friday odds and ends
in no paricular order:
here's some info from bernie miklasz, posted last night (thanks play a hard 9 for the link): "If Ponson has a good spring, then he's in the rotation and young Reyes is in the pen (if he pitches OK)."
nothing really new there, except seeing it in black and white kinda irks me. (it irks diaspora, too.) does any other organization mollycoddle its young pitchers the way this one does? it's particularly aggravating for those of us who remember the way whitey herzog used to challenge young pitchers. i ran a chart last year comparing herzog's use of young hurlers to tlr/dunc's:
| 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-35 | 36-40 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herzog 81-90 | 20 | 14 | 13 | 3 |
| La Russa 96-05 | 9 | 25 | 12 | 4 |
each starter-season counts separately in this table -- for example, dave lapoint accounts for 3 of the 20 seasons in herzog's 21-25 cell, because whitey sent him out there at ages 22, 23, and 24. likewise, matt morris accounts for 5 of the 25 seasons in la russa's 26-30 cell.
you might think that herzog simply had better prospects to work with than tlr, but it's the other way around. in the 1980s the farm system only hatched one mound prospect in the class of morris, ankiel, haren, and reyes -- joe magrane, who came up in 1987 at age 22 after two years and 280 innings in the minors (about what reyes has logged to date). whitey put him straight into the rotation; magrane made 26 starts and led the pennant-winning cardinals in era that year, then started games 1 and 7 of the world series. the very next year he led the national league in era.
magrane aside, herzog had pretty lackluster material at his disposal. as i wrote last year: "not a single one of the guys he broke in -- lapoint, stuper, greg mathews, cox, kepshire -- was worth a damn when he left the cardinals. . . . i think herzog made a difference, by giving those kid pitchers the guts to throw their unimposing stuff over the plate. he knew the ballpark and the defense would take care of the rest, as long as his pitchers would throw strikes. he made them seem better than they really were; whitey spoiled us that way."
i still have to think reyes will eventually find his way into the rotation, subbing in for an injured or traded veteran. and given his history of injuries, maybe that's the prudent course -- keep the kid's innings down so he'll still having functioning parts down the stretch and (knock on wood) in the playoffs. but then, you get the feeling that tony/dunc wouldn't entrust a postseason start to this guy unless he's 15-0 or something in the regular season. . . . .
also from bernie: "They have, for at least the time being, backed off F. Rodriguez. They've been talking to Jeff Nelson (don't know the latest)." i believe that to be payroll driven; just a guess. if they think they might have an opportunity down the road to trade for some high-impact player, then it would make sense to stow f-rod's $2m (or whatever) salary away for now. whatever the case, f-rod isn't worth getting all worked up about one way or the other; would been a cheap spare part with a limited role, lotta other guys who could do about the same.
over at bronx banter, alex belth muses today about the virtues of throwing soft stuff vs hard stuff -- a lively subject of discussion on this blog and elsewhere in cardinalland. "Vulnerability is often the greatest sign of strength, the most powerful tool," he writes, and he makes a good case. the unstated key to his argument, though, is that soft stuff gets its strength by playing off of hard stuff -- it works because hitters are all geeked up for high heat. and the flaw with the cardinals' current rotation (my opinion only) is that there's not enough hard stuff for the soft stuff to play off of -- too much emphasis on the sinker, not enough on high heat. one more hard thrower in the rotation (cough anthony cough reyes cough aj cough burnett) would go a long way toward balancing out the scales. "One of the most compelling aspects of baseball is the balance it requires of its participants," belth notes -- bingo.
the concept of balance also surfaces over at cardnilly. while identifying himself as more of a stathead than a seamhead, scott says: "I don't buy into the One True Path vibe that's sometimes an undercurrent running through their [ie, statheads'] writings." in other words: use sabrmetrics, trust sabrmetrics, but balance it out with other forms of input. cardnilly just observed its one-year anniversary (congratulations scott); if you're a regular reader (as you should be), you'll get a kick out of learning where the blog's name came from, how the waste-of-flesh concept was born, what intro music scott would have on the p.a. for his at-bats.
finally, the cardinals won the 2004 Fake World Series in six games at 26th Man -- matt morris finally got the better of curt schilling in a postseason game, outdueling him in the clincher at fenway. woulda coulda shoulda . . . . . .
0 recs |
56 comments
Comments
Yeah...
by rockin redbird on
Jan 13, 2006 12:33 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Herzog
On Reyes and his use - I personally like the idea of putting a pitcher in the bullpen for his first year to both season him to the big leagues and keep his workload low. I think it's the best of both worlds, personally. He can always - as you said - get spot starts anyway. I don't have a wealth of information at my disposal to prove my point, but I will say this: Bob Gibson spent his first 2 seasons (age 23 adn 24) as a reliever/starter, never exceeding 87 innings in an MLB season. He was 25 before he was logging 30+ starts and 200+ innings.
by Robb on
Jan 13, 2006 12:47 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
but
by sportsmanspark78 on
Jan 13, 2006 12:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure
In the case of a guy like Reyes with an injury history, what's to lose from letting him pitch 70 or 80 innings over 40 or 50 games, with 5 or 6 starts thrown in? I would think that that would do more for his long-term health, not less.
