep 11, 2006 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess that

if they actually put it together (a proposition i find highly dubious), i wouldn't be emabarrassed. i've been cheated out of two titles in my lifetime (at least '85 and '87), so to get one from a highly flawed team in a higly flawed playoff format just doesn't feel 'cheap.'

by sdesserman on Sep 11, 2006 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions

i guess i could live with it

if the teams they "cheated" out of a title were, say, the mets and yankees. . . . for that matter, imagine if the cardinals and twins met this year and st louis got payback for the '87 cheapie?

i'm starting to warm to this idea . . . .

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Me too.

And I'm very warm about not seeing another NY subway series in 2006. I get chills down my spine (the fingernail-on-chalkboard kind, not the Rams-win-Superbowl kind) when I contemplate that possibility.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Is it perverse ... ?

to have, at certain times this season, wished the the REDS, (or now the ASTROS) would just get sizzling hot and end the extreme pain of the dithering .470 ball the Cards have been playing for so-o-o-o long ? ... and put an end to the Cards make-believe lead in this make-believe Division.

I've been in the trenches with this team since '67, so my loyalty is unquestioned. But, there's something strange and unwholesome about this team being awarded anything. They have all the legitimacy of a puppet government in a third world oil-ocracy.

Am I wrong to think this?

by Urban Pawnee on Sep 11, 2006 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

No Reyes for the playoffs...

means a whole lot less interest in getting there as far as I'm concerned...

A 2-3-4 of Sup, Marquis, and Weaver for October baseball is almost an insult to the game... The Pads would have been better off staying home last year with their pathetic Peavy-Astacio-Williams rotation. I don't think Carp will give up 8 in 4 and 1/3, but I'd take Astacio and Williams over what we have.

by guayzimi on Sep 11, 2006 10:48 AM EDT reply actions

haha david ortiz

is an ass.

who campaigns for themselves for an mvp vote?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2582790

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Sep 11, 2006 10:56 AM EDT reply actions

Not to mention..

he takes a Jab at the rest of his teammates. Saying "Come try and hit in this lineup" implying that he plays with bad players.

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 11, 2006 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions

HRs and RBIs

Only guys who hit HRs and drive in runs help their teams win? Sorry, but those guys that get on base and score runs are pretty valuable too.

That said, I was shocked to discover that Jeter has only scored 98 runs this year. He has scored one fewer run than A-Rod. How is that possible?

Travis Hafner has been the AL's best offensive player by a long shot, but he won't finish any higher than fourth.

by Speedy G on Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I had already forgot

That Ponson was a Cardinal earlier this year.

What a damn strange year.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Sep 11, 2006 11:16 AM EDT reply actions

We should issue a press release

stating what Albert's numbers would have been if he hadn't gotten injured and cooled off.

by sdrone on Sep 11, 2006 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I wouldn't be surprised

to see the Cardinals shelve Reyes for the rest of the year. LaRussa will not push him, especially after his experience with Ankiel.

As for next year, I wonder how Reyes will be handled. If his high in innings is 157 going into next year, he can't be more than a 5th starter - now and then getting extra time off between starts. No way LaRussa pushes him to 200 innings next year, which is what is expected from a 1-4 starter. That means they will have to fill spots 2 and 3 and maybe 4 in the off season. Wainwright might go into the rotation, but in one P-D article yesterday, Duncan seemed to be pooh-poohing that idea.

by stlfaninpa on Sep 11, 2006 11:57 AM EDT reply actions

September

I don't think LaRussa will shy away from using him the rest of the month, but I doubt he'll make it on the playoff roster, even if he does well the rest of the way.

If he can get 3 more starts before the end of the season, he could easily wind up with 170-175IP for the year, and then I don't think it'd be so hard to imagine him as a 200-inning pitcher in '07.

John

by john vb on Sep 11, 2006 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Mussina

One name I was surprised to see listed in next year's free agent class in Joe Strauss's article in the P-D was Mike Mussina. Are the Yankees expected to re-sign him? I can't see why not, since he's been good for a long stretch this year prior to the groin injury. But I thought I'd ask if anyone had any speculations about him moving.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/E282DD485DD5DD09862571E4001ACF01 ?OpenDocument

by jfs on Sep 11, 2006 12:06 PM EDT reply actions

Mussina

He's got like a $17.5M option; LOL. I expect the Yankees will try to resign him for a lot less, and will probably get something done.

by Speedy G on Sep 11, 2006 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions

If not NY

I wouldn't be surprised to see Philly step in. Mussina is from PA and has long expressed a strong preference to pitch near home.

by blove121 on Sep 11, 2006 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Peter King

Peter King does a monday morning quarterback article for si.com. this is one of his non-football thoughts of the week.