(Not that I know. It's just a theory.)
by Robb on
Jan 13, 2006 1:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
old pitch counts
by Westy on
Jan 13, 2006 3:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
6 innings
I wouldn't put it past TLR to go through some crazy platoon rotation scheme where Reyes & Ponson split every 5th start and get bullpen work in between.
I'd actually be comfortable with Reyes pitching in the bullpen to start the season and moving into the rotation by the All-Star break or when/if a trade is made. I would think he would be as well. He's still only pitched, what, maybe 25 innings in the bigs?
by STLEdge on
Jan 13, 2006 1:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dyar
VEB: danny haren pitched very well for the cardinals in relief during the postseason last year. can you envision a similar role for anthony reyes?
DM: i wouldn't think so. he's a starter, and i don't think they would want to make any moves with that.
It makes me hate the idea that the 5th starting job is Ponson's to lose a little bit more.
by mikeoat on
Jan 13, 2006 1:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
funny you bring that up
and then he'd have 25 innings or so of big-league experience, which might quell some of the doubts about his readiness
by lboros on
Jan 13, 2006 2:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pirates
But I wouldn't mind seeing Reyes/Ponson doing something similar, at least to start the season.
by Valatan on
Jan 13, 2006 2:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
maybe
by sportsmanspark78 on
Jan 13, 2006 12:48 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
A worthy
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 4:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this isn't
by cardsrul on
Jan 13, 2006 4:52 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree.
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 5:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this is not junior high school
by lboros on
Jan 13, 2006 7:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not sure what names were being called
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 9:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess
by rockin redbird on
Jan 13, 2006 1:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why
Is it just some sort of need to see a young guy on the mound? To see him "challenged"? I'm not knocking those who take that view, I just don't get it.
Perhaps a counter-study of older guys who rejuvenated their careers under LaRussa might illuminate the "flip-side" of this issue. Of course, I'm way too lazy to do anything like that....
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 1:54 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
It's an issue to me
by salvomania on
Jan 13, 2006 2:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Based on...
I'll go with "higher ceiling" or "better potential" but "better pitcher" implies, at least to me, that he's accomplished something already. Semantics, maybe.
Believe me, I would love Reyes to go Dontrelle on the NL this year but simply handing him a spot seems like a move the team doesn't NEED to make. And, to be fair, I don't want to see Ponson simply handed a spot either because he's older. If that is the underlying argument here, then I confess to have not been able to find it until now.
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 2:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it's also an issue because
give reyes the ball, and allocate the $4.5m to some other area of weakness.
by lboros on
Jan 13, 2006 2:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Based on...
And yeah, based on his minor league stats: 9.5 K per 9ip in AAA translates to something in MLB a lot better than we're getting from "Muldy and the Soft-Tossers" in front of him. A WHIP of 1.08 in AAA is good.
Yes, he's inexperienced. So was every great pitcher in major league history before they were given a chance. The kid throws 95 mph, has a curve and a change-up, and also has a bad-ass mound demeanor.
The Birds need a hard thrower in the rotation, and the kid has the arm, the control, and the repetoire.
by salvomania on
Jan 13, 2006 5:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree with you 100%.
That does not mean I'm against giving him every chance in the world. Just that "better pitcher" is a label I'm uncomfortable with right now. (And I realize this is a ridiculous speil about semantics. I totally realize that!) Fair enough?
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 5:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
is he ready?
by sportsmanspark78 on
Jan 13, 2006 3:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Reyes has thrown
by cardsrul on
Jan 13, 2006 2:26 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
dontrelle willis
a bullpen apprenticeship prob'y doesn't hurt, but it is far from necessary
by lboros on
Jan 13, 2006 2:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
On mollycoddling
Second - Mark Prior? Good point. 'Cause when it comes to messing up pitchers, the first things that pop into my mind when it comes to coaches and young pitchers (I live in Chicagoland) are Mark Prior and Kerry Wood.
There's a distinct feeling around here that Wood may be permanently hurt by the way coaches have handled him. Many also wonder if Prior isn't starting to show similar problems.
Young pitchers are a crapshoot, and they're a crapshoot you have to tiptoe around. We pretty much have to have an extra starting pitcher this year, IMO, if we expect to start Reyes in the rotation.
by sdrone on
Jan 13, 2006 2:37 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Young pitchers are a crapshoot...
A hard thrower with control of three pitches at age 22 or 23 is READY for the big leagues. That doesn't mean you leave him out there for 130 pitches (like Dusty has with Wood/Prior) or leave him out there in the 9th inning when he's ahead 7-0 (like Dusty has with Wood/Prior), but it DOES mean that you put him in there as your fifth starter. If he struggles, then send him down. The upside is HUGE---you've got a power pitcher in October.
Reyes turns 25 in October next year---he's no baby. Put him in.
by salvomania on
Jan 13, 2006 5:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Does (read: should) this not sound more like...
Why have six starters? Jocketty has said in the past they felt they may have had too much depth in the rotation--5 starters--unneeded depth in terms of the playoffs. Ponson really sounds more like a ploy for a trade now if he can actually pitch at the ML level.
by joker24 on
Jan 13, 2006 3:00 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep.
by Valatan on
Jan 13, 2006 3:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice.
by flynn on
Jan 13, 2006 3:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ok...another rumor
by punchinjudy on
Jan 13, 2006 3:19 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
tampa
by sportsmanspark78 on
Jan 13, 2006 3:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or bigbie
by sportsmanspark78 on
Jan 13, 2006 3:46 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
He hits the other way
by Zubin on
Jan 14, 2006 2:10 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i
i may be in the minority, but i think the cards know what they are doing in this instance, though i may overly optimistic.
i just feel confident they will find a spot for him sometime in the season, but i understand why they are being cautious.
they guy has had issues with his elbow and shoulder thoughout his pitching career.
sure he's got a ton of talent, but i'd rather them work him in a little more slowly given those issues.
Ponson is the lesser talent, but he's been a workhorse his entire career.
by erik on
Jan 13, 2006 9:32 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
OT: Russel Branyan
by matty fred on
Jan 13, 2006 9:34 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Regarding TLR vs Herzog's use of youth...
by RedbirdRay on
Jan 14, 2006 12:23 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
LaRussa and young pitchers...
Rick Ankiel: 3.50 ERA, 11-7, 175.0 IP, 90 BB, 194 K
Matt Morris: 3.19 ERA, 12-9, 217.0 IP, 69 BB, 149 K
Alan Benes: 2.89 ERA, 9-9, 161.7 IP, 68 BB, 160 K
Bud Smith: 3.83 ERA, 6-3, 84.7 IP, 24 BB, 59 K
Danny Haren: 5.08 ERA (one horrible start) 3-7, 72.7 IP, 22 BB, 43 K
You also have B. Thompson, and Jason Simontachi who weren't to shabby either. If you say "Yeah, but look what LaRussa did to them after their rookie years!" then you can't say he's "coddling them."
I think the Cardinals know what they are doing with Reyes. It would be one thing if this guy came blazing through the organization without injuries, but I think he's been hurt every year since he's been in college. Notice Bernie said "if Reyes did OK, he'd be in the bullpen" and not "even if Reyes pitches lights out, he'll be in the bullpen."
by MRCARD on
Jan 14, 2006 12:43 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
LaRussa & Young Pitchers
by Zubin on
Jan 14, 2006 2:12 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
herzog's record w rookie starters
1982:
dave lapoint, 9-3, 3.42 era
john stuper, 9-7, 3.36 era
1983:
danny cox, 3-6, 3.25 era
1984:
kurt kepshire, 6-5, 3.30 era
rickey horton, 9-4, 3.44 era
1986:
greg mathews, 11-8, 3.65 era
1987:
joe magrane, 9-7, 3.54 era
1989:
ken hill, 7-15, 3.80 era
also, you're misstating alan benes' rookie record: he came up in 1996 and was 13-10 with a 4.90 era. but you know what, at least tony stayed with the kid through 32 starts and let him pitch through his mistakes. i don't think tony/dunc would do that anymore.
the other point here is that alan benes was ranked the #5 prospect in all of baseball as a rookie. rick ankiel was ranked #1. morris was #25. reyes will prob'y be about #30 or so. they pitch well because they're outstanding prospects. herzog's guys were not nearly as highly regarded, but they pitched well for him because he demanded that they pitch aggressively.
by lboros on
Jan 14, 2006 7:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
one other thought
la russa / dunc have only developed one starting pitcher who gave the cardinals as many as three seasons' worth of starts --- matt morris, who started 206 games. their second-highest total was alan benes, at 55 starts. rick ankiel made only 41 starts for the cards, only 6 after his rookie year. bud smith started 24 times for the cards. dan haren started 19.
they're not developing arms for the organization. which is why we as fans have to freak out about whether or not the cards can land an aj burnett or a javy vazquez, or whether mark mulder is as good as advertised. we're entirely dependent on other organizations' pitchers, which is a very expensive and uncertain way to go.
by lboros on
Jan 14, 2006 8:35 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good points, lboras...