"a. I wonder what Tony LaRussa thinks when he puts Jason Isringhausen in a one-run game in the ninth inning. I bet it's something approximating this: "I would rather chew on glass while walking through a pit of boa constrictors, naked and on fire, than watch this half-inning.''"

by jojo5492 on Sep 11, 2006 12:18 PM EDT reply actions

I think I remember reading recently another dig

that Peter King made about Izzy. Is he a Cardinal fan? Seems to be a strange, random topic for him to comment repeatedly on.

by steve in georgia on Sep 11, 2006 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll be honest with ya...

I think anyone who thinks that Jock will be able to land any of the so-called big named pitchers is going to be sorely disappointed. That axiom that guys love to play in St. Louis, just because it's St. Louis, doesn't hold water anymore, if it really ever did. It's ALL about the benjamins; team history be damned.

by cardsrul on Sep 11, 2006 12:39 PM EDT reply actions

And unfortunately....

the Cards aren't gonna have enough "Benjamins" to go around.

"Forget about the curveball Ricky...Give him the heater!!"

by BleacherBum on Sep 11, 2006 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Perhaps..

I agree about the "Playing in St. Louis, because it's so great" crap, I dont know who came up with that stuff. St. Louis is no better of a baseball city than New York, Boston, Chicago, or any other place with longstanding baseball tradition.

However, I'm holding off judgement to what I think Walt will do this off season. If he fails (not that it'll be his failure, but ownerships failure to give him money to spend), to produce atleast 1 quality pitcher, then I will give up on these guys. This off-season is the key for me to deciding how much this ownership group actually cares about the team.

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 11, 2006 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions

The Cardinals' history of

going toe-to-toe with other teams for frontline pitching talent is very poor, so I expect nothing.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

the playing in st. louis

crap comes directly from mcgwire who reportedly didn't look much at other offers in his free agent year because he liked playing in front of st. louis fans so much. he then encouraged jed to do the same.

by sdesserman on Sep 11, 2006 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Depending on what happens

But ownership may be forced to go for a big signing, simply for PR purposes. I think if the Cards get bounced early from the playoffs due to bad pitching, the Edmonds situation gets ugly, among other potential bad happenings, the fans will revolt if we have a lackluster offseason.

I have no doubt the ownership looks at a situation where a higher payroll might cost them profit, but a lower payroll with a fan revolt would cost more in their pockets. These people are savvy businessmen, so I think we'll see some noise made in the offseason.

by jimstllax on Sep 11, 2006 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

No way, on that time scale.

The number of fans who would "revolt" in the next year would be dwarfed by the number who would keep on going to games. I think it would take 3-4 years of poor baseball, combined with a lack of promising young players, before we'd begin to see enough of a drop in fan support to really scare the team.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions

And now

you can throw in the whole "we need public financing for the Ballpark Village or else" crap. If they don't get it, that's just another reason for them not to spend money.

by cardsrul on Sep 11, 2006 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Supp

Any thoughts on what he'll be earning next year? He's around 4 mil right now I believe. I would like to see him re-signed in that range, and I don't see him getting over 5. He having a great second half and has always been a gamer for us. One thing that made me rethink a tad was this home and away split.
BA OPS
HOME: .244 / .702
AWAY: .319 / .911

by toris34 on Sep 11, 2006 1:17 PM EDT reply actions

Wasn't that reversed last year?

I thought Supp only lost two or three games, and had an uber-low ERA away last season. If that is indeed the case, then this year may be a fluke...but I could be way off...just thought I remembered....

by fuegophil on Sep 11, 2006 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Question...

not that it will happen, but what if Edmonds and Izzy both retired this off season? Would we owe them any money? Or does that void their contracts so we wouldn't have to pay them?

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 11, 2006 1:36 PM EDT reply actions

edmonds will surely

be back --- and even if he doesn't want to play, he'll force the team to exercise the buyout clause and cough up $3m. why wouldn't he?

if izzy retires, i don't think they owe him a thing --- but that ain't gonna happen either.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

If a player formally retires

you don't owe him.

If he takes some other route, which they always do, he'll get the money.

by sdrone on Sep 11, 2006 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I think...

the union somehow prevents players from walking away from guaranteed money on ethical grounds... That said, why would any player choose that route?

by guayzimi on Sep 11, 2006 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Didn't McGwire do that

when he left?