I'm not going to argue with how prospects have turned out after their rookie year with LaRussa/Dunc. That wasn't my argument. All I'm saying is that rookie pitchers usually do pretty well with them. Regardless of how they were ranked, Most pitchers ranked well in baseball DON'T turn out to have good/great rookie seasons. Most don't even pan out. LaRussa's/Dunc's HAVE.
When you adjust Whitey's players for that era, I think the PERFORMANCE was about even. (I'm not saying Whitey had as much to work with, because clearly he did not (great numbers to back up your argument), but adjust those 80's ERAs and I think you'll find LaRussa's rookies to be at least comparable. You've got to give me that. If they are Comparable, then you can't say Whitey did a great job with rookies and LaRussa did not (again, I'm not saying Whitey didn't get more out of them AFTER their rookie years or that Whitey didn't spit shine turds into gold).
Saying all of this, I agree with your other point. The LaRussa regime hasn't developed a pitcher for the long haul. I'm worried about that too. I don't think all is lost though. LaRussa and Dunc are to good with the retreads to not figure out how to work with a young pitcher past his rookie season. We're not talking about Dusty "Meatgrinder" Baker. The problem is, people argue both sides of the point with LaRussa. Either LaRussa/ Duncan are coddling their pitchers OR they are to hard on them (and that's why these highly ranked players have washed away with injury). People just throw it out as fact that LaRussa has NEVER BEEN GOOD WITH ROOKIE PITCHERS IN THEIR ROOKIE SEASON. You and I both know that's not true.
by MRCARD on
Jan 14, 2006 11:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
fair enough mr card
as much as anything we're talking about style here. whitey projected confidence; la russa projects anxiety. and they both were extremely successful. i still think whitey got more out his clubs --- had less talent to work with than tony, and tougher competition --- but that's a matter of opinion.
i think they're being overly cautious with reyes, but i admit there is a case to be made for their approach and it may work out just fine. i hope it does.
anyway keep posting mr card --- agree, disagree, whatever. i prob'y sounded terse in my response to your post, but i was just in a hurry, trying to dash something off on a saturday.
by lboros on
Jan 15, 2006 11:59 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Now starting for the Cardinals: Travis Smith
by MRCARD on
Jan 14, 2006 12:49 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe not so much luck...
by Zubin on
Jan 14, 2006 2:14 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the cardinals won the division
by lboros on
Jan 14, 2006 8:38 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Whitey Herzog
I hope this piece and Sutter being voted into the HoF reminds us how much we appreciated Whitey Ball. To me Herzog will always be the firey genius of St Louis baseball.
by Zubin on
Jan 14, 2006 2:31 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
whitey was a risk taker
that's not to denigrate what they've done. i just think whitey was better
by lboros on
Jan 14, 2006 8:44 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
....whitey ball
by pistolpetereiser on
Jan 14, 2006 5:08 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
No, there is a difference.
As LB pointed out look at the teams Whitey beat in the 80s. The Mets were on paper they a much better team than the Cards were from '85-'87. Yet Whitey beat them two out of three years.
Jock/Tony/Dunc have built an admirable team (dynasty?), but they have with little doubt had the best talent in their division since '99 or so. I hope you are right and Pujols, Rolen and Edmonds are all headed to the Hall of Fame. But that would only prove our point.
One interesting thing, IMO, is the Cards as they are now are exactly the type of team that Whitey was able to beat with speed, defense and tenacious, if not good, pitching.
by Zubin on
Jan 14, 2006 3:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The mets may have been better on paper,
It's a shame I can never hate a team that much again.
by Valatan on
Jan 15, 2006 4:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Where you are wrong.
Look at last year. Rolen was out most of the season, and LaRussa filled in with Nunez. Walker was out and LaRussa filled in with So and J-Rod. None of these guys are can't-miss world beaters. They had good seasons b/c of the way they were handled. Eckstein??? He had a career year. You don't think Tony might have had something to do with that.
These examples don't even list the pitchers that have come to the Cardinals as over-the-hill bums that Duc and Tony have somehow turned into cy young candidates and 15+ game winners. What happened to Woody Williams before and after he was here? Not much.
Tony has even changed around guys during the season. Look at the way Molina came on at the end. Don't tell me most other managers could have gotten that out of him. That was in large part due to moves Tony made from the beginning of the season that built Yaddie's confidence. Leaving him in for key at bats, even when he was struggling. Things like that.
Your statement is revisionist, based solely on how the team ends up. What would Tony have to do to prove to you that he was a good manager? Win with bad players? How would you know? If he does his job right, the players will win and look like good players. I think the fact that we weren't picked to do well, and players' play drops off considerably after they leave the Cardinals, shows that LaRussa is doing something right. Why not give him credit for it?
by Westy on
Jan 16, 2006 1:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why we are right.
by Zubin on
Jan 16, 2006 11:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs