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions

declined contract

Mac declined to sign the contract Walt offered to him. Until both parties sign the contract, the money is not "guaranteed".

by john vb on Sep 11, 2006 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions

If we can't or don't sign Zito or Schmidt

I say can't because I think there is more than just money involved. But I am not feeling it is too likely to get either of these guys. So if we can't or don't sign one of them, I say go all out for Soriano. If we have the bucks to get a big name player, lets add one whether it is a pitcher or not. A lineup that included Pujols, Rolen and Soriano would be great. He would give us speed, power, lead off or number 2 hitter potential. I'd be happy with him in the outfield or 2b. The outfield could be Enc in Center, Dunc in RF and Soriano in LF.

My first choice would be sign a Schmidt or Zito, but if that isn't going to happen, which I don't think it will, then sign Soriano. That would be a major upgrade to this team. Chances are the pitching staff will be put together with re-treads again so we might as well upgrade the offense.

by OCCardsFan on Sep 11, 2006 2:07 PM EDT reply actions

If it's Soriano

you want, I'd like to see him bat cleanup.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Sep 11, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I tend to agree

But given TLR's desire for damage in the 1 and 2 spots, I thought perhaps he would be a good fit.

by OCCardsFan on Sep 11, 2006 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions

outfield defense?

Have you considered the defensive cost of an OF with Duncan in right, Enc in center, and Soriano in left? We'd better have EXTREME groundball pitchers if those are our defenders.

by madridbend on Sep 11, 2006 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I've been watching

Soriano all year in DC, and he's becoming a better outfielder. He has great athletic talent and speed, and a pretty good arm, so there's no reason he couldn't be a league-average OF if he committed to playing it from now on.

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 11, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually

I heard somewhere that Soriano will post 30 assists this season. The announcers for the Cards-Nats game said that if he gets to 30 (I think he's at 29) he'll be the only player in MLB history to have 40 HRs, 40 steals, and 30 Outfield Assists.

by Ray Lankford on Sep 11, 2006 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Keep in mind

that's in part because everybody (and i mean everybody) runs on him. Had we had the opporutunity to send yadi from 3rd we probably would have.

by sdesserman on Sep 11, 2006 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Just back from Phoenix

I sat through Saturday and Sunday's games. What a bummer. Tons of Cardinals fans were at the games. You saw way more red than anything else. [Albert's 45th was the highlight....man he absolutely killed that ball!]

It happened on a Sunday afternoon, August 22, 1982.

by Glenn Brummer stole home on Sep 11, 2006 2:29 PM EDT reply actions

I was at the games, myself

And I must say that for the first time in my life I was embarrassed to be a Cardinals fan. The team looked good and pumped after the first game, then the 13-1 debacle happened and for the rest of the series, they looked lifeless. They appeared like they were just going through the motions. I have been to my fair share of Cardinals games, and I don't think I have ever seen them like this.

When they went up after Albert's moonshot (he murdered that ball by the way), they had a different aura about them. Then the bullpen choked and you can forget about the rest.

That's the way I saw this series. Of course my rubber mask could have distorted my view. The only real bright spot of the weekend for myself was when I found out I was on TV here in AZ.

Invisible Gophers---2006 Tempe, AZ Slow Pitch Softball Champs!!!

by BigdJC on Sep 11, 2006 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Hot streak??

In thinking about a potential hot streak, I figured the best way to predict the Cards record for the next 20 games would be to take the Cards past ten games record and compare that with their opponents records. What you get is this: The others would expect to win 10.2 out of 20 and the Cardinals 8 out of 20. Because of rounding it doesn't come out exact, but based on current performances it would be reasonable to expect the Cards to win 8 to 12 of the rest of the games, 83 to 87 wins for the season. I believe most stat predictions had the Cards at 92 to 95 wins.
What does this mean? Not much except I was having fun with Excel.

"Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer." - Ted Williams

by WiscCard on Sep 11, 2006 3:19 PM EDT reply actions

Numbers...

if baseball always went by numbers, we'd be the best team in baseball, seeing how that is all TLR goes by.

That's beer, that's Budweiser.

by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 11, 2006 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Pitching the Playoffs

Let's say the standings stay the same and the teams leading now make the playoffs. With the exception of the mets, who really has a dominate starting rotation? (And that's if their healthy)I guess what I'm thinking is that nobody has been "lights out." If you stack every other teams sp's to ours, is it really that much of a difference? Could somebody take the time to answer that? Could somebody rank our SP's to the rest of the possible playoff teams? Are we really that far off?

Be Selective

by OKCardsfan on Sep 11, 2006 4:21 PM EDT reply actions

both the dodgers and padres

are better equipped than the cards for a short series. i don't think our #2 starter (suppan) could crack the top 4 in the dodger rotation. the padres' rotation isn't much better than stl's (although it is better), but that team has a dominant bullpen. if they lead after 6 or 7, the game's over.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 4:27 PM EDT reply actions

But is it a big swing?

I know I'm stat inept, but is it really that big of a deal if a pitcher has a 3.87 ERA and another has a 3.26? To me, that's close enough. Another thing is that Joe Dirt (Weaver) has been pitching better. I think the ERA's on this team are misleading. I want to think (hope) that Suppan will go up against the best the comp has to throw at him and pitch like he is a man possessed. I want to think (hope) that Carp is lights out. I want to remember that Marquis has playoff experience. My point is that even Bud Smith can throw a no-hitter.

Be Selective

by OKCardsfan on Sep 11, 2006 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

have you seen his splits against lefties though

I'm not a stat genius either but how badly he gets punished by left handed hitters can't be ignored.

The fact that it's been getting worse as the season goes on and that he essentially accepts that is even more frightening.

by dontEATnachos on Sep 11, 2006 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions

what cardinal pitcher

has a 3.87 era? aside from carp, there's suppan (4.25) and a bunch of guys in the 5.00s . . . .

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I wasn't

talking about anybody in particular in regards to ERA. What I was asking is how far off are we ERA wise from the competition. I further said that if it was close (like the example) does it really matter? [That a 3.87 guy is just as good as a 3.25 guy(Just an example)] I assume from the posts that we are not even close? That after Carp nobody stacks up? Then I said that even Bud Smith could throw a no-hitter. So to me even though if it appears we are weaker... you never know.

PS-Statistically should the Red Sox have played us in the World Series in 2004 being down 3-games to none in their playoffs? I'm not ready to give up on this team just yet.

Be Selective

by OKCardsfan on Sep 11, 2006 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Post-All-Star

Supp would be behind Penny and post-trade Maddux only in LA, and behind Peavy only in SD.

Also, did anyone else get a kick out of Woody Williams vs. Matt Morris last night? I thought it was pretty cool.

In Albert we trust.

by Mr Redbird on Sep 11, 2006 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Why are we giving up?

I don't understand this whole "giving up" attitude. From the comments today, it seems we are actively looking forward to our demise.

Folks, we're still 4.5 games up and still on track to be in the playoffs. No, it's not a sure thing. But it makes for exciting baseball down the stretch, which we've been fortunate enough to miss for the last two years.

We may not be the favorites going into the postseason. But so what? After two years of being the consensus pick and then falling apart, I kind've welcome the chance to be the underdog. Who knows? Maybe with the pressure off of them, the Cards' bats and arms will respond!

The 2006 Cardinals are a hot and cold team, no question about that. If we get hot in the postseason, nothing will stop us. Our likely opponents (Dodgers, Padres, Marlins, or Phillies) all have their fair share of warts, let's not forget.

And can we dismiss all this preemptive "I won't enjoy it if we get hot and win the World Series" nonsense? I, for one, will be screaming my ass off, jumping up and down, yelling "VICTORY!!!" and generally making a complete fool of myself.

We're at home for 13 of the final 20 games. Let's make em count. Go Cards!

by stlmapman on Sep 11, 2006 4:55 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

we're up 4.5 and have 13 home games left vs. 7 road. We're a terrible road team but really a very good home team. Like others, I don't have a lot of faith in this team once we're in the playoffs but I still think that 3 straight division championships is something to be proud of. Just to put it in perspective -- it's been, what, 5 years (counting this one) since the Astros even tied for a division championship?

To be sure, we're not a great team but I'm sure we'll improve in the offseason and go for #4. And I'll be pulling for this team for every game we have left, even if it's only 3 in the postseason. Still, we'll have Carp going and Pujols batting 3rd so we have a chance vs. anyone. We'll honestly probably be the 4th best team in the NL playoffs but how many other teams can claim 3 straight division championships? There are a lot of franchises who'd like to have "bad years" like the one the Cards are having.

by chuckb on Sep 11, 2006 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions

being realistic about the team

isn't the same as "giving up." i'll be glued to the set for any and all playoff games they participate in, and i'll be rooting my ass off for the cardinals to win. i'm sure all the other posters in this thread feel the same way.

but let's not pretend the team is something it's not. they have a lineup that's riddled with holes --- all the more so with edmonds and eckstein ailing / out --- and a weak rotation. because they have carpenter, pujols, and rolen, they are capable of rising up and surprising somebody.

it's a longshot -- but better than no shot.

by lboros on Sep 11, 2006 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions

exactly

I just think people sometimes take for granted our success and don't appreciate what it takes to be division champ, much less 3 times in a row. This has been a down season, no question but I'm thankful that our "down seasons" are seasons like this one. The Pirates, who have I think 12 straight losing seasons, would think a season like this one was a great one. Still, a lot of changes need to be made to this team in the offseason. And as for this postseason, I'll be thankful for every game we play b/c I know that we're just not that good.

by chuckb on Sep 11, 2006 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions

not giving up here

the playoffs to me in baseball are a crap shoot. how many times has the team with the best regular season record won the world series in the last few years?

we got the best hitter and pitcher in the league in pujols and carpenter. the best team doesnt always win. sometimes the team with the most freakishly talented athlete wins. if we can make the postseason anything can happen, maybe we get hot at the end./shrug

by 2ndprize on Sep 11, 2006 5:27 PM EDT reply actions

Uh, when?

When has the team with the most freakishly talented athlete won? Did Houston win with Beltran in 2004?

You need a dominant pitching staff or momentum. We have neither.

by sdrone on Sep 11, 2006 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions

If

The Cards do not sign at least ONE 'big game' player, I don't watch Cardinals' baseball next year, except for Pujols highlights and Carpenter starts.

by SirVLCIV on Sep 11, 2006 7:37 PM EDT reply actions

I understand

being frustrated at a frustrating season but, no offense, I just don't understand comments like this.

by chuckb on Sep 11, 2006 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I like to assume these are hyperboles

because there comes a point where I wouldn't even want the Cardinals to sign Schmidt (aka if he starts to command 17+ million dollars a year). I want a marquee player as next as the next person but sometimes FAs don't sign with the Cardinals. It's not so much that they will be a bad team w/o a marquee player but they prolly won't be a WS team without another hammer at the top of the rotation.

Just as important as those big name players are the mid and low level pickups like a decent 2b, backup C and back of the rotation pitchers. Do you spend a lot of $$ on those spots? no. but you have to spend wisely.

I'll watch regardless of who we sign though...i just can't help myself.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Sep 11, 2006 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Lemme put it this way

I'm absolutely, 100%, tired of the corporate bullshit doublespeak emanating from Bill DeWitt. I can NOT stand that crap. You're going to pony up the cash, or you aren't.

I agree, I don't want Schmidt. I WOULD like Zito to complement Carpenter (Carp/Zito as #1 #2), I WOULD consider a good Carpenter extension to be a marquee signing. I would not consider another offseason of Encarnacion/Miles/etc. signings to be a good sign, and I'd start tuning out. I'm particularly busy at work+school+actuarial exams, and I could use the break ;)

by SirVLCIV on Sep 11, 2006 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Thoughts on Reyes

Is anyone else impressed with the kid for stepping up and letting LaDuncan know he was ailing? I would think it would be even tougher for him to admit that, knowing (as he surely does) that he is on a very short leash this year. Contrast that with several veteran players who refused to admit anything was wrong and kept going out there and hurting the team's chances to win, even though they must have known they were in little danger of losing their spots, even if they missed a little time due to injury.

Anyone agree? Or disagree?

"Do you find me sadistic?"

by iron duke75 on Sep 11, 2006 10:20 PM EDT reply actions

That was my first thought also

Agreed entirely.

by SirVLCIV on Sep 11, 2006 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions

If he really has a tired arm

then I'm glad he spoke up.

But I'm really concerned by how little trust he seems to have with TLR/DD.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Sep 12, 2006 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions

sdrone-freak talents vs superior teams.....

um vince young vs USC? USC was a far better "team" than texas just look at them this year..

carlos beltran had one good hot streak, i wouldnt call him freakishly talented, anyone can get hot in the end as well. ask la russa about billy hatcher in 1990.

did boston have a dominant pitching staff when they swept us in the series? um no. foulke sucks, schilling was crippled and wakelfield and lowe were crap. st louis was the better "team" in 2004 but boston won.

wow i only had to go back like 2 sporting events of the last year or two to make my point, sdrone you must not watch much sports.

by 2ndprize on Sep 12, 2006 3:39 PM EDT reply actions